Michael Shulman's Shared Notes
Powered by
🌱Roam Garden
me
This is an "Orphan" page. Its core content has not been shared: what you see below is a loose collection of pages and page snippets that mention this page, as well as snippets of this page that were quoted elsewhere.
Referenced in
@Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses
#me Strange to me to see this called taskwork, when [earlier](((XVt5fNR10))) they say taskwork is executing the task, and team processes, which I interpreted as teamwork, is about "directing, aligning, and monitoring taskwork" (p. 357).
@Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses
#me Why is this different than [[goal specification]] 👆🏻?
@Seely2015
#me What I don't think he will do - which is where I can still come in - is that he's really looking to identify the exact sub-dimensions or team processes that uniquely emerge from modern technology.
@Seely2015
again - #me my interpretation of this is that is lets them skip much of the encoding/decoding process - because it provides the context to the communication. (At the very least, it lets them skip providing the context! That's a big save by itself.)
@Osiurak.Navarro.ea2018
#me __My takeaway thoughts triggered by this, not directly said in the article[*](((qpVniK7xz)))__: When using physical technologies, there is a certain amount of creative freedom in choosing the best medium to communicate a message or send an idea. When using "sophisticated technologies" - interface-based technologies, where some designer or developer has given you tools, and you mostly use them as they intended - that takes away some of your creative freedom.
Metadata
#me useful for filtering by my thoughts on the article
@Kirkman.Mathieu2005
#me __I'm not sure that this way of measuring virtuality is useful, now that the world of work has such powerful technological tools. Unless perhaps we want to measure the virtuality of technology in the opposite way, to measure which technologies can be said to be least virtual- and therefore, most valuable.__
@Seely2015
#me This still sees humans as working to shape tech that works a certain way, to the way they work. It doesn't seem to allow for tech properly addressing how humans actually think together. Not a [[tools for thought]] perspective.
January 27th, 2021
#me (Read/heard something recently about how all of our modern technology is still in many ways following paradigm of printing press - I think I didn't entirely agree, though)
@Seely2015
#me This is hard - unclear whether his narrow focus on the language of communication technologies is semantic or real. It's about [[collaborative thought]]! Not purely communication.
@Zaccaro.Dubrow.ea2020
#me Is this also true if tech handles a lot of this misalignment, bypassing the need for explicit communication? #tech_helps
@Zaccaro.Dubrow.ea2020
#me __Or machines!__ #[[H-M teams]]
@Seely2015
#me Or, for MTSs, we've indicated before that transition phases might be characterized by more intensive between-team interactions - tech must match that need #[[Tech in MTSs review]] #MTS
@Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses
#me Again - why is this different than [[goal specification]]👆🏻?
@Seely2015
__Let alone using [collaborative whiteboards](((vvSg2uqys))), Notion shared workspaces, knowledge management mindspaces, etc - everything I'm looking to study__ #me
@Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses
#me Is all this just more __granular__ than [[mission analysis]]👆🏻?
@Seely2015
#me It also does not address that specific technologies can provide __new__ capabilities. #[[emergent phenomenon]]
@Seely2015
#me (And the ones that are most powerful because they change a paradigm are often most different from previously seen tools. Like RoamResearch!)
January 27th, 2021
#me Even [[VR for work]] or [[AR for work]] today is still limited to just putting extra screens into virtual reality. It isn't moving enough into capturing more elements of human capability.
@Seely2015
#me that part about skipping the encoding/decoding is a key part of what came from my discussion with [[Abba]] [[November 7th, 2020]].
@Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses
#me This sounds like a stage where teams would build [[shared interaction mental models]] and [[strategic models]]? Also, including AARs here means this includes the process of [[adaptation]]
@Zaccaro.Dubrow.ea2020
#me (Note - MTSs with [[H-M teams]] are probably considered high CTD, but are especially challenging for [[interpersonal processes]].)
team processes
#me Very related to MTS - basically saying that if it's an MTS, need to clarify the function of the connections between teams.
@Seely2015
#me This still seems somewhat limiting - his critique is still just that teams can choose their own tech and that __choice__ has an effect - but I'm having trouble articulating this second why I have a problem with this. It misses something...
January 27th, 2021
#me potential for [[AR]] here to add some of this back
@Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses
#me __Note - mention that one of the previous efforts, from Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith (1999) were about cycles that are used to develop learning skills. Steve has told me that his regret about this paper is that they didn't include learning. Did that earlier paper have learning in it?__
@Zaccaro.Dubrow.ea2020
#me #tech_helps Using tech to help may lower the effort of leaders to enact this coordination - but the tech must adapt to the needs of the context.
January 27th, 2021
#me Does [[GPT-3]] bring us closer to this?
@Seely2015
#me These are both existing processes! Take this farther - the tech can enable new ways of working, new modes of thinking. That has to be one of my ((noENLRUp5)) for the [[Tech in MTSs review]] #dimension
@Seely2015
#me I think he stops short, has a very narrow view of what tech can do. He mostly focuses on communication, not at new [[cognitive processes]] that the tech might enable, as an [[emergent phenomenon]]. Although he talks in a few places as if he is saying more than just communication, but all his examples and discussions are about communication. Example below:
me