7 types of collaborative services and more

Designing collabora.ve services on the digital pla4orm

The role of ICT in the diffusion of social innova5on

Baek Joon Sang

PhD candidate DIS‐INDACO

Politecnico di Milano

“How does ICT influence collabora5ve services?”

Preliminary research: Case studies

• Aim: To collect the cases of collabora5ve service on the digital plaForm. To iden5fy the use of ICT in collabora5ve services and their impact on the social network of collabora5ve organiza5ons

• Partner: The Founda5on of Banca E5ca • Period: 2008 November ~ 2009 July • Method: Website analysis, interview (on and offline)

• Results: Light analysis of 25 cases, in‐depth analysis of 10 cases h[p://www.sustainable‐everyday.net/codi/?cat=1

Criteria for selec.ng the cases

• More than 100 candidates of digital solu5ons – web and mobile plaForms – have been looked into.

• 25 Cases were selected using the three criteria: 1. A service uses informa5on communica5on technologies to

promote itself and enhance communica5on within community. 2. A service requires collabora5on in both the physical and the

digital worlds. 3. A service must be designed and provided by users in order to

sa5sfy their unmet social needs. Therefore, government or corporate‐oriented cases were excluded.

• 10 Cases were selected from the 25 cases for in‐depth analysis.

Peladeiros Solidarius

Sistema FBES

Vicini vicini Economia solidale

Zero rela5vo

Green map Open green map Couch surfing

Meetup Diabe5cs' meetup Katrinalist.net

Shelfari Bookcrossing Carrotmob

Hope ins5tute Mapo dure

One life Japan

Aka aki

Grofun Pledgebank Ac5vmob

No 10 Pe55ons FixMyStreet mySociety.org RED Open

Health Project

Hitchhikers

Finding 1. 7 types of collabora.ve service

1. Producer/consumer network

2. Mapping diffused informa5on 3. Aggregate social ac5on 4. Crea5ng social network for conviviality 5. Mutual support circle

6. Competences, 5me and products exchange

7. Products, places and knowledge sharing

1. Producers/consumers network

Producer/consumer network is a type of collabora5ve service in which producers and consumers pursue mutual benefits by establishing a direct network.

2. Mapping diffused informa.on

Mapping diffused informa5on is a collabora5ve service in which users collaborate to map diffused loca5onal informa5on.

3. Aggregated social ac.on

Aggregated social ac5on is a collabora5ve service in which people act together and use their collec5ve power to achieve social goals.

4. Crea.ng social network for conviviality

Crea5ng social network for conviviality is a collabora5ve service whose primary goal is to improve social conviviality by forming and reinforcing a social network. People are onen from the same locality and interact face‐to‐face and virtually on a regular basis.

5. Mutual‐support circles

Mutual support circles are a collabora5ve service where people provide mutual support to one another in order to solve problems that they have in common.

6. Competences, .me and products exchange

Competences, 5me and products exchange is a collabora5ve service in which people collaborate through the exchange of competences, 5me and products.

7. Products, places and knowledge sharing

Products, places knowledge sharing is a collabora5ve service in which people collaborate through sharing products, places and knowledge.

Theories

1. The strength of weak 5es (Granove[er, 1973) 2. ICT and social capital (Wellman, 2001)

The strength of weak .es

Mark Granove[er claimed that there exist three types of personal 5es: strong, weak and absent. The strength of the personal 5e is characterized by the amount of 3me, the emo3onal intensity, the in3macy and the reciprocal services. He analyzed the spread of informa5on in social networks and claimed that informa5on spreads through the weak 5es.

GranoveOer’s two types of social .es

Strong 5e Weak 5e

• Formed between families, cliques, rela5ves • Takes arguably decades to be formed • Observed in a group • Informa5on is self‐contained

• Formed by any kind of interac5on

• Takes rela5vely short 5me to be formed • Observed in a network • Informa5on is diffused

The comparison of Granove<er’s strong 3es and weak 3es

GranoveOer’s two types of social .es

The comparison of Granove<er’s strong 3es and weak 3es

Strong 5e Weak 5e

• Formed between families, cliques, rela5ves • Takes arguably decades to be formed • Observed in a group • Informa5on is self‐contained

• Formed by any kind of interac5on

• Takes rela5vely short 5me to be formed • Observed in a network • Informa5on is diffused

The strength of weak .es

“Individuals with many weak 3es are … best placed to diffuse a difficult innova3on, since some of those 3es will be local bridges (bridges that connect two groups in a network) .”

(Granove<er, 1973)

ICT and social network

In general, there are three different views on how ICT influences social network:

1. ICT increases social network 2. ICT decreases social network 3. ICT supplements social network

ICT and social network

In general, there are three different views on how ICT influences social network:

1. ICT increases social network 2. ICT decreases social network 3. ICT supplements social network

‐> ICT reinforces the exis5ng social networks and also creates (mainly) the weak 5es in the virtual space. (Wellman et al., 2001)

Group vs. Network

• Group vs. Network (Wellman, 2004)

Group Network

• Tightly‐knit and clearly‐bounded • Impermeable • Thought of as a solidary unit

• A person belongs to one group

• Examples: family, workgroup, community

• Sparsely‐knit and loosely‐bounded • Permeable • Set of connected units: people, organiza5ons, networks • A person can belong to mul5ple networks • Examples: friendship, terrorist, cash flows, internet

• Networked individualism: Socie5es are transforming from group‐based to network‐based (Wellman 2006) and the no5on of community is also changing.

• ICT is facilita5ng such transforma5on. It enhances weak online 5es. (Kraut et al. 2001)

Phenomena

1. Changing no5on of community (Wellman, 1973)

2. Emerging new tools for collabora5on

Changing no.on of community

The no5on of community ‐ the main target and simultaneously a precondi5on of design for social innova5on and sustainability ‐ is also changing.

“a group of interac5ng people living in a common loca5on”




Characteris5cs of new communi5es

• The ability to connect with mul3ple social milieus, with limited involvement in each milieu.

• Decreased control over inhabitants and reduced sense of belonging to milieus.

• Reduced iden3ty and pressures of belonging to groups. • Ac3ve networking is more important than going along with the group.




“the networks of interpersonal 5es that provide sociability, support, informa5on, a sense of belonging, and social

iden5ty”

Emerging new tools for collabora.on

Collabora5on benefits from ICT through:

• Sharing and crea5ng the Crea5ve Commons • Various tools that enable easy and efficient communica5on

and interac5on between the par5cipants

• Easy par5cipa5on and withdrawal from collabora5on thereby lowering the threshold of par5cipa5on

• Various incen5ve mechanisms that mo5vate people to collaborate

Collabora.ve services on the digital pla4orm

A hybrid between physical and virtual spaces, local and global contexts.

Finding 2. The structural system of collabora.ve services

PlaForm A platform hosts one or more enabling solutions e.g.) Zoes


Enabling solu5on An enabling solution motivates and empowers people to create a service to meet their needs e.g.) Meetup



Collabora5ve service

A service created by users involves activities in the digital and/or physical world. e.g.) Seattle Social Diabetics




Event An event is the result of a collaborative service in digital and/or physical form. e.g.) Diabetics

Collabora5ve service

A service created by users involves activities in the digital and/or physical world. e.g.) Seattle Social Diabetics



Findings 2. Typologies of social networks

Findings 2. Typologies based on the SN structure

Networked individuals

A group and individuals

Mutually interac.ve individuals

Networked groups

Rela5onal paBerns in basic ICT solu5ons

ICT used by the collected cases was broken down into basic func5onal units and they were viewed in rela5on to how informa5on flows, and therefore, how rela5on is formed.

node: transmitter and receiver, arrow: flow of information, view point: user

Networked groups

• Cases: GAS, Ac5vmob, TimeBanks, Meetup, Peladeiros, Vicini Vicini, Green Map, Dure Coop

• Typologies: Producer/consumer network, Mutual support circles, Competences, 5me and products exchange

• Technologies: mailing list, web‐based 5me‐management sonware, newsle[er, blog, e‐commerce plaForm, a website with news, photos, movies and other resources

• Type of interac5on: one to one, one to many

• Tie strength: weak (mainly), strong, poten5al

• SN sketch: In this typology, users form groups in which they are connected though weak and strong 5es. The groups are then connected with other groups through poten5al or weak 5es. It is like a network of franchises based on P2P organiza5onal structure. At the center lies a headquarter that pioneered the service and is diffusing it successfully. Cases that have diffused successfully have as many as millions of users.

Finding 3. Weak/strong .es in collabora.ve services

Both the weak 5es and strong 5es in collabora5ve organiza5ons are essen5al to the services produced by them but they play different roles.

Strong 5es:

• exist mainly in a community (in the tradi3onal sense) where collabora3on ini3ates and is incubated

• maintain core values of the service

Weak 5es:

• Maintain an organiza3on open

• allow innova3ve ideas to diffuse and replicate

• connect collabora3ve organiza3ons into a network


Diagnosis

Design

Development

Sustaining innova5on

Systemic innova5on

Scaling, diffusing and connec5ng


Diagnosis

Design

Development


Systemic innova5on


Weak ties Strong ties


Diagnosis

Design

Systemic innova5on



Development



Diagnosis

Design

Development


Systemic innova5on



A new approach to collabora.ve service design

If we can use ICT to direct a social network in a way favorable to designing and scaling up collabora5ve services and if we systemize this approach and create a new tool, this tool can empower designers/developers to design an enabling solu5on that best prac5ces available technologies and social networks for the diffusion of the collabora5ve services it supports.

Thank you.