Explore the vast range of titles available.

Shared understanding has been claimed to be crucial for effective collaboration of researchers and practitioners. Heterogeneity in work groups further strengthens the challenge of integrating understanding among diverse group members. Nevertheless, shared understanding and especially its formation are largely unexplored. After conceptualizing shared understanding, we apply collaboration engineering to derive a validated collaboration process module (compound thinkLet \"MindMerger\") to systematically support heterogeneous work groups in building shared understanding. We conduct a large-scale action research study at a German car manufacturing company. The evaluation indicates that with the use of MindMerger, team learning behaviors occur, and shared understanding of the tasks in complex work processes increases among experienced diverse tool and dye makers. Thus, the validated compound thinkLet MindMerger provides designers of collaborative work practices with a reusable module of activities to solve clarification issues in group work early on. Furthermore, findings from the field study contribute to the conceptualization of the largely unexplored phenomenon of shared understanding and its formation.

IntroductionCo-production is gaining increasing recognition as a good way of facilitating collaboration among different stakeholders, including members of the public. However, it remains an ambiguous concept as there is no definitive or universal model of co-production or clarity on what constitutes a good co-production approach. This paper draws on the reflections of the academic researchers, practitioners and public advisors involved in co-producing a priority-setting exercise. The exercise was conducted by the Primary and Community Health Services (PCHS) Theme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration for Kent, Surrey and Sussex (NIHR ARC KSS).MethodsWe collected data through written and verbal reflections from seven collaborators involved in the PCHS priority-setting exercise. We used Gibbs' model of reflection to guide the data collection. We then analysed the data through an inductive, reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsA common thread through our reflections was the concept of ‘sharing’. Although co-production is inherently shared, we used the virtuous cycle to illustrate a sequence of sharing concepts during the research cycle, which provides the underpinnings of positive co-production outcomes. We identified six themes to denote the iterative process of a shared approach within the virtuous cycle: shared values, shared understanding, shared power, shared responsibilities, shared ownership and positive outcomes.ConclusionOur results present a virtuous cycle of co-production, which furthers the conceptual underpinnings of co-production. Through our reflections, we propose that positive co-production outcomes require foundations of shared values and a shared understanding of co-production as a concept. These foundations facilitate a process of shared power, shared responsibilities and shared ownership. We argue that when these elements are present in a co-production exercise, there is a greater potential for implementable outcomes in the communities in which the research serves and the empowerment of collaborators involved in the co-production process.Public Members' ContributionsThree members of the public who are public advisors in the NIHR ARC KSS were involved in the priority-setting exercise that informed this paper. The public advisors were involved in the design of the priority-setting exercise and supported participants' recruitment. They also co-facilitated the focus groups during data collection and were involved in the data analysis, interpretation and preparation of the priority-setting report. For this current manuscript, two of them are co-authors. They provided reflections and contributed to the writing and reviewing of this manuscript.

The success of software projects depends on developing a system that satisfies the stakeholders’ wishes and needs according to their mental models of the intended system. However, stakeholders may have misaligned mental models of the same system, resulting in conflicting requirements. For this reason, a shared understanding of the project vision is essential for the success of software projects. While it is already challenging to achieve shared understanding in synchronous contexts, such as meetings, it is even more challenging when only asynchronous contexts, like messaging services, are possible. When multiple stakeholders are involved from different locations and time zones, primarily asynchronous communication occurs. The use of asynchronous communication tools for the development of a shared understanding has hardly been analyzed. In this paper, we look to turn the potential detriment of having to discuss a project vision asynchronously into an opportunity for stakeholders to achieve a shared understanding. For this purpose, we give an overview of common challenges of asynchronous communication. We also propose five concepts designed to minimize the impact of these challenges. We examine categories of asynchronous communication tools and assess their adaptability to our concepts. In a workshop, we chose three most suited representatives to include in our main experiment. In this experiment, we evaluate the adapted representatives and a prototype of our own with 30 participants. Our results show the suitability of our concepts. Participants using our concepts were able to achieve a higher level of shared understanding.

To what extent do classical chamber musicians converge in their characterisations of what just happened in their live duo performance, and to what extent do audience members agree with the performers’ characterisations? In this study a cello-piano duo performed Schumann’s Phantasiestücke, Op. 73, no. 1 as part of their conservatory studio class in which members critique performances in development. Immediately after, the listeners and players individually characterised what had most struck them about the performance, first writing comments from memory and then marking scores while listening to a recording on their personal devices. They all then rated (on a 5-point scale) their agreement with comments by two other class members. Findings demonstrate that classical chamber performers can characterise the performance quite differently than their partner does and that they can disagree with a number of their partner’s characterisations, corroborating previous findings in case studies of jazz performance. Performers’ characterisations can overlap less in which moments strike them as worthy of comment and in their content than their listeners’ characterisations do, and they can agree with a non-partner’s characterisations more than with their partner’s characterisations. At the same time, the data show that listeners who have played the piece before—though not necessarily those who play the same kind of instrument (strings vs. piano)—can be more likely to endorse comments by others who have also played the piece before, even if the comments they make don’t overlap with each other more in timing, content or theme.

Building a shared understanding of non-functional requirements (NFRs) is a known but understudied challenge in requirements engineering, primarily in organizations that adopt continuous software engineering (CSE) practices. During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many CSE organizations complied with working remotely due to the imposed health restrictions; many organizations continue to work remotely while implementing business processes to facilitate team communication and productivity. In remote CSE organizations, managing NFRs becomes more challenging due to the limitations of team communication. While previous research has identified the factors that lead to a lack of shared understanding of NFRs in CSE, we still have a significant gap in understanding how CSE organizations, particularly in remote work, build a shared understanding of NFRs. We conduct a 6-month ethnography-informed case study of a remote CSE organization. We identify a number of practices for building a shared understanding of NFRs, such as validating NFRs through feedback. We also studied the practices of remote collaboration and in particular, the use and affordances offered by the collaborative workspace Gather that the organization used for remote interaction; our findings suggest that it allows for informal communications instrumental for building shared understanding. In addition, we describe the limitations to building a shared understanding of NFRs in the organization, such as gaps in communication and the limited understanding of customer context. Furthermore, we conducted further interviews to validate our findings for relevance and to gain additional insights into the shared understanding of NFRs within the organization. As actionable insights, we discuss our findings in light of proactive practices that represent opportunities for software organizations to invest in building a shared understanding of NFRs in their development.

Background and Aims Communication is important in determining how patients understand the diagnostic process. Empirical studies involving direct observation of communication within diagnostic processes are relatively limited. This ethnographic study aimed to identify communicative practices facilitating or inhibiting shared understanding between patients and doctors in UK acute secondary care settings. Methods Data were collected in acute medical sectors of three English hospitals. Researchers observed doctors as they assessed patients; semistructured interviews were undertaken with doctors and patients directly afterwards. Patients were also interviewed 2–4 weeks later. Case studies of individual encounters (consisting of these interviews and observational notes) were created, and were cross‐examined by an interdisciplinary team to identify divergence and convergence between doctors' and patients' narratives. These data were analysed thematically. Results We conducted 228 h of observation, 24 doctor interviews, 32 patient interviews and 15 patient follow‐up interviews. Doctors varied in their communication. Patient diagnostic understanding was sometimes misaligned with that of their doctors; interviews revealed that they often made incorrect assumptions to make sense of the fragmented information received. Thematic analysis identified communicative practices that seemed to facilitate, or inhibit, shared diagnostic understanding between patient and doctor, revealing three themes: (1) communicating what has been understood from the medical record, (2) sharing the thought process and diagnostic reasoning and (3) closing the loop and discharge communication. Shared understanding was best fostered by clear communication about the diagnostic process, what had already been done and what was achievable in acute settings. Written information presents an underutilised tool in such communication. Conclusions In UK acute secondary settings, the provision of more information about the diagnostic process often fostered shared understanding between doctor and patient, helping to minimise the confusion and dissatisfaction that can result from misaligned expectations or conclusions about the diagnosis, and the uncertainty therein. Patient/Public Contribution A patient and public involvement group (of a range of ages and backgrounds) was consulted. They contributed to the design of the protocol, including the timing of interviews, the acceptability of a follow‐up telephone interview, the development of the interview guides and the participant information sheets.

In the Canadian Arctic, we posit that locally-relevant Indigenous data governance frameworks are necessary in light of a paucity of guiding practices and policies for environmental researchers working in partnership with communities. To centre data governance decision-making in a community and to support Indigenous self-determination as affirmed in federal commitments, Fisheries and Oceans Canada researchers and the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee (Paulatuk, Inuvialuit Settlement Region) co-developed a data governance Statement of Shared Understanding for Traditional Knowledge Documentation specific to an interview project. We detail the steps and dialogue that characterized the creation of this statement over several months, so that others may build from these efforts when appropriate. Second, we highlight five emergent considerations that may strengthen future data governance efforts and inform policy, including: community and project context, the changing digital landscape, individual and collective knowledge protections, planned project outputs, and confidentiality and anonymity nuances. We offer these insights to advance evolving Indigenous data governance conversations, initiatives, and policies in institutional and community spaces.

Co-management is increasingly seen as a way forward in natural resource management and collective goods provisioning, especially in the management of urban commons. Co-management entails sharing of power between actors, including elements such as exchange of information and resources as well as changes in regulations favouring the development of common goals among actors. In this paper, we try to understand if and how preconditions of legitimacy, shared understanding and exchange of resources combine to facilitate the co-management of lakes in Greater Bengaluru Metropolitan Region (GBMR), India. To understand these issues, we undertook an exploratory, qualitative analysis of the governance of three lakes located within a single watershed placed along an urban-rural gradient. We provide an exploratory assessment of co-management across the cases situated in diverse contexts, highlighting the importance of heterogeneity of socio-economic settings for co-management of lakes. Community involvement in co-management varies with heterogeneity, correspondingly increasing transaction costs. In urbanising contexts, state actors have started to recognise the political efficacy of non-state actors mobilising knowledge and financial resources for lake management. Involvement of the state custodian and third-sector organisations (NGOs) was found to be crucial in developing and facilitating shared understanding. Deliberation between mutually dependent state and non-state actors was key to overcoming scepticism in order to realign actor perspectives. We highlight that increased acceptance of community participation based on the development of a collective identity and understanding of mutual dependence observed in our urban and rural cases reduced transaction costs and thus enabled co-management.

Alignment of information systems (IS) strategy with business strategy is a top concern of both the chief information officer (CIO) and the top management team (TMT) of organizations. Even though researchers and key decision makers in organizations recognize the importance of IS strategic alignment, they often struggle to understand how this alignment is created. In this paper, we develop a nomological network in which shared understanding between the CIO and TMT about the role of IS in the organization (which represents the social dimension of IS strategic alignment) is posited to be a proximal antecedent of the intellectual dimension of IS strategic alignment. We further posit that shared language, shared domain knowledge manifest in the CIO's business knowledge and the TMT's strategic IS knowledge, systems of knowing (structural and social), and CIO-TMT experiential similarity are important determinants of this shared understanding. Data were collected from 243 matched CIO-TMT pairs. Results largely support the proposed nomological network. Specifically, shared understanding between the CIO and TMT is a significant antecedent of IS strategic alignment. Furthermore, shared language, shared domain knowledge, and structural systems of knowing influence the development of shared understanding between the CIO and the TMT. Contrary to expectations and to findings of prior research, social systems of knowing, representing informal social interactions between the CIO and TMT, and experiential similarity did not have a significant effect on shared understanding.

Sustainable ecosystem management relies on a diverse and multi-faceted knowledge system in which techniques are continuously updated to reflect current understanding and needs. The challenge is to minimize delay as ideas flow from intent through scientific capability, and finally to implementation to achieve desired outcomes. The best way to do this is by setting the stage for the flow of knowledge between researchers, policy makers, and resource managers. The cultural differences between these groups magnify the challenge. This paper highlights the importance of the tacit dimension of knowledge, and how this renders the concept of knowledge transfer much less useful than the concepts of information transfer and technology transfer. Instead of knowledge transfer, we propose that “co-production” of knowledge through collaborative learning between “experts” and “users” is a more suitable approach to building a knowledge system for the sustainable management of ecosystems. This can be achieved through knowledge interfacing and sharing, but requires a shift from a view of knowledge as a “thing” that can be transferred to viewing knowledge as a “process of relating” that involves negotiation of meaning among partners. Lessons from informal communities of practice provide guidance on how to nurture and promote knowledge interfacing between science and management in R&D programs.