Advertisement

Hive: Collective Design Through Network Rotation

  • Niloufar SalehiEmail author
  • Michael S. Bernstein
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

Collectives gather online around challenges they face, but frequently fail to envision shared outcomes to act on together. Prior work has developed systems for improving collective ideation and design by exposing people to each others’ ideas and encouraging them to intermix those ideas. However, organizational behavior research has demonstrated that intermixing ideas does not result in meaningful engagement with those ideas. In this paper, we introduce a new class of collective design system that intermixes people instead of ideas: instead of receiving mere exposure to others’ ideas, participants engage deeply with other members of the collective who represent those ideas, increasing engagement and influence. We thus present Hive: a system that organizes a collective into small teams, then intermixes people by rotating team membership over time. At a technical level, Hive must balance two competing forces: (1) networks are better at connecting diverse perspectives when network efficiency is high, but (2) moving people diminishes tie strength within teams. Hive balances these two needs through network rotation: an optimization algorithm that computes who should move where, and when. A controlled study compared network rotation to alternative rotation systems which maximize only tie strength or network efficiency, finding that network rotation produced higher-rated proposals. Hive has been deployed by Mozilla for a real-world open design drive to improve Firefox accessibility. This work first appeared as: Salehi, Niloufar, and Bernstein, Michael S. “Hive: Collective Design Through Network Rotation.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2.CSCW (2018): 151.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Turkers and Mozilla volunteers who participated in, and helped shape this project. This work was supported by a National Science Foundation award IIS-1351131, a Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program grant, and a Stanford Graduate Fellowship.

References

  1. Anagnostopoulos, A., et al. (2012). Online team formation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 839–848). ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein, M. S., et al. (2012). Direct answers for search queries in the long tail. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 237–246). ACM.Google Scholar
  4. Bjelland, O. M., & Wood, R. C. (2008). An inside view of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), 32.Google Scholar
  5. Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2015). “Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Research Policy, 44(1), 4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, V., et al. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(4), 495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E. (2014). Growing closer on facebook: changes in tie strength through social network site use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4187–4196). ACM.Google Scholar
  8. Chan, J., Dang, S., & Dow, S. P. (2016a). “Comparing Different Sensemaking Approaches for Large-Scale Ideation”. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’16 (pp. 2717–2728). Santa Clara, California, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858178. ISBN: 978-1-4503-3362-7.
  9. Chan, J., Dang, S., & Dow, S. P. (2016b). IdeaGens: Enabling expert facilitation of crowd brainstorming. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion. CSCW ’16 Companion (pp. 13–16). San Francisco, California, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2818052.2874313. ISBN: 978-1-4503-3950-6.
  10. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  11. Choi, H.-S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cini, M. A. (2001). Group newcomers: From disruption to innovation. Group Facilitation, 3, 3.Google Scholar
  13. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  14. Edmondson, A. C. (2002). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork, 1–38.Google Scholar
  15. Edmondson, A. C. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999. ISSN: 00018392.
  16. Edmondson, A. C. (2013). Teaming to innovate. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Ettlie, J. E. (1980). Manpower ows and the innovation process. Management Science, 26(11), 1086–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feldbaum, C. L., Christenson, T. E., & O’Neal, E. C. (1980). An observational study of the assimilation of the newcomer to the preschool. Child Development, 497–507.Google Scholar
  19. Gadon, H. (1988). The newcomer and the ongoing work group. In Team building: Blueprints for productivity and satisfaction (pp. 161–175).Google Scholar
  20. Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25–34.Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 211–220). ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Gruenfeld, D. H., et al. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heiss, J., & Nash, D. (1967). The stranger in laboratory culture revisited. Human Organization, 26(1–2), 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Introne, J., et al. (2011). The climate CoLab: Large scale model-based collaborative planning. In 2011 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS) (pp. 40–47). IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. Jackson, S. E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. In Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 53–75).Google Scholar
  26. Jahanbakhsh, F., et al. (2017). You want me to work with who?: Stakeholder perceptions of automated team formation in project-based courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3201–3212). ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.x ISSN: 1467-9310.
  28. Kim, J., Cheng, J., & Bernstein, M. S. (2014). Ensemble: Exploring complementary strengths of leaders and crowds in creative collaboration. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 745–755). ACM.Google Scholar
  29. Kim, J., et al. (2017). Mechanical novel: Crowdsourcing complex work through reaction and revision. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. CSCW ’17 (pp. 233–245). Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998196. ISBN: 978-1-4503-4335-0.
  30. Klein, M., & Garcia, A. C. B. (2015). High-speed idea filtering with the bag of lemons. Decision Support Systems, 78, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kulkarni, A., et al. (2014). Wish: Amplifying creative ability with expert crowds. In Second AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing.Google Scholar
  32. Lakhani, K. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., & Tushman, M. (2013). Open innovation and organizational boundaries: Task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation. In Handbook of economic organization: Integrating economic and organizational theory (pp. 355– 382).Google Scholar
  33. Lappas, T., Liu, K., & Terzi, E. (2009). Finding a team of experts in social networks. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 467–476). ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Latora, V., & Marchiori, M. (2001). Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Physical Review Letters, 87(19), 198701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2014). From problem solvers to solution seekers: dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA.Google Scholar
  37. Lin, X., & Schwartz, D. L. (2003). Reaction at the crossroads of cultures. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(1), 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luther, K., et al. (2015). Structuring, aggregating, and evaluating crowdsourced design critique. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 473– 485). ACM.Google Scholar
  39. Lykourentzou, I., et al. (2016). Personality matters: Balancing for personality types leads to better outcomes for crowd teams. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 260–273). ACM.Google Scholar
  40. Lykourentzou, I., Kraut, R. E., & Dow, S. P. (2017). Team dating leads to better online ad hoc collaborations. In CSCW (pp. 2330–2343).Google Scholar
  41. Mahyar, N., et al. (2018). CommunityCrit: Inviting the public to improve and evaluate urban design ideas through micro-activities.Google Scholar
  42. Malone, T. W., et al. (2017). Putting the pieces back together again: Contest webs for large-scale problem solving.Google Scholar
  43. Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Dellarocas, C. (2009). Harnessing crowds: Mapping the genome of collective intelligence.Google Scholar
  44. Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mcgrath, E. (2000). Methodology matters: Doing research in the behavioral and social sciences. In Readings in human-computer interaction: Toward the year, (2nd ed. 1995).Google Scholar
  46. Monroy-Hernández, A., & Resnick, M. (2008). Empowering kids to create and share programmable media. Interactions, 15(2), 50–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nash, D. J., & Wolfe, A. W. (1957). The stranger in laboratory culture. American Sociological Review, 22(4), 400–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Navarro, H., et al. (2017). Temporal patterns behind the strength of persistent ties. EPJ Data Science, 6(1), 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority inuence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nemeth, C. J. (1992). Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. Group Process and Productivity, 95, 111.Google Scholar
  51. Nemeth, C. J., & Staw, B. M. (1989). The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 175–210.Google Scholar
  52. Nickerson, J. V. (2015). Collective design: Remixing and visibility. In Design computing and cognition (pp. 263–276). Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 633.Google Scholar
  54. Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888. ISSN: 0749-5978.
  55. Perretti, F., & Negro, G. (2007). Mixing genres and matching people: A study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 28(5), 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Plattner, H. (2010). An introduction to design thinking process guide. Stanford: In The institute of design at Stanford.Google Scholar
  57. Price, J. L. (1977). The study of turnover. Iowa State Press.Google Scholar
  58. Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51(6), 869–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Riedl, C., & Woolley, A. W. (2017). Teams vs. crowds: A field test of the relative contribution of incentives, member ability, and emergent collaboration to crowd-based problem solving performance. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(4), 382–403.Google Scholar
  60. Riedl, C., et al. (2010). Rating scales for collective intelligence in innovation communities: Why quick and easy decision making does not get it right.Google Scholar
  61. Rink, F. A., et al. (2013). Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 247–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rink, F. A., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary versus permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 764–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  64. Salehi, N., et al. (2015). We are dynamo: Overcoming stalling and friction in collective action for crowd workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1621–1630). ACM.Google Scholar
  65. Salehi, N., et al. Huddler: Convening stable and familiar crowd teams despite unpredictable availability. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. CSCW ’17 (pp. 1700– 1713). Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998300. ISBN: 978-1-4503-4335-0.
  66. Siangliulue, P., et al. (2015a). Providing timely examples improves the quantity and quality of generated ideas. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (pp. 83–92). ACM.Google Scholar
  67. Siangliulue, P., et al. (2015b). Toward collaborative ideation at scale: Leveraging ideas from others to generate more creative and diverse ideas. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 937–945). ACM.Google Scholar
  68. Siangliulue, P., et al. (2016). IdeaHound: Improving large-scale collaborative ideation with crowd-powered real-time semantic modeling. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 609–624). ACM.Google Scholar
  69. Siemsen, E., et al. (2009). The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 11(3), 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stempe, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 685–718. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393872. ISSN: 00018392.
  72. Talton, J. O., et al. Exploratory modeling with collaborative design spaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics-TOG, 28(5), 167.Google Scholar
  73. Tohidi, M., et al. (2006). Getting the right design and the design right. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1243–1252). ACM.Google Scholar
  74. Wauck, H., et al. (2017). From in the class or in the wild? Peers provide better design feedback than external crowds. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google Scholar
  75. Xu, A., et al. (2015). A classroom study of using crowd feedback in the iterative design process. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1637–1648). ACM.Google Scholar
  76. Xu, A., Huang, S.-W., & Bailey, B. (2014). Voyant: Generating structured feedback on visual designs using a crowd of non-experts. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1433–1444). ACM.Google Scholar
  77. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yu, L., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Cooks or cobblers?: Crowd creativity through combination. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1393–1402). ACM.Google Scholar
  79. Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014a). Distributed analogical idea generation: inventing with crowds. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1245–1254). ACM.Google Scholar
  80. Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014b). Searching for analogical ideas with crowds. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’14 (pp. 1225–1234). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557378. ISBN:978-1-4503-2473-1.
  81. Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2016a). Distributed analogical idea generation with multiple constraints. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. CSCW ’16 (pp. 1236–1245). San Francisco, California, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2835201. ISBN:978-1-4503-3592-8.
  82. Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2016b). Encouraging “Outside-The-Box” thinking in crowd innovation through identifying domains of expertise. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. CSCW ’16 (pp. 1214–1222). San Francisco, California, USA: ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820025. ISBN:978-1-4503-3592-8.
  83. Zyskowski, K., et al. (2015). Accessible crowdwork?: Understanding the value in and challenge of microtask employment for people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1682–1693). ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InformationUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations