Richard Arthur Cavalier

Isn't too much attention being paid (re: collaboration) to the technology of the computer and to the wonder of its togetherness. . .without considering what's really needed: expertise!

Expertise comes of experience. Yes, anyone's expertise can be shared, compared, bolstered, rejected and/or critiqued by other experts. Collaboration via the computer shortens the process of comparing, but it does not ipso facto generate new and additional expertise in the subject matter under consideration. Expertise is still key. Computer and togetherness are simply easier re: travel and easy-touch.

Yes, a posse of experts should expect to turn up a winning plan most of the time; yet no plan can be pronounced to be expert or adequate simply because it was formed by some collaborating experts. I'm specifically excluding staff program designers who might have no relavent expertise in the subject area under discussion. Designs and plans still need to be vetted, no matter by whom created. . .vetting via the prescripts of military ISD is probably the best method for most users of collaboration as a design tool or method.

It's good for all participants to check out the strictures of ISD before deciding that a togetherness session has produced something more valuable than any individual(s) could do alone or in a small group. For reminders, see the book "Common Sense ISD" on my website: www.meetingsCavalier.com. At the home page, click on "Titles."

I hope that this helps. Sorry that I missed the deadline for this week. Discussion? Arguments?

Richard Arthur Cavalier
richardrthr@yahoo.com