The blog "Creating Passionate Users" is dead. No longer will my Sunday mornings include a read into the latest about developing a state of mind that benefits users, and the value of your product. I can only imagine that many of you have experienced the loss of a blogger you loved. For me, losing "Headrush" as I called it, was a real pain. The blog captured a new school view of supporting your user base with education and value. Not, I take that back, it was the "new skool" design model. What's more, it brought social/marketing issues to light.
Recently, after thinking more on collaboration and if it is socially just another version of herd theory, I went back to the Headrush blog. An important image, which the authors were so adept at making, caught my eye. To me, this image stuck because it captured the danger of COLLABORATION GONE WRONG!!!
Simply put: the group is dumb and the individual is smart! Kathy Sierra and Dan Russell, the authors of Headrush, have it right. Perhaps I can attempt a short outline of why this isn't collaboration.
First, one has to do the obligatory link from Wikipedia:
Products like this are made...
Recently, after thinking more on collaboration and if it is socially just another version of herd theory, I went back to the Headrush blog. An important image, which the authors were so adept at making, caught my eye. To me, this image stuck because it captured the danger of COLLABORATION GONE WRONG!!!
Simply put: the group is dumb and the individual is smart! Kathy Sierra and Dan Russell, the authors of Headrush, have it right. Perhaps I can attempt a short outline of why this isn't collaboration.First, one has to do the obligatory link from Wikipedia:
Collaboration is a structured, recursive process where two or more people work together toward a common goal—typically an intellectual endeavor that is creative in nature—by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus. Collaboration does not require leadership and can sometimes bring better results through decentralization and egalitarianism. In particular, teams that work collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.
Now that the "wiki" society has provided us an outline, and if we read this again and again, one can see the value collaboration brings. In the definition, words and phrases like "sharing knowledge", "better results" and "can obtain greater resources" only highlight the value of collaboration. Alternatively, CONSENSUS does not do this. Consensus, which is described above in the Headrush image as far as I'm concerned, is not collaboration. It is the opposite of collaboration. It is group mentality and we all know what happens when mobs of people get together:
Products like this are made...If I were to redefine collaboration, I'd say it is something more likely defined this way:
Individuals working with their skills and talents to come to a creative conclusion that solves a problem. The group is formed on the basis of sharing knowledge and resources for the betterment of the collaborative process.
Well, that's my whack at it...
My point is one shouldn't confuse CONSENSUS = BAD with COLLABORATION = GOOD...
My point is one shouldn't confuse CONSENSUS = BAD with COLLABORATION = GOOD...
Comments
I think the author may be talking about consensus decision making which is defined as "Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement, and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process." I have used this process many times and it is essential when working with a team of people with strong opinions.
Group think, which I agree is bad, is defined as "a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. The term is frequently used pejoratively, with hindsight." This is where the power of the group eliminates the value of the individual and should be avoided.