Themes

Virtual Spaces for the Socially Intelligent Enterprise

Doug [email protected]

The 7th International Workshop on Social Intelligence Design

 3–5 December 2008

School of ArchitectureUniversidad de Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR

Introduction• This talk provides

– a glance back into the past– a look forward into the future

• Social intelligence is a way to view complex human systems– Historically it has proven to be difficult to measure– Recent studies and advances (such as social neuroscience)

• An era of social systems– Economic basis– Services science

• Proliferation of socially oriented technologies– Architecture of social technologies– Structural coupling between social systems and technology– A report from the field –

• Observations of technology-influenced social intelligence• Hyper-social technology of multi-participant virtual worlds• Examples of work being done currently

Social intelligence as a unique form of intelligence*

• E.L. Thorndike (1920) divided intelligence into three facets - the ability to understand and manage:– ideas (abstract intelligence)– concrete objects (mechanical intelligence)– people (social intelligence)

• "By social intelligence is meant the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls -- to act wisely in human relations"

• Unfortunately, "convenient tests of social intelligence are hard to devise.... Social intelligence shows itself abundantly in the nursery, on the playground, in barracks and factories … , but it eludes the formal standardized conditions of the testing laboratory."

* From: Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence”

Difficult to measure social IQ*

• George Washington Social Intelligence Test in the 1920’s measured responses on up to seven scales:– Judgment in social situations– Memory for names and faces– Observation of human behavior– Recognition of the mental states behind words– Recognition of mental states from facial expression– Social information– Sense of humor

• A number of studies found that there was strong correlation between scores on these scales and scores on general IQ tests, such as the George Washington University Mental Alertness Test (GWMAT)

• Thorndike and Stein (1937) concluded that the GWSIT "is so heavily loaded with ability to work with words and ideas, that differences in social intelligence tend to be swamped by differences in abstract intelligence"

* From: Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence”

A return to the measurement of social IQ*

• In the 1960s, researchers returned to the issue of a discernible social intelligence, apart from general IQ. O'Sullivan et al. (1965) created tests of behavioral cognition that measured discernment of social factors. Because of the high cost of film they relied on photographs, cartoons, drawings, and tape recordings to assess cognition of:– Behavioral units: the ability to identify the internal mental states of individuals;– Behavioral classes: the ability to group together other people's mental states on the basis of

similarity– Behavioral relations: the ability to interpret meaningful connections among behavioral acts– Behavioral systems: the ability to interpret sequences of social behavior– Behavioral transformations: the ability to respond flexibly in interpreting changes in social

behavior– Behavioral implications: the ability to predict what will happen in an interpersonal situation.

• Guilford et al (1969) extended testing to the ability to cope with (not just discern) social situations, through divergent production of:– Behavioral units: the ability to engage in behavioral acts which communicate internal mental

states– Behavioral classes: the ability to create recognizable categories of behavioral acts– Behavioral relations: the ability to perform an act which has a bearing on what another

person is doing– Behavioral systems: the ability to maintain a sequence of interactions with another person– Behavioral transformations: the ability to alter an expression or a sequence of expressions– Behavioral implications: the ability to predict many possible outcomes of a setting.

* From: Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence”

Further dimensions of social intelligence (1 of 2)*

• Marlowe (1986) has performed factor analysis on a large battery of personality measures, to find five dimensions of social intelligence– interest and concern for other people– social performance skills– empathic ability– emotional expressiveness and sensitivity to others' emotional expressions– social anxiety and lack of social self-efficacy and self-esteem

• Cattell (1971) makes a distinction between fluid and crystallized intelligence. – Crystallized intelligence reflects the individual's accumulated fund of knowledge about the

social world, including his or her vocabulary for representing social behaviors and situations– Fluid intelligence, by contrast, reflects the individual's ability to quickly and accurately solve

problems posed by novel social situations. • Gardner (1983, 1993) has proposed seven quite different kinds of intelligence

– Most of these proposed intelligences are "cognitive" abilities • linguistic• logical-mathematical• spatial• musical• bodily-kinesthetic

– Two are explicitly personal and social in nature• intrapersonal intelligence - ability to gain access to individual’s own internal emotional life• interpersonal intelligence - ability to notice and make distinctions among other persons

– These are individual-differences constructs, in which some people, or some groups, are assumed to have more of these abilities than others

* From: Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence”

Further dimensions of social intelligence (2 of 2)*

• Factor analysis by Sternberg, et al (1981) of ratings provided by laypeople of "social competence“ revealed a prototype of social competence were that includes:

– Accepts others for what they are– Admits mistakes– Displays interest in the world at large– Is on time for appointments– Has social conscience– Thinks before speaking and doing– Displays curiosity– Does not make snap judgments– Makes fair judgments– Assesses well the relevance of information to a problem at hand– Is sensitive to other people's needs and desires– Is frank and honest with self and others– Displays interest in the immediate environment.

• A similar study by Kosmitzki and John (1993) isolated the following aspects most important to people's implicit concept of social intelligence:

– Understands people's thoughts, feelings, and intentions well– Is good at dealing with people– Has extensive knowledge of rules and norms in human relations– Is good at taking the perspective of other people– Adapts well in social situations– Is warm and caring– Is open to new experiences, ideas, and values

• Schneider et al (1996) have concluded that "it is time to lay to rest any residual notions that social competence is a monolithic entity, or that it is just general intelligence applied to social situations"

* From: Kihlstrom and Cantor, “Social Intelligence”

The future of social intelligence design may arise from understanding of biological factors

• Social neuroscience addresses what happens in the brain when people interact

• Individual brains become fused into a single system through mechanisms of: – Mirror neurons – that cause an observer to have brain reactions appropriate to

individuals being observed– Spindle cells – that support complex, rapid emotional judgments– Oscillators – that coordinate and synchronize movements among people

• Goleman and Boyatzis hypothesize that successful leadership is supported by the ability to create a positive mirroring effect in others

• This leads to the question of whether it is possible to design technology to project this socio-neurology?

Daniel Goleman and Richard Boyatzis, Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership, Harvard Business Review, September, 2008

A key theoretical approach is Social Exchange Theory

• Social exchange theory has a focus on the benefits that people obtain from, and contribute to, social interaction, and the patterns of dependency that govern those exchanges.

• Differs from micro-economics in its emphasis on ongoing exchange relationships, rather than economic decisions of individuals

• The framework for social exchange theory consists of– Actors – individuals, and organizations– Resources – producing valued outcomes, incur opportunity costs and other costs– Structure of exchange – mutual dependencies– Process of exchange – Exchange transactions and relationships

• Power is an attribute of a relationship, not of individual actors– It is potential– It is nonzero-sum– It is based on imbalance in rewards among participants in a relationship

• Molm’s program adds coercion to rewards as part of exchange theory– Tests the point that punishment can be lack of expected reward, and absence of expected

punishment can be a reward– Discovers that punishment is an effective, but seldom used strategy in social exchanges

• Primarily the tool of disadvantaged in terms of reward power• Not legitimated by power advantage

• This is laboratory work – masks the huge variety of social factors in real life

Linda B. Molm,, Coercive Power in Social Exchange, NYC, Cambridge University Press, 1997

Key factors and trends are converging to emphasize the social nature of enterprise

• Proliferation of human and ecological problems - local to global • Increasingly globalized economy • Systematically undercapitalized and underestimated potential of people –

treated as factors of cost, not value-creators• Enterprises are increasingly fragmented, and reintegrating in the form of

ecosystems of specialized firms– widespread outsourcing – global supply chain networks

• Financialization of the global monetary production economy• On-line marketplaces, like EBAY, for previously undervalued assets.• Mash-up world of Internet technologies make global markets

commonplace• Ubiquitous communication networks and continuous connectivity• Projection of self in everyday life

– Personal branding– Has a dark side – e.g. Choi Jin Sil, a S. Korean actress, hounded to death by

web posts

It’s a good time to be focusing on social enterprise

Irruption

The Industrial Revolution

Age of Steam and Railways

Age of Steel, Electricityand Heavy Engineering

Age of Oil, Automobilesand Mass Production

Age of Information and Telecommunications

Frenzy Synergy Maturity

Panic1797

Depression1893

Crash

1929

Dot.com

Collapse

• Formation of Mfg. industry• Repeal of Corn Laws opening

trade

• Joint stock companies • Industry exploits economies

of scale

Current period ofInstitutional Adjustment

• Separation of savings, investment banks

• FDIC, SEC

• Build-out of Interstate highways

• IMF, World Bank, BIS

1

2

3

4

5

Source: “Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital, Carlota Perez, 2002

Panic1847

1771

1829

1875

1908

1971

1873

1920

1974

1829

Crash

30 Years32 Years

30 Years26 Years

30 Years27 Years

30 Years45 Years

“The turning point has to do with the balance between individual and social interests within capitalism. It is the swing of the pendulum from the extreme individualism of Frenzy to giving greater attention to collective well-being.”

Innovation Deployment

We are in an era of services dominance

Evolving to new dominant logic – services-centered– Away from goods exchange

– Toward exchange of intangibles Skills (S) specialization Knowledge (K) Processes

– Customers buy offerings rendering services that create value

Service: “[the] application of specialized competences (S & K) through deeds, processes, and performances for benefit of another entity or the entity itself […]”

Stephen L. Vargo & Robert F. Lusch, “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 (January 2004), 1–17

“The great economic law is this: Services are exchanged for services…. It is trivial, very commonplace; it is, nonetheless, the beginning, the middle, and the end of economic science.”

Frederic Bastiat, 1860

Some might say it has always been the era of services

% of U.S. employment

agriculture

services

manufacture

The fundamentally social nature of enterprise

• Enterprise is: “a purposeful or industrious undertaking”– http://www.onelook.com

• At the heart of enterprise is human desire

• The purpose of enterprise is to foster well-being

• “There is a fundamental insight underlying all management sciences. It is that the business enterprise is a system of the highest order: a system whose parts are human beings, contributing voluntarily of their knowledge, skill and dedication to a joint venture.”

– Peter Drucker (2004)

• Enterprise architectures are based on autopoietic systems– Interplay of closure and openness– Ongoing co-creation between the parts and the whole, within self-created boundaries– It’s not necessarily “life” as we know it

• Biological• Social• Technological

There are many socially-focused dimensions of business architecture

• Organization structures• Processes and procedures• Practices• Social networks• Roles and accountabilities• Institutional architecture• Brand architecture• Cultures• Decision architecture• Social bonds• Meaning• Communities and boundary objects

Organization structure

reporting relationship

Organization

Manager

Organization

Manager

Organization

Manager

Organization

Manager

Organization

Manager

Organization

Manager

reporting relationship

Process and procedural models

A well-known macro-architecture framework is Stafford Beer’s Viable Systems Model.

Environment

Present

FutureIntelligence

Co

ord

ina

tio

n

Control

Policy

Op Unit 1

Op Unit 2

Op Unit 3

From: Rudolf Kulhavy, From Banks to Banking: Architecting Business Performance Transformation, 2005

A view of the semi-conductor industry ecosystem

1985

DistributorDistributor

DistributorDistributor

SemiconductorManufacturerSemiconductorManufacturer

Capital Equipment

Manufacturer

Capital Equipment

Manufacturer

Indirect SupplierIndirect Supplier

Technology Reseller

Technology Reseller

ComponentManufacturer

ComponentManufacturer

Raw Material Supplier

Raw Material Supplier

System OEMSystem OEM End User

2003

Service Provider

Foundry Assembly & Test

ContractManufacturer

Fabless Design/

IP House

System Design House

Created by Denis Mathias, BCS partner.

Ontologies create a semantic bridge between business communities

Conversations

Commitments

Contracts

Transactions

Corpus of business content

Lexicon

Implicit Ontology

Explicit Ontology

UpperOntology

A semantic architecture disambiguates meaning between business terminology and IT manifestations

Generic business concepts

Industry-specific extensions

Ontological models

Terminology models

Information systems modelsObject model

E/R modelReverse-engineered

model

A high-level view of a semantic architecture

BusinessSituation

BusinessPurpose

BusinessCommitment

BusinessOutcome

BusinessRole-player

BusinessFunction

BusinessResource

BusinessBehavior

BusinessLocation

constrainsmotivates

defines

alterssenses

supports fulfills

mandates

negotiatesgoverns

produces incorporates

performs

manipulates

facilitates

houses

Is assigned as

Invokes and sequences

Based on: "A Standard for Business Architecture Description" D. W. McDavid, IBM Systems Journal, v. 38, no. 1, 1999.http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/381/mcdavid.html

enacted by

A simple example shows various types of boundary objects that span business language communities.

Name: Question:

Answer:

Question:

Answer:

Template definitionPersonnel

management

Employee

Personnel hotline agentCall

tracking system

HR professionalism

Hotline group

Benefits department

Employee database

COBRA benefits

Paper notes

Post-It1.Employee #

Procedures

Procedures

Escalation

From: Cherbakov and McDavid, Boundary Objects to Bridge the Gap, PLTE, 2005 (RBV080)Based on: Mark S. Ackerman and Christine Halverson, “Organizational Memory: Processes, Boundary Objects, and Trajectories,” Proceedings of the Thirty-second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, 1998.

Name: Question:

Answer:

Question:

Answer:

The future of social operating systems

• The New Media Consortium tracks the evolution and emergence of technology used in higher education and other learning environments.

• They have identified a trend that they call social operating systems. • Social networking systems have led us to a new understanding of how people

connect. • Relationships are the currency of these systems, but we are only beginning to realize

how valuable a currency they truly are. • The next generation of social networking systems—social operating systems—will

change the way we search for, work with, and understand information by placing people at the center of the network.

• This focus on human relationships will include information on who has worked with each other, the length and depth of relationships

• Google has created a set of APIs called OpenSocial that allows social networks to interoperate more freely

• Xobni extends the Outlook inbox to show a network of relations surrounding senders of e-mail

• NMC is exploring the implications of social operating systems for academic collaboration and learning

New Media Consortium, The Horizon Report, 2008

• Basic building blocks are required for sociable technology– The ability to store and retrieve data to provide continuity of social relationships. – File service and document sharing are variations on storage and retrieval, – Versioning can be important for collaborative work

• Ability to track interactions– Hits capture data about users that come to the site, and where they come from. – Click-throughs that record when a user follows a link to another site. – Cookies allow the user and others, to know the history of sites that have been visited.

• Content types for the design of sociable software include:– Textual, graphical, and audio – Still vs. active content have an impact on sociality. – Only graphic content can be either still or active

• Social interaction depends on accessible content – Search, based on finding existing text– Tagging - keywords are consciously assigned to some content – Ontologies and controlled vocabularies – Text analytics, which seeks to make sense of large bodies of textual content.

• Boundaries are important considerations in the social domain.:– Internet technology provides zones of availability on a various scales.

• An intranet application is available only to selected individuals, such as employees or business partners. • An extranet is a site dedicated to a particular enterprise, but open to the general user• The Internet itself is open to all comers. • Finer-grained access control based on user IDs, passwords and other identity controls, such as biometrics,

– Links, both inward, outward provide boundary-spanning

Architecture of sociable technology

Architecture of sociable technology

• Key modalities to consider with respect to social communications. – broadcast where some entity sends out messages to anyone who is able to listen, – narrowcast, where messages go out to a limited set of potential recipients, – pointcast where messages are directed individually or in tailored bundles to an individual recipient, – peer-to-peer, where computers communicate directly with each other, rather than mediated by a 3rd party server– publish and subscribe (pub/sub), or pull that automatically sends links to new and changed content

• Interaction technologies support conversations among people – real-time or asynchronous modes – two-way or multiple participants a

• Threading of interactivity is important to maintain the continuity of a conversation– text chat – voice and video interaction based chains of responses

• More complex ICT services that are useful for social activities in the enterprise. Things like – calendar functions, and mechanisms for – managing work allocation, such as project management, are common. In many socially oriented applications, – groups can be defined, with subgroups, roles and responsibilities of members– automated origination of messages and replies. – ICT-aided decision-making.

• Opinions on personal or collective basis– rating – ranking – rewards– reputation

• Visual design• Commerce supported by

– Advertisements– Purchasing software

• Openness to integration. The “wikinomics” of participation by users in design

SmallBlueunderstanding your social network, locating expertise

Mechanisms to locate skills and affinity groups across IBM Capture tacit knowledge without requiring user to proactively enter data in a separate

repository Bring transparent and secure information sharing to Notes and Sametime

Bee Hivevirtual office walls and desks

Shared pictures of company events, families and friends, and “What I did on my vacation” Jokes, philosophies, experience reports Ad hoc events convened electronically

Virtual World Games

Virtual World Technologies

Open Source Software Development

Social Networking

Defense, Medical, Corporate, Entertainment

Collaboration, Training, Distance Learning, Marketing

Key aspects of the virtual world experience

• Interacting in a virtual world provides a strong feeling of being in the same place with other people

• There is an ability to distance oneself from current real life situations through projection of self onto an avatar

• Intimacy and trust are often easier to achieve in a virtual world• Anonymous interactions can be supported, if desired• Official hierarchy and rank can be downplayed or hidden• Virtual objects and environment can be used as a kind of “memory palace”• Shared vivid experiences are engaging and memorable• Serious work can be commingled with fun and entertainment• Objects can be uses as visual ontologies• Animation of avatars can express limited emotional nuance• There are infinite degrees of freedom to design the visual experience, from

real life replicas to fanciful things and places that could only exist in virtual space

• It is possible to manifest community boundaries and boundary-spanning objects

• Multi-media (streaming audio, video and machinima) close the loop between real world and the virtual world

• External application logic can be invoked from inside a virtual space• A game paradigm (competition with rules and constraints) is an option

• Manner of use– Artifacts

• Utilitarian or aesthetic• Past, present or future• Real world renderings or fanciful creations

– Activities• Performance • Simulation • Collaboration

– Simple meetings– Conferences – Joint development of intellectual content

• Focus of use– Mode of engagement

• Uses -- VW is used in conjunction with other activities• Within -- VW is the place to conduct business• About -- Virtual space is the business opportunity

– Issues addressed• Long list, started on the next slide

Taxonomy of usage of virtual world technology

• Technology – Hardware, software, and hosting for VW• Physical world simulations – Power plants, refineries, etc.• Marketing

– Branding statements – static displays, interactive events– Market research

• Product sales – Channel for real-world products • Services

– Social services – Public services by jurisdictions, non-profit, NGOs – Business services – Accounting, law, consulting,– Personal services – Medical, fashion, personal shopping– Education – Academic institutions and corporate education

• Travel-cost offset – Commuting, long-distance travel

Open for business – virtual world opportunity areas

33

Molecule

rezzers

34

IT-oriented simulations

35

Grand Slam tennis

36

Circuit City

37

IBM Innovation Jam results:

Funding for ‘3D Internet’

38

IBM

Business Center

39

IBM’s entry into the virtual world was aided immensely by the New Media Consortium

• The NMC complex of islands is growing rapidly

• The original campus was the model for IBM’s Almaden Island

http://www.nmc.org/

40

Rehearsal Services

41

VUC weekly meeting adjourns outside Jacob Hall to salute Ada Alfa’s impending nuptials!

You know you’ve ended a successful meeting when a party breaks out, complete with dance floor & disco ball.

42

I chose to live in a place that has interesting neighbors!

Features of this location in the Yurim sim

• Near Jnana software• Art• Orientation trail• Meeting space• Professor from GWU• SL Herald managing editor• Space for the pirate ship …

43

The virtual world converged with the real world in the form of a visit to Almaden Research Lab by a well-known RL and SL artist

44

The first time this presentation was given in 3D – on Info Island

Logical architecture for an important new business platform

3D models

Video

Text

Image

Audio

ContentManagement/

Source Control

Composing

AssetConversion

Pipeline/Build

Multi-repository

SearchMiddleware

Digital RightsSystem

Business Rights System

Persistence Storage

Rich Media Creation Asset Managment

Protection Infrastructure Delivery Devices

Clustering

Create Manage Distribute & Transact

Business Support Systems, Operational Support Systems

Application Integration Middleware

Scripting

Animation

World Editing

Coding

AI

Rendering StateReplication

World State

InfrastructureServices

Physics

WAN/LAN

Set-TopBox

PC

Animation

Console

AI

Rendering StateReplication

World State

InfrastructureServices

Physics

*

*

*

*CommonServices

ManagedHosting

OtherDevices

LobbyServices

Proxy/Edge server

Streaming Media Server

WorldAggregation

Mapping technologies to a logical architecture

3D models

Video

Text

Image

Audio

ContentManagement/

Source Control

Composing

AssetConversion

Pipeline/Build

Multi-repository

SearchMiddleware

Digital RightsSystem

Business Rights System

Persistence Storage

Rich Media Creation Asset Managment

Protection Infrastructure Delivery Devices

Clustering

Create Manage Distribute & Transact

Business Support Systems, Operational Support Systems

Application Integration Middleware

Scripting

Animation

World Editing

Coding

AI

Rendering StateReplication

World State

InfrastructureServices

Physics

WAN/LAN

Set-TopBox

PC

Animation

Console

AI

Rendering StateReplication

World State

InfrastructureServices

Physics

*

*

*

*CommonServices

ManagedHosting

OtherDevices

LobbyServices

Proxy/Edge server

Streaming Media Server

WorldAggregation

3DSBlender

MPEG-4

HTML

JPEGPNG

MP3

MayaBlender

X3DBSP

Collada

X3D SAILUA, Python

C#, Java

X3D MPEG-4Collada

X3D H-ANIMCollada

C/C++XNA/C#

Java

ColladaXNA Build

CVSSVN

UMIAMPEG-7

???

???

HLAX3D

HLA/DIS

X3DXNA/DirectX

OpenGLHLSL/OGSL

OpenSGOpenAL

PhysXHavok

???

Hibernate

SQLNFS

MPI

CIM

IMS/SIPVoIP/XMPP

PKIWS-*/REST

J2EE.NETOSGi

MPEG-4

OMAGameSpyXbox Live

BigWorldSecondLife

SOE

Power,CellIntel, nVidia, ATI

LinuxWindowsPower, Cell

Intel

LinuxWindows

Enterprise architectures are structurally coupled to ICT architectures

• We are operating from these definitions: – “Structural coupling is the term for structure-determined (and structure-determining)

engagement of a given unity with either its environment or another unity. The process of engagement which effects a ...history or recurrent interactions leading to the structural congruence between two (or more) systems". (Maturana, 1987)

– It is “...a historical process leading to the spatio-temporal coincidence between the changes of state” (Maturana, 1975) in the participants. As such, structural coupling has connotations of both coordination and co-evolution. (Thellefsen, on-line)

– Niklas Luhmann has repurposed Maturana’s concept specifically for social systems theory. Luhmann described structurally coupled systems as being in a state of mutual irritation and resonance. “Structural coupling is a state in which two systems shape the environment of the other in such a way that both depend on the other for continuing their autopoiesis and increasing their structural complexity.” (Moeller, 2006)

• Enterprises and technologies are rapidly co-evolving, enabled by such technologies as Web 2.0 and virtual worlds.

• The generation coming into the workforce expects to find such technical affordances in the workplace.

• Technology is not an inert enabler, but through an ecosystem of technological specialists is itself composed of an accountable set of human enterprises.

• Sociable technologies are coupled to the functions of enterprise that project the self of individuals and organizations into a globally open market of services and collaboration.

The question is how best to use architectural constructs to explore structural coupling

• For the era of sociality, we need to look beyond the org chart and operational procedures to achieve effective design and technology introduction.

• Close attention to cultural and power architectures is necessary to perform interventions that result in healthy viability of organizations, and achievement of the desires that people seek from enterprise.

• Examples abound. – The challenge of the U.S. intelligence services, before and after the creation of the

Department of Homeland Security can be seen as a cultural challenge as much as a technical information access problem.

– The uneasy marriage known as Daimler-Chrysler was a clash of cultures that is not uncommon in mergers and acquisitions of business enterprises.

– The aftermath of the IBM acquisition of PriceWaterhouseCoopers Consulting is a classic example of “right vs. right” (Moulton-Reger, 2007) ways of addressing enterprise efforts.

• Disparate ways of working (practices and cultural factors) often jeopardize the most well intended of joint projects, even when each competing set of cultural practices has proven successful (right) within its own realm.

• Based on the coevolutionary nature of structural coupling, we can predict with confidence that technological “irritation” will generally whet the appetite for more fully functional affordances.

• On the other hand, there is always the chance that some irritation (in the form of ICT) will strike a countercultural nerve, and be rejected by the community of potential users.

An example of social intelligence design: Pathways to Wellbeing

• This project led by Flinders University in Adelaide is based on explicit recognition of a whole range of issues, local to global, that are currently putting stress on societal institutions

• Based on Janet McIntyre-Mills’s books, Systemic Governance and Accountability and User Centric Policy Design to Address Complex Needs (in press)

• The team has addressed the “wickedly complex” problem in Australia of effective delivery of social services to the Aboriginal population

• The approach taken is based on co-production of individualized strategies to optimize service delivery designed to enhance the wellbeing of service users

• Innovations of e-governance and e-democracy that involve service users, case workers, service providers, and policy makers are being tested in practice

• The research is centered on a paradigm of pathways that service users navigate through choices that put factors in or out of their lives in order to improve their wellbeing

• Based on collective experience and individual preferences, specific pathways to wellbeing are tailored for each person

• A key design point has been to put much of the complexity into the content itself– The tool supports evolution through learning detailed personal stories– Stories are captured and characterized in a database– Individualized and aggregated inferences can be drawn from this ever-increasing base

of experience• This process of learning from the users of system helps the continued refinement

of the definition of wellbeing and of patterns of support• A key finding of the program to date is the importance of providing social services

that are both integrated and welcoming from the point of view of the user.

http://www.socsci.flinders.edu.au/av/pathways/binder.php

Some ideas for integrating VW into Pathways to Wellbeing

• Visualize a pathway moving over a landscape– The user can navigate through choice-points, symbolized by path branches– It would be possible to take one branch, experience that for awhile, and then return

and take a different branch– There can be voices and images that enrich the vividness of the pathway choices over

time through the flowering of experience – Along the way there could be multi-media experiences – video and machinima of

service locations and interactions• The same pathway logic can be used over time with interchangeable cultural

visualizations – e.g., lockers could be substituted for baskets– countryside could match a real geographic locale – building styles can be selected according to community or service designer

preferences– avatar design and clothing can be culture-specific

• A game, with rules, goals and constraints, could take users through scenarios of putting things in and out of their lives and creating results in a way that stimulates competitive impulses

• Virtual worlds can provide space for reflecting the diversity of domains to be governed and the governance itself– This could be abstract but visual, or it could have animated scenarios– A possibility would be a 3-dimensional modeling tool that uses the Viable Systems

Model (VSM) paradigm– A virtual space that has user design tools can allow people in the governed space to

portray the diversity that they deal with in their situations

With social intelligence we are dealing with the softest (and most challenging) situations *

• Hard technology relates to the tools, implements, machines, devices and equipment that are the physical embodiment of technology, and/or technological process based on engineering techniques and principles …

• Soft technology, in contrast, is the ‘scaffolding’ (support systems, group process techniques, design methodologies, decision making processes) for individual and collective self-determination …

• The development of soft technologies goes hand in hand with the appearance of new challenges and opportunities in society

* Alexander Laszlo and Kathia Castro Laszlo, various publications

We need to consider why it is that we have not met the challenge of matching technological intelligence with a commensurate advancement in sociocultural intelligence and wisdom.

Tentative conclusions and issues

• We have big challenges of managing effects at the intersection of evolving social and technological forms

• How can we build on everything we know to enhance social intelligence through technology?

• Is it possible to design technology to project socio-neurology?– Avatars designed to project positive behavior– Tele-video that seamlessly projects multiple real-time video images of

people into shared virtual workspaces

• Do we care about measuring social intelligence? Is this important to design properly?