Student: Thomas Harder
Instructor: Prof. Gazan
Course: ICS 691 Social Computing
Assignment: Session 5 Week 1
Peer Production in online environments vs. in-person collaboration
Instructor: Prof. Gazan
Course: ICS 691 Social Computing
Assignment: Session 5 Week 1
Peer Production in online environments vs. in-person collaboration
Introduction
In this case Peer Production really means commons-based peer production. Wikipedia defines this as “a new model of economic production in which the creative energy of large numbers of people is coordinated (usually with the aid of the internet) into large, meaningful projects mostly without traditional hierarchical organization (and often, but not always, without or with decentralized financial compensation)(wikipedia - Commons-based peer production)” . There are differences between online and in-person peer production. And these differences can bring synergy to a project.
In this case Peer Production really means commons-based peer production. Wikipedia defines this as “a new model of economic production in which the creative energy of large numbers of people is coordinated (usually with the aid of the internet) into large, meaningful projects mostly without traditional hierarchical organization (and often, but not always, without or with decentralized financial compensation)(wikipedia - Commons-based peer production)” . There are differences between online and in-person peer production. And these differences can bring synergy to a project.
Peer Production in in-person collaboration
Peer production in in-person collaboration is quite common place, as it has been the major means of collaboration since before the Internet. In in-person collaboration two or more people collaborate on a project. This is commonly thought of as the individual scheduling a meeting at a central location; however video phones and conference lines are also a form of in-person collaboration (such as Saba Centra and Cisco’s Telepresence). While there is a little confusion over the definition, in-person collaboration typically means synchronous. Preparing the collaterals, that may be used at the meeting, and running copies. Traveling to the meeting site and once there they share their thoughts and ideas in real time, with all the give and take that accompanies this type of meeting. Interactions happen real-time, and the event typically requires some artificial or preplanned recording in order to capture the results of the meeting. With a big project there may be many smaller meetings as individuals and groups work towards building consensus on the production. The major advantage of these events is the interaction and team building that can be formed during the meetings. Individual get to know each other, can exchange information and learn whom they can trust and rely on. There are many disadvantages such as the meeting occurs in real time and the results need to be captured and relayed in some manner. Much time and resources are consumed in the preparation for the meeting, such as the development of collaterals and holding smaller meetings in order to persuade stack holders, traveling to the meeting and back and during the meeting.
Peer production in in-person collaboration is quite common place, as it has been the major means of collaboration since before the Internet. In in-person collaboration two or more people collaborate on a project. This is commonly thought of as the individual scheduling a meeting at a central location; however video phones and conference lines are also a form of in-person collaboration (such as Saba Centra and Cisco’s Telepresence). While there is a little confusion over the definition, in-person collaboration typically means synchronous. Preparing the collaterals, that may be used at the meeting, and running copies. Traveling to the meeting site and once there they share their thoughts and ideas in real time, with all the give and take that accompanies this type of meeting. Interactions happen real-time, and the event typically requires some artificial or preplanned recording in order to capture the results of the meeting. With a big project there may be many smaller meetings as individuals and groups work towards building consensus on the production. The major advantage of these events is the interaction and team building that can be formed during the meetings. Individual get to know each other, can exchange information and learn whom they can trust and rely on. There are many disadvantages such as the meeting occurs in real time and the results need to be captured and relayed in some manner. Much time and resources are consumed in the preparation for the meeting, such as the development of collaterals and holding smaller meetings in order to persuade stack holders, traveling to the meeting and back and during the meeting.
Peer Production in online environments
Peer Production also occurs online. Online environments can be either synchronous or asynchronous. Some forms of peer production are real-time, or pseudo real-time, such as Instant Messenger and Second Life. Other forms of peer production, such as Wikipedia, are not. This flexibility is a major advantage for online systems. It gives the respondent greater flexibility in the length and depth of a reply. An individual can post something, for example a paper, and the reviewers can review the paper at their pace and in the space of their choosing. Online environments are typically self documenting. IM messages can be recorded and replayed in order to reread the communication. Wikipedia allows user to read the “conversation” about a page or to view the history of the page, much as viewing different versions of a document.
Although, the self documenting features must be built-in, such features typically are built into social computing software.
Peer Production also occurs online. Online environments can be either synchronous or asynchronous. Some forms of peer production are real-time, or pseudo real-time, such as Instant Messenger and Second Life. Other forms of peer production, such as Wikipedia, are not. This flexibility is a major advantage for online systems. It gives the respondent greater flexibility in the length and depth of a reply. An individual can post something, for example a paper, and the reviewers can review the paper at their pace and in the space of their choosing. Online environments are typically self documenting. IM messages can be recorded and replayed in order to reread the communication. Wikipedia allows user to read the “conversation” about a page or to view the history of the page, much as viewing different versions of a document.
Although, the self documenting features must be built-in, such features typically are built into social computing software.
Comparison
In comparison, both in-person and on-line peer production have advantages and disadvantages. Both models have been used to generate Light and Heavyweight peer production, such as open source software, wiki’s etc. The advantages and disadvantages are sufficiently different that these types of peer production can be used simultaneously on projects to build synergy. The in-person collaboration is better suited to disseminating content to a limited number of targeted consumers and to building trust among varied and key stakeholders. Online collaboration is typically self-documenting and allows individuals to read and reply in a manner more convenient to their self. For example the question below was posed on LinkedIn. This question has been posed on several other sites and has finally received some useful answers on LinkedIn.
In comparison, both in-person and on-line peer production have advantages and disadvantages. Both models have been used to generate Light and Heavyweight peer production, such as open source software, wiki’s etc. The advantages and disadvantages are sufficiently different that these types of peer production can be used simultaneously on projects to build synergy. The in-person collaboration is better suited to disseminating content to a limited number of targeted consumers and to building trust among varied and key stakeholders. Online collaboration is typically self-documenting and allows individuals to read and reply in a manner more convenient to their self. For example the question below was posed on LinkedIn. This question has been posed on several other sites and has finally received some useful answers on LinkedIn.
It also provides a mechanism for give and take questioning that can be reviewed by others when necessary. Second Life allows users to do group chat or IM, giving the users the ability to hold several simultaneous conversations. When these conversation are about creating objects within the 3D environment, the environment itself can be used to demonstrate the concepts concerned. Second Life has recently launched a set of business tools. It will be interesting to see if a 3D atmosphere can contribute additional benefits.
While both systems encourage decentralization, decentralization is encouraged more by online collaboration as it is not necessary for both parties to be present, which can be quite a problem if the organization is large or geographically dispersed. On a personal note, I had the pleasure of being on a team that tried to use AIM to form a team and design a database project. While this seems to be a worst case it could happen on other projects. One of the individuals appeared to be rather dictatorial about the project, and refused to compromise on just about every aspect of the project. Consequently and because of the lack of richness of the AIM media, everything was argued about and the conversation was slow and cumbersome. Issues that could have been resolved in 1 or 2 minutes in person took 10+ minutes to just describe. In one 2 hour session, just the main 4 roles were divided, and this had to be reevaluated after a complaint was lodged with the instructor. Then instead of creating proper meeting minutes, the team leader just submitted a post of the AIM converstation. This is poor procedure for several reasons. First, a team meeting can have comments that are embarrasing for individuals and no one wants their mistakes or flaws posted for everyone to read. Secondly, and more importantly, a verbatim recording of the conversation is not necessary or useful. It is the result of the converstation that are required.
Summary
In summary, both online and in-person collaboration can lead to quality rich or quality poor peer production. The issue is how the tools are used and the motivation of the people using the tools. Online and in-person collaboration have separate and overlapping advantages and disadvantages. But it is up to the users to pick the right tool for the right results.
In summary, both online and in-person collaboration can lead to quality rich or quality poor peer production. The issue is how the tools are used and the motivation of the people using the tools. Online and in-person collaboration have separate and overlapping advantages and disadvantages. But it is up to the users to pick the right tool for the right results.
References
Duguid, Paul (2006). Limits of Self-Organization: Peer Production and "Laws of Quality”. First Monday 11(10). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1405/1323
Haythornthwaite, Caroline (2009). Crowds and Communities: Light and Heavyweight Models of Peer Production. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.
Wikipedia
LinkedIn
Duguid, Paul (2006). Limits of Self-Organization: Peer Production and "Laws of Quality”. First Monday 11(10). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1405/1323
Haythornthwaite, Caroline (2009). Crowds and Communities: Light and Heavyweight Models of Peer Production. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 5-8 January 2009.
Wikipedia
Posts
I agree with you that there can be both lightweight and heavyweight peer production processes that occur online and in the typical meetings that you describe. The quality in both situations can vary. In person, the success of the meeting depends on the preparation that occurs prior (as you discuss), the clarity of the task at hand, the ability of the facilitator to keep the participants on task and the motivation of the group to finish the product. You describe some of the typical barriers to in person meetings, such as travel time and the use of resources such as xerox copies for each participant. This already seems so obselete!
ReplyDeleteI've been in face to face meetings where the facilitator is so poor, that many of the participants hold the real meeting using instant messanger - this is where the actual content takes place! Maybe this is another example of how these two mediums can be used collaboratively!
I'm wondering whether having online peer production process would typically increase the focus of the participants on the task. There wouldn't be the distractions of socialization or different members leading others off task.
I think you hit it right on the head when you said that the result depends on the user.
What I've appreciated about online peer production is the documentation. It's a bit intimidating because the conversations are permanent like you said. I also like that I can take my time to respond to the discussions rather than be constrained by the amount of time you spend face to face. For example, much of some of the meetings that I attend are information dissemination types. And, if the people who ran the meeting simply posted information and expected everyone to respond, then people can simply access information at their own space and time as you said.
ReplyDeleteI also liked your suggestion to use or combine both online and in-person to be more productive. I suppose if we actually know the people who we're working with, then we feel more accountable to them.
I agree that online peer production and in-person peer production work hand in hand. Although many in the tech sector have lost their jobs to people in India, online peer production and tools like Skype have made this possible. I imagine that programmers in India can be working on bugs reported by their US office via postings in a bug tracker. Code reviews can be conducted by the US offices as their programmers commit their work. On the other hand, reporting on critical issues (i.e. security, scheduling, etc.) may require some in-person collaboration (via teleconferencing tools) to work through. Also, a brief weekly meeting seems like it would be a good idea just to keep the parties involved aware of each other's progress.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, lots of important points. I agree that in-person collaboration can involve more team building and richer interaction. One of the hardest things to do when working in a group is setting up a time and place to meet. Everyone has busy schedules and it's difficult to find a time when you're all available. Although online collaborations may sometimes be more convenient, the 'lack of media richness' can make communication more difficult because you have less queues to interpret and limited ways of sharing information.
ReplyDeleteI tend to prefer asynchronous online collaborations, like this class, for example. I can read a blog one day and think about it, then comment on it a day or two later. (Though this is rarely the case since I tend to procrastinate.) In my experience, technical difficulties have also been a major drawback of synchronous online collaboration. If something goes wrong with your equipment or connection during the meeting, you might not have much to fall back on. I suppose preparation has a lot to do with it, too.
It's unfortunate that you had a negative experience working in a virtual setting. One of the advantages of the in-person collaboration that you mentioned was individuals getting to know each other and determining reliability and trust. I wonder if the in-person dynamic just applies to short term work. Work productivity is measurable in many cases. What if the reputation of a person is measured in terms of quality output? Over time, that reputation can build and a sense of trust can be developed for individuals that consistently output quality work. This probably applies to certain contributors on wikipedia. I think this concept probably could apply somewhat to short term work in that people are held accountable solely on output and not have to depend on elements like charisma which is certainly a factor with in-person collaboration.
ReplyDeleteI see your point that “both online and in-person collaboration can lead to quality rich or quality poor peer production.” Not only do problems come with overbearing team members such as the one in your example, but there are also problems with the opposite which are members looking to ride on the work of others. Those who don’t care to do the work either make more work for the other members the project is incomplete. I can see that these scenarios are possible in both types of collaboration.
ReplyDelete