PCS11, More on collaborative games

Product Camp Seattle 11 (#PCS11)

Two years ago I planned to run up to Seattle from LA for PCamp Seattle 09. I put up a survey to find out what presentations I should propose. That survey gave little guidance to the preparations. Then, life happened, and I ended up in Texas, so being a Rand McNally trip plan dreamer, I put a trip plan together that would take me across some states I’ve not been to before like Wyoming and Montana. That PCamp was held in early October. I was a warned of snow. See the first trip plan. I drove the Junction to Ballinger route the last time I left California. I’m not going that way again. This year, I’ll take the Austin to Brownwood route, my usual route to Santa Fe when I lived in Austin. I’m uncertain as to Lubbock to Muleshoe or Dalhart. I might try to hit the drive-in movie in Abilene this time if it isn’t closed for the season. The Capulin volcano and Raton pass always beckon.  And, I’m definitely stopping in Boulder on the way up. Who knows, I may dance a few tangos in Denver.

Anyway, more life happened, so I ended up routing through California and going back to California for a while, instead of returning to Texas. I’ve still not made it to Wyoming and Montana. I ended up back in Texas.

I missed PCamp Seattle 10. But, I’ll make it back this year. I’m definitely going to make it to PCS11. I’m still wondering about what to present.

The presentation I didn’t give at OC PCamp 10 was too long in terms of delivery time, and it wasn’t particularly interactive, “So you don’t have a market, Great!”.

I’ll write a Product Strategist post to introduce whatever I decide to talk about at PCS11.

Collaborative Games

Kenny Bastani’s comment to my earlier post needed a follow-up post to answer the issues raised. We tweeted it out instead. The question did take me to some interesting questions.

I started out with a list, but that struck me as too simple. Then, it was a normal-form game. Then, back to a collaborative game. Each line in the Shapely Value polygon is recursive, yet another Shapely Value polygon.

In the midst of the search for an answer for Kenny, the Fujuyama nuclear plant caused Toyota to halt production, because of supply chain interruptions. JIT logistics is the kind of efficiency that you get from the equilibriums of pure strategies derived from the normal form of a competitive game. You get to those equilibriums by eliminating alternatives that are dominated, or dominating depending on the role of those alternatives. We seek an optimal solution, a single source. But, here is a risk that wasn’t accounted for in the game, so the game must stop for a while. Call this risk a black swan, or a thick tailed distribution.

A mixed strategy solution to a normal form game would approach the outcomes of a pure strategy, but not exceed it. A mixed strategy would generate a solution in terms of area, where the pure strategy gives us a point solution. The point solution gave Toyota the JIT logistics. The point solution eliminated the opportunity to leverage the alternatives that dominated and dominating removed from the solution set. Shapely Values generate solutions in term of area just like a mixed strategy, but more so.

I’ll leave my discussion with Kenny in my timeline. He posed interesting question that took him one place and myself to another. I took Kenny to be asking about orchestration, something very important to product managers. Orchestration is the place where inter-organizational work happens, so it is the deepest depth at which an application can provide value. I’ve talked about process orchestration and choreography in posts on the Triangle Model, which I don’t particularly write about in this blog, because it was a core theme in earlier blogs for many years. I have mentioned the Triangle Model in the following posts:

The recursive nature of Kenny’s Shapely Values would be fractal if the recursions were the same shape as the parent or subsequent children, but that isn’t necessarily the case. The recursions hint towards grammar.

To get to process orchestration and choreography, you work out from the interface into what would be a core of a Shapely Value. For my purposes, since the Triangle Model is a decision tree, that core would delineate the decisions necessary to create that value in depth, a depth starting at the view or interface and working outward in layers: features; tool (artificial) tasks; user tasks; work design (intra-organizational); work (intra-organizational)–collaborative, if you will, or sequentially pipelined; inter-organizational work design; and inter-organizational work.

When dealing with layers, minimal marketable functionality (MMF) would deliver value to a defined depth across only a few layers. Deeper value takes customer organizations some time to reach, so delaying later, more distant layers makes for a profitable roadmap. Delivering a single layer at a time minimizes expectations. However, tool tasks (carrier) enable user tasks (carried), so a single MMF would have to deliver at least those two layers. Notice also that Gartner’s Hype Cycle is about value in depth.

Carrier and carried denote the components of any media, or my software as media framework. All software is media, not just those that are obviously media.

I’ve been through a huge change during my absence. Many new questions and insights arose in that time. Ask a question. Post a comment. I’ll answer. We’ll learn together. Thanks!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: