Dear Lilliana

I think the collaboration is as human as necessary concept in any field. Later or earlier, just to give birth to a new idea, although it was very individual, we need that another one listen to us, and I call that gesture is collaboration too. However, successful collaboration will depend on the egos of those involved, and this is more difficult to reconcile. We all want recognition, but we know that some are more likely to stand out in the group than others, and not always coincide with those who have most contributed, and the misgivings begin. Human beings are human...

Thank you for this question.

Best regards.

Large open source software development communities are quickly learning that, to be successful, they must integrate efforts not only among the organizations investing developers within the community and unaffiliated volunteer contributors, but also negotiate relationships with external groups hoping to sway the social and technical direction of the community and its products.

Conference Paper Collaboration, Leadership, Control, and Conflict Negotiation...

Dear Krishnan, thank you for the article. I just read it and found it very enlightening. There is a comment by the authors that made me wonder:

"We discuss collaboration in terms of policies that support process structures that prevent conflict, looking at task completion guidelines and community architecture."

Collaboration is addressed at getting the work done on schedule, and once that is guaranteed, there is no need for more collaboration. Although the article does not address the issue, how about innovation, the collaborative invention of new products and processes? That would be a good subject for another article!

What d you think, dear Krishnan?

Best regards, Lilliana

I think it depends on the field of study/business. In science there is often a need for consensus before a new idea is accepted, even if it has good proofs. Often this requires collaboration with others in that field, as in coming up with a result and then parsing out samples/experiments to other labs/researchers for confirmation. There often is collaboration when two researchers who have different ideas about the same thing and join together for convenience, or if you will common cause.

Some areas, like economics, it is one professor or one firm trying to show everybody else that their forecast trend, economic outlook, etc. are the correct ones. Thus there is little, if any, collaboration. Then there are certain trades out there who are suppose to be collaborating, but instead seem only to stall or provide their part when absolutely necessary.

I know of some archaeological firms who refuse to ask a competitor with more experience with a particular artifact type or time period for assistance. Then again, like myself, I know of many who would not hesitate to call if it meant getting the science correct. Often this involves negotiation or trade of information. I have done pro bono tasks for others, expecting to be returned the favor at a future date.

Not all are looking out for only for themselves, yet it seems less like that every year.

Hi,

I hope the following article will be useful.

Regards,

Masoumeh Bahman

Here is another article. I hope you will find it useful!

Regards,

Masoumeh Bahman

Yes, I agree to innovation as a collaborative invention of new products and processes.

Measures of Individuals. Individual performance is difficult to assess when a significant part of a person’s contribution to innovation and new product or service development is generating and sharing ideas with team members. However, team leaders and team peers can assess individual contributions of this kind.

http://www.smeal.psu.edu/cmtoc/cmtoc/research/nistcm.pdf

Dear Krishnan, I have participated in creativity teams and it is very difficult to reach a consensus. Tension is everywhere in those teams, sometimes creativity is aborted!

Lilliana

Dear Masoumeh, thank you for the articles. I think they enrich this conversation.

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Lilliana

I think the collaboration is as human as necessary concept in any field. Later or earlier, just to give birth to a new idea, although it was very individual, we need that another one listen to us, and I call that gesture is collaboration too. However, successful collaboration will depend on the egos of those involved, and this is more difficult to reconcile. We all want recognition, but we know that some are more likely to stand out in the group than others, and not always coincide with those who have most contributed, and the misgivings begin. Human beings are human...

Thank you for this question.

Best regards.

Dear Liliana:

In my view, consensus, conflict, cooperation, negotiation, are all fundamental concepts of human interaction in any field.

Competition, of course, is necessary, but without co-operaton no group, organization or society can thrive. Cooperation is the key to success in many situations and is not always easy to achieve, especially at the level of societies as a whole. 

Democracy has been defined as a system that balances consensus and conflict. Conflict is what allows that new views about an issue can be revealed. But there is a productive conflict and a destructive one. 

Negotiation is what allows that the conflicting or dissenting sides can find common grounds and reach some form of consensus.

Social psychology has shown that consensus can also be destructive. Some groups make bad decisions because their members are afraid of conflict and don't reveal their dissenting views. Therefore, the group doesn't discuss alternatives and reaches a forced consensus that usually result in a wrong decision.

Dear José Eduardo, I did not include conflict because that is the normal thing to have: conflict, competition, rivalry... The ones I mention are very hard to achieve. 

I agree totally with you as to consensus. I added it because I was curious to know whether anyone found consensus always as positive. I believe that consensus suffocates minorities and make them disappear into the majority with leaving any trace, as it always obeys the hegemonic position. I read this book when it came out. Have you read it too? I found it VERY persuasive:

Terror and Consensus: Vicissitudes of French Thought, edited by Jean-Joseph Goux and Philip Wood (Stanford U Press, 1998). Excellent!

Warm regards, Lilliana

See these concepts through the links.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=muE3T4YEAvkC&pg=PT288&lpg=PT288&dq=collaboration,+consensus,+negotiation,+commonality&source=bl&ots=SzG3LVQROM&sig=TFYASF3C0aDhaSGtr4mOKCSN45s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiqaCNpf_KAhWHCI4KHToCBmwQ6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=collaboration%2C%20consensus%2C%20negotiation%2C%20commonality&f=false

http://www.naen.org/resources/Documents/EXAMININ.pdf

I think what gives unity is not a consensus but believing all ones in the same truths. The adaptation to opinions or majorities is restriction to arithmetic, and is not human certainty.

Dear Mariano, I agree with you as to consensus, but in a diverse society like ours it is almost impossible that everyone believe in the "same truth". In general, collaboration does not have to with truth, but with plans, agreements, bringing people together who possess different knowledge and different viewpoints. Decision-making with intelligent people passes through a first phase of hard discussion, debate, negotiation. People disagree,  people vote, people finally agree as to the best possible combination of ideas to make a project viable. It is not an easy task respecting differences and working together. What every one must have is good will. Or maybe I misunderstood what you mean by "the same truths".

Best regards, Lilliana

Consensus can be a unifying factor, but it also can retard progress. Many of our greatest inventions and discoveries were by people who dared to go against known truths or the general consensus. Galileo went against the consensus of his peers and the church. Many were branded heretics, but most eventually were proven correct or partially correct.

Bravo, James! D'accord!

Lilliana