| Date post: | 15-Jan-2016 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| View: | 216 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Evolution of a Dynamic Theory of
Collaboration:Modeling Intergovernmental Use of Information
Technology
Prepared for the 2002 System Dynamics Research Conference, Palermo, Italy
Presented at the Conference by:Dr. David F. Andersen
Ignacio J. Martínez-MoyanoCenter for Technology in Government / Rockefeller CollegeUniversity at Albany
July 2002
Anthony Cresswell [email protected]
Laura Black [email protected]
Donna Canestraro [email protected]
Meghan Cook [email protected]
Theresa Pardo [email protected]
Fiona Thompson [email protected]
Center for Technology in Government
(CTG) University at Albany Albany, NY 12222
Luis Luna [email protected]
Ignacio Martinez-Moyano [email protected] David Andersen
[email protected] George Richardson
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany Albany, NY 12222
Authors
Contents
• Where we’ve been: Project history and critical theoretical problems
• Where we are: Approaching solutions
• Where we might go: Toward a dynamic theory of collaborative IT
Where We’ve Been:Project History and Some Problems with
Representation and Theory
Motivation
• Interorganizational partnerships are widely recognized as a powerful strategy to improve public sector initiatives in order to significantly increase the quality of their services.
• Information Technology plays a key role in this partnerships.
Motivation
• Researchers at the Center of Technology in Government have studied knowledge and information sharing in interorganizational networks in the Public Sector for years.
• Their analyses have provided evidence of the existence of feedback processes influencing collaboration and knowledge sharing.
• A dynamic theory of collaboration could be a powerful instrument to improve success in IT intensive projects.
Motivation
• The creation of better understanding and better models of interorganizational dynamics.
Time Line
January 2001
March 2002
2 Modeling Sessions
Modeling Work
Trust1 Collaboration 1 Collaboration 2
June 2002
Knowledge-Based Trust 1
First Model
Structure Elicitation(Original image redrawn in Vensim)
Feasibleprototype
components
Commonunderstanding ofwhat and how
ExpectationsDemonstrated
results
Collaboration
Capacity tocollaborate
Willingness tocollaborate
Trust
LeadershipProvider
Engagement
Personal priorexperience
componentgrowth
Responsibiliy forcollaboration
CTG involvement
Bob usednegative
experience
Opportunity to act
Use of SMARTIT tools
BHS and QAengagement
Role ofcorporate
partner
Pressure to beaccountable
Welfare reformpressure
Bob activity
Reflector Feedback
Model Sectors
Trust 1Feasible
Components
Unsolvedproblems
Unsolved problemgeneration
Progress rate
Satisfaction indemonstrated results
Productivity
Unsolved problemsper component
Projectdefinition
Perceived progressfraction
People on projectdevelopment
CommittedprovidersGaining
commitmentLossing
commitment
Provider totalpopulation
Engagement ofcommittedprovidersBuilding Eroding
Fraction of providerscommitted
Time for commitmentto break down
CollaborationBHS and QAengagement
Total CTG effort
CTG effort onCollaboration
Fraction of CTG efforton collaboration
Availableproviders effort
Indicated stateengagement
CTG Effort onproject tasks
Effect of collaboration onUnresolved Components
Effect of Collaborationon Productivity
Willingness to adjustworkforce
Average unsolvedproblems percomponent
Effect of averageproblems onsatisfaction
PerceivedPotential
Positive word ofmouth effect
Average commitmentper provider
Saturation effect
Contacts
Maximum effort perprovider
Indicatedengagement
Available people
Engaging
Time to perceivepotential
Effect of CTG efforton collaboration
CTG Effort onresponsibility ofcollaboration
Effect of responsibility ofcollaboration on contacts
Weight onresponsibility
Effect of responsibility ofcollaboration on time to
commitment to break down
Available StateEffort
Potential StateEffort
Potential providereffort
BehaviorProject
800 People*Hour/Month2 Dmnl
100 People200 Component
4 Unsolved problem/Component
0 People*Hour/Month0 Dmnl0 People0 Component2 Unsolved problem/Component
5 5 5 55
44
44
4
3 3 3 33
2 2 2 2 2
2
11
1
1
1
1
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28Time (Month)
Available State Effort : Base People*Hour/Month1 1 1 1Collaboration : Base Dmnl2 2 2 2 2 2 2Committed providers : Base People3 3 3 3 3 3Feasible Components : Base Component4 4 4 4 4 4Average unsolved problems per component : Base Unsolved problem/Component5 5
Second Model
Reflector Feedback
Conceptual Model
Unsolvedproblems
Components
Actor 1 Effort
Ability towork
together
Effort on Makingprogress
Effort onfacilitation
Effort on problemsolving
Problem percomponent
Problem density
Actor 1Trust
Perceived risk
Perceived benefit
Perceivedprogress
Time to solveproblem
Perception ofproblemdensity
Collaboration 1
Components
Unsolved Problems
Generating problems Solving problems
Building
Problems perComponent (density)
Actor 1 Effort onproject
Actor 2 Effort onproject
Effort of Actor 1 inProblem Solving
Activities
Effort of Actor 1 inProducing Components
Activities
Effort of Actor 2 inProblem Solving
Activities
Effort of Actor 2 inProducing Components
Activities
Effort of Actors in ProducingComponents Activities
Agreggate
Effort of Actors in ProblemSolving Activities Agregatte
Initial Components
Initial UnsolvedProblems
Component BuildingProductivity
Normal ComponentBuilding Productivity
Unsolved problemsper component
Maximum UnresolvedProblems per Component
Problem Solvingproductivity
Project definition Fractionalperceived progress
Maximum ProblemSolving Productivity
PSP f
Effect of Problem Densityon Problem Solving
Productivity
Effort AllocationDistribution from Actor
2EADA2 f
Effort AllocationDistribution from Actor
1
EADA1 f
FINAL TIMEFraction
remaining<Time>
Normalized Problemsper Component
Effect of time pressure onCB productivity
ETPCBP f
<Perceivedproductivity>
Collaboration 2
Unsolvedproblems
Components
Actor 1Effort
Ability towork withActor 2
Effort on Makingprogress
Effort on problemsolving
Problem percomponent
Problem density
Perceivedrisk
Time to solveproblem
Productivity inproblem solving
Productivity oncreating components
Creating problems Solvingproblems
Creatingcomponents
Buildingability
Erodingability
PPC fTSP f
PD f
Fraction of effortto task
Time to erodeability
Learning per hour ofinteraction
Effect of problemdensity on productivity
Normal productivity inproblem solving
EPDP f
Normal problems percomponent <Normal problems
per component>
Perfect ability
Level of perfection
Effect of perfectionon learning
Effect ofexperience
EOPL f
EEL f
PerceivedProgress
Time to perceive
Perceived Benefit
PB f
Trust on Actor 2
Level ofengagement
Indicated Effort
Time to adjust
wbr
wt
Available effortEffort
adjustment
BehaviorMain Stocks
8,000 Components1 Ability
400 Problems800 People*Hours/Month
0 Components0 Ability0 Problems0 People*Hours/Month
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Time (Month)
Components : Base ComponentsAbility to work with Actor 2 : Base AbilityUnsolved problems : Base ProblemsActor 1 Effort : Base People*Hours/Month
Problems
• Trust1 has no trust
• An infectious theory of collaboration?
• Collaboration 1 has no collaboration
• Collaboration 2 is a single-actor collaboration model (a half-collaboration model?)
• Conceptual blurring
Critical Theoretical Problems
• 1-party, 2-party, multi-party focus
• Multiple stages of IT development and scale-up issues– Understanding / specification discovery– Prototype construction – Production system implementation
• Dependence on highly abstract variables– What drives changes to TRUST and
ENGAGEMENT? What do they do?
Where We Are: Approaching Solutions
Where We Are (*)
We are about here
* Diagram taken from:Randers, J., Ed. (1980). Elements of the System Dynamics Method. Cambridge MA, Productivity Press.
Third Model
Building on Black (2002) Research
cross-boundary activity
A's knowledgeof A's work
B's knowledgeof B's work
artifact
locationtiming
A's knowledgeof B's work
B's knowledgeof A's work
action
B's accumulated knowledgeA's accumulated knowledge
B learning from theactivity, when it is
ACCESSIBLE to B
A learning from theactivity, when it is
ACCESSIBLE to A
A PARTICIPATING in the activity at the
boundary
B PARTICIPATING inthe activity at the
boundary
Model Overview
State's Knowledge
Project Work
+
+
CollaborativelyDoing Project Work
Sense of Progressin Project
CTG FacilitativeMethods and
Tools
+
+
Initial Trust toCommence Work
Tools that FacilitateKnowledge
Elicitation andCommunication
Learning by Doing
State'sKnowledge ofState's Role in
the Project
State'sKnowledge of
Provider's Rolein the Project
Provider'sKnowledge ofState's Role in
the Project
Provider'sKnowledge of
Provider's Rolein the Project
Provider's Knowledge
Initial Trust toCommence Work
+
+
+Sense of Progress
in Project
Learning by Doing
CollaborativelyDoing Project Work
RR
Project Workconcreteness
transformability
work to do
undiscoveredrework known rework
work really donedoing newwork right
doing newwork wrong
recognizingproblems
doing reworkwrong
doingrework right
learning bydoing
<error rate>
Knowledge, Engagement, and Trust
State'sknowledgeof State's
project work
State'sknowledge of
Providers'sproject work
Provider'sknowledgeof State's
project work
Provider'sknowledge
of Provider'sproject work
State's trust
Provider's trust
Provider'sengagement
State'sengagement
collaborating inthe project work
Provider's learningabout Provider's
work
<learning bydoing>
<sense ofprogress>
State's learningabout State's
work
Provider learningabout State's
work
State's learning aboutProvider's work
weight on trust
<weight ontrust>
<State'sengagement>
<Provider'sengagement>
Model Main reinforcing processes
Provider's trustProvider's
engagement
Provider'sknowledge aboutProvider's work
Provider'sknowledge about
State's work
collaborativelydoing work
accuracy fromProvider's point
of view
concreteness transformability
error
- -
sense ofprogress
+
+
+ +
+
+
CTG
i
+
+
+
accuracy fromState's point of
view+
State's trust+
+
+
R1
Gettingengaged
or enraged
Learning bydoing (or not)
R3
R5
Learning (not) towork with you
+R7
Getting to know eachother or reciprocally
withholding information
State'sengagement
State'sknowledge about
State's work
State's knowledgeabout Provider's
work
+
+
+
-
+
++
i
R2
Gettingengaged
or enraged
Learning bydoing (or not)
R4
R6
Learning (not) to work with me
+ +
+
+
BehaviorTrust and collaboration
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72Time (Month)
State's trust : HIMS DmnlProvider's trust : HIMS Dmnlcollaborating in the project work : HIMS Dmnl
BehaviorKnowledge
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72Time (Month)
State's knowledge of Providers's project work : HIMS DmnlState's knowledge of State's project work : HIMS DmnlProvider's knowledge of Provider's project work : HIMS DmnlProvider's knowledge of State's project work : HIMS Dmnl
Where We Might Go:
New ModelSimulations
Contributions
Potential Contributions
• Theoretical– Explore scale-up issues in phases of IT work– Explore differences and similarities in
interagency and intergovernmental IT work
• Practical– Develop a cross-project comparison tool– Use model scenarios as training
The 3 Models (summary)
• Trust 1– Centered in Project Dynamics and how these
influence trust and collaboration.
• Collaboration 2– Centered around the interaction dynamics of HIMS
team members and how these influence trust and collaboration.
• Knowledge-Based Trust 1– Centered around the dynamics generated by the use
of facilitative tools and methods in the collaborative effort and how these influence trust and collaboration.
The Products Generated
• International Conference of the System Dynamics Society
– 19th Atlanta 2000A. A Preliminary System Dynamics Model of Intergovernmental Collaboration
B. Group Modeling of IT-Based Innovations in the Public Sector
– 20th Palermo 2001A. Evolution of a Dynamic Theory of Collaboration: Modeling Intergovernmental
Use of Information Technology • Hawaiian International Conference on Systems Sciences
– HICSS 35 2001A. Modeling Intergovernmental Collaboration: A System Dynamics Approach
– HICSS 36 2002A. A Dynamic Theory of Collaboration: A Structural Approach to Facilitating
Intergovernmental Use of Information Technology
