Summary: I spin tales about the utility of Instant Messenger's in Knowledge-Making/Research (KMR) endeavors. They, too, like wki's, weblogs, email, listserves and telephones seem to have a "proper" place in the process. Naturally there are misuses of Instant Messengers too. For example, techno-love struck IM chatters will get as little research accomplished as the compulsive phone networker. Too much of the talk; too little of the idea wrestling.

In a December entry I explained, and illustrated, a small group knowledge-making / research (KMR) process model. I added that the small group process could be multipled for larger projects (involving ,for example, 2 - 6 disinct KMR projects).

In my above-referenced  entry I noted:

…if the issue really is expanding individual and collective knowledge, then the inter-blogger steps are a "surface" process which is an overlay on another, less accessible phenomenon, namely, a group's acquisition of new (at least to its members) and goal-related knowledge. IMHO the explanation of the blogging process in this context would be better served if some explanation of essential knowledge-making actions were folded into, or at least linked to from within, the discussion of sequential blogging behavior.

I followed this expressed concern with my own notetaking concerning the differences between general case blogging and blogging in the context of the KMR process. That, in turn, led to my construction of a process diagram which shows the use of wiki and weblog by separate members of a research team.. That diagram is below.

To review: We now have wiki and weblog involved in distinct ways in a KMR projects. In a larger projects the diagram above might be multiiplied several times for research subgroups.leading to the focused KMR work of (in 6 such groups) 36 people.

This entry's question: How does Instant Messaging (IM) fit into the KMR process? Picture the 36 person situation ... 6 groups of individuals employed to work full-time in some KMR enterprise. In BuddySpace (an open source instant messenger product with a fairly sophisticated ability to indicate degrees of "presence" (readiness/nonreadiness to communicate (to be interrupted)) or Yahoo Messenger, (also with nuanced "presence" indicators) as examples, a KMR has the ability to disturb or be disturbed for the sake of getting or giving information in the here-and-now. Much like the telephone but with more sensitivity to self-perceived interruptibility,

Unlike using the telephone for a real-time communication, which has only "busy" or "ringing" or "leave a message" (if there is an answering machine) as presence indicators, the IM offer the option of more presence indicators (e.g., "available" , "be right back", "stepped out", "on vacation", "Only KMR Workgroup 1" and"back tomorrow" are possibilities.) .

The flow diagram you see below summarizes the IM integration options into the disciplined KMR worklife. It shows IM perspectives for someone who decides s/he has a concern that must be addressed now.

Another possibilitly, the group chat, is for now unexamined. The complexities of setting up a 6 member group meeting on the fly are greater. My experience with setting up class meetings on a chat board (Blackboards) is on-the-fly "don't fly". Too many diverse schedules to interconnect. If all already had overlapping work schedules and had set up some hour as the chat time, if called, might have a greater chance. (You might ask what would motivate such a meeting? One person's perplexity, as before? No! But a timely discussion of a commonly perceived group problem which has come to a head, the arrival of new and immediately effective documentation guidelines from a funding source would be an example.

 

What is left for future consideration is the receiving question paradigm, that is, how does one relate to the prospect of interruption while in various stages of a KMR workday?

* Dave Pollard's analysis of the more general case yields decision flow here