Comments on: The Oscillation Principle by Nancy Dixon

By: Nancy Dixon

Nancy Dixon — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 16:28:53 +0000

Jed, you are right about there being a cost for convening. That cost is often ameliorated by savings in office space.

When I asked Proquest about cost here is the response I got,” “The cost of our team is quite large because we want the best of the best, who are usually freelance people. This means the hourly cost of the team is more than the travel costs.”

The cost, of course, is directly related to the frequency and to the sophistication of the social media used. Proquest at first met 4 times a year, but discovered that they had not finished all the work before they were meeting again so they moved to 3 times a year.The team leader says, “After four months we are out of steam and have a loss of shared sense of direction.” So for the ProQuest team coming together for three days every four months seems the most effective frequency.

By: Jed M. Bellen

Jed M. Bellen — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 03:36:44 +0000

I like this principle “Isolate to concentrate, Convene to collaborate!” However, I can see that there is also “oscillation cost” which need to be managed. By oscillation cost I mean the cost that its takes for the participants to convene. Included in the oscillation cost can be the fare from participant’s residence to the venue of gathering, the logistics necessary and the like.

By: Nancy Dixon

Nancy Dixon — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 18:20:03 +0000

Erhard,
One of phenomenon that happens when people come together for collective sensemaking is a growing sense of community and relationship that ameliorates against the kinds of manipulation who are concerned about. In my own blog there is a full case study of Proquest that explains what happens in those meetings http://www.nancydixonblog.com/2014/05/-proquest-case-study-using-the-oscillation-principle-for-software-development.html. Let me know what you think

By: Nancy Dixon

Nancy Dixon — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 18:13:23 +0000

David,
Thanks for this confirmation with Pentland’s work. I had read an article of his, but now will buy the book. I like your natural ecosystem analogy. I like the steering mechanism analogy as well using March’s work.

By: Erhard Friedberg

Erhard Friedberg — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 14:02:47 +0000

The oscillation principle sounds all great and obvious when it is described as you describe it. However, all this seems to function on the premise that there is no conflict, there is no competition between “knowledgeworker” and that all they are interested in is to further the neds of the company. Sounds like paradise. Maybe Proquest is, but the question is for how long. And are all companies like that? what about cliques, struggles for influence, what about attempts to engineer and or manipulate decisions, what about all the things that make organizations the political entities they are? And how does oscillation deal with that. With more frequent convening?
Another question: Manager as converationbuilder sounds great. But who hands out the bonuses and the penalties? Who evaluates whom. Even old style managers sre more than just problemsolvers – they have, like it or not, a dsiciplinary function. What happens to that in oscillation.

Understand me right. I do not contest oscillation as a reasonable principle, but I have my doubts about the organizational fluidity and elasticity that is a sort of premise for the well functioning of oscillation.

By: David Hurst

David Hurst — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 12:54:15 +0000

Support for the “oscillation principle” is coming from many different places. The theory is supported by the study of natural ecosystems that continually oscillate between long quiet periods of growth and development and rapid bursts of destruction and creation.

Empirical evidence is coming for the work of Sandy Pentland of MIT who hangs “sociometers” round people’s necks to pick up several dimensions of body language. He can predict performance based on the effectiveness with which teams come together to engage and then disperse to explore. We have long known that this engage/ explore pulse is a feature of hunter/gatherer bands as they search for mobile, ephemeral resources in a vast landscape.

See my blog: http://www.davidkhurst.com/the-ecology-of-innovation/

By: Nancy Dixon

Nancy Dixon — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:00:13 +0000

Steve,
By all accounts Marissa Meyer and Yahoo! are both doing very well, but the extent to which it was the result of bringing people in, I haven’t heard.

I’m certainly a fan of pair programming, and like you believe it reduces defects and is a kind of continuous convening. It is a good example of the value of having more than one perspective on an issue, a la Scott Page and cognitive diversity

By: Steve Denning

Steve Denning — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 06:03:04 +0000

Hi Nancy

Nice article. You write: “The normal way of working will be: Isolate to concentrate, Convene to collaborate!” This sounds like a good rule of thumb for many situations.

One question is whether it applies to all situations. For very complex tasks, such as computer programming with very complex problems, particularly where the nature of the problem to be solved isn’t understood in advance, some research suggests that what is known as pair programming, (which is in effect “continuous convening,”) can be more productive than “oscillation” between isolating and convening. To traditional management, this appears to make no sense because it costs more in terms of staff time, but research suggests that pair programming can result in higher quality code with fewer defects to fix, and so in the end is both more efficient and more effective. Does your research shed any light on this?

As to Marisa Meyer and Yahoo: do we know what was the problem she was trying to solve and did her change in policy resolve it?