[I wasn’t sure at first if this was actually new, since Cybersyn crops up so regularly – and has recently been debated in the Systems Thinking Network LinkedIn group, but is seems it is. Cybersyn did crop up with numerous links on model.report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx26zpPg884

many links on this outdated Russian Stafford Beer tribute site: http://ototsky.mgn.ru/it/beer_menu.html

links and discussion https://model.report/s/dvgunx/the_planning_machine_project_cybersyn_and_the_origins_of_the_big_data_nation

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/planning-machine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCO3vXyR-c4]

22 AUGUST 2018

Project Cybersyn: the afterlife of Chile’s socialist internet

Through an electronic “nervous system”, Salvador Allende’s left-wing government anticipated the era of big data.

•  
•  
•  
•  
  • Print HTML

Sign Up

Get the New Statesman’s Morning Call email.

SIGN-UP

Almost 45 years have passed since Salvador Allende’s government was overthrown in an armed coup on 11 September 1973. The late Chilean president and Marxist has long been revered by the left for his democratic credentials – he was elected freely in 1970 – and his tragic martyrdom (he shot himself with an AK-47 after refusing to surrender to Augusto Pinochet’s forces).

Yet until recently, one of his administration’s most remarkable innovations had received little attention. In its efforts to forge a socialist economy, Allende’s government pioneered a technology that anticipated both the internet and the era
of “big data”.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-29/html/container.html

Project Cybersyn, as it was known in English (a portmanteau of “cybernetics” and “synergy”), sought to avoid the waste and inefficiency that characterised the Soviet Union and other communist states, by connecting hundreds of firms to the government through an electronic “nervous system”. A national network of 500 telex machines collected real-time data from factories, such as production output, energy use and labour levels, and transmitted it to two mainframe computers in the Santiago-based control room.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rather than empowering an overmighty state, the aim was to encourage the free exchange of information and worker participation in planning and management.

This largely forgotten model is now being heralded by a new generation of tech-savvy leftists. Next month The World Transformed, the festival held on the Labour conference fringe, will host a session on “cybernetic socialism” featuring Raúl Espejo, the original operations director of Project Cybersyn.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-29/html/container.html

The programme was the creation of Stafford Beer, a British consultant and the founder of “management cybernetics” (which he defined as “the science of effective organisation”). Beer, who argued with acute prescience that “information is a national resource” and coined the term “data highway”, was approached in 1971 by Fernando Flores, Chile’s production development co-ordinator, who later became finance minister. By the end of that year, Allende’s government had nationalised more than 150 companies, including 12 of the 20 largest Chilean firms. Flores recognised that to defy free-market critics – who warned of the fallacy of disregarding price mechanisms – the fledgling administration would need help.

Beer, an imposing, gregarious man (who in his later years cultivated a beard of Tolstoyan length), agreed to assist in exchange for a daily fee of $500 and a regular flow of wine, cigars and chocolate. “He was at the top of his capabilities,” Espejo recalled when we spoke on the phone.

“He had an extraordinary ability to work 20 hours a day and to produce reports for us at a speed that would take me a year. I was absolutely astounded.” (David Bowie would later include Beer’s Brain of the Firm on a list of his favourite books.)

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-29/html/container.html

As well as the telex network, Project Cybersyn also featured an economic simulator to model alternative policies. But its enduring face was the hexagonal, Star Trek-like operations room, which featured mounted screens and seven white fibreglass swivel chairs (regarded as optimal for creativity) with inbuilt push-buttons.

The programme was initially viewed with traditionalist scepticism by Allende’s Socialist Party. But Project Cybersyn’s hour arrived in October 1972 during a strike of 40,000 truck drivers led by the hard-right Confederación Nacional del Transporte. As Allende’s opponents sought to wreck the economy by preventing the transport of food and raw materials, Cybersyn was deployed to underwrite the resistance. Through the electronic network, the government was able to co-ordinate deliveries by active trucks and to evade blockades. “We felt that we were in the centre of the universe,” Espejo remarked.

After 24 days, the strike was defeated. Ministers then became “much more interested” in Cybersyn, Espejo told me. Allende even proposed transferring the operations room to La Moneda, the presidential palace.

On 10 September 1973, the government finally prepared to install an upgraded version of the system. But the following day, with the connivance of the CIA, Pinochet’s forces stormed the palace and bombed it from the air. In “Why Allende had to die”, a New Statesman essay published in March 1974, Gabriel García Márquez observed: “The most dramatic contradiction of [Allende’s] life was being at the same time the congenital foe of violence and a passionate revolutionary.”

The ascendance of Pinochet’s new military junta divided Cybersyn allies. Some urged the regime to maintain the system, while others feared the consequences of allowing it to be exploited. Yet the dilemma was swiftly resolved: Pinochet’s ultra-free-market government, inspired by the economic theories of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, crudely dismantled the project.

Espejo, who was warned by military officials to leave Chile, fled to England two months after the coup, where he later became a professor of systems and cybernetics at the University of Lincoln.

Project Cybersyn was far from an unqualified success. It was hindered by Chile’s technological limitations (worsened by a US boycott) and was prone to delays. But in its ambition, and its noble ideals, it provided a glimpse of a daringly alternative order: one in which humans are the masters, rather than the slaves, of machines.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Source: Project Cybersyn: the afterlife of Chile’s socialist internet

[via @kvistgaard – Ivo Velitchkov on Twitter]

THE SELF AND THE OTHER: THE PURPOSE OF DISTINCTION
RANULPH GLANVILLE

Programma OOC, University of Amsterdam,
Grote Bickersstraat 72, Amsterdam 1015 KS, The Netherlands
and
School of Architecture, Portsmouth Polytechnic,
King Henry I St, Portsmouth PO1 2DY, UK

“The end is in the beginning, and yet you go on.” Samuel Beckett, Endgame [0].

ABSTRACT
In this paper, the nature of distinction drawing, in the sense of George Spencer
Brown, is examined with special reference to the distinction between the self and the
other. It is noted that a distinction, which must draw its self, also requires an other and a
transfer distinction, both within a particular distinction and for that distinction to be part
of, and that these can generate the purpose of the distinction as becoming, of, by and for
itself.

(pdf) http://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/494c.content.pdf

[Not sure what to make of this – but that makes it interesting!]

MULTIPLE DATES

The System Transformation Masterclass: Systems Leadership at Scale

by Stanford ChangeLabs

$2,850 – $3,350

Mon, Sep 24 (9:00 AM)

Thu, Sep 27 (9:00 AM)

Why do some businesses, strategies, products and initiatives thrive while others never achieve scale?

The difference lies in understanding how to design for scale and being able to lead teams to influence system wide change.

The upcoming Masterclass “Systems Leadership at Scale” will expose you to the radical shift from traditional leadership models towards the new standard for leadership in the 21st Century. In this two-module set:

– “Designing the Scale Advantage” will give you insights and principles for imparting scale deep in your strategies and organizations.

– “Mastering Systems Leadership” brings you into a leadership model that is of critical importance in an era marked by complexity, change, and ambiguity. We will equip you with new leadership frameworks, tools, and mindsets that will give your organization the capacity to reduce critical risks and unlock massive business and impact opportunities.

Attending a single module will earn you a certificate of participation for that module issued by Stanford ChangeLabs. Attending all three modules in the Masterclass series (along with the System Acupuncture I module – offered again in early 2019) will earn you a System Transformation Leadership Certificate.

Seats are limited so make sure to secure a seat!

Designing the Scale Advantage:
September Mon 24 – Tue 25

Why do some businesses, strategies, products, and initiatives, never achieve scale? 
In most cases, it is because they were not designed with scale in their DNA. Rather than leaving scale to a downstream phase, our approach creates the pre-conditions for scale, and then bakes in the propensity for scale early in the strategy phase.
Designing the Scale Advantage covers frameworks, principles, and mindsets for designing the scale advantage into your organizations, leadership teams, strategies, and initiatives with ready tools to maximize your organization’s ability to make impact and unlock scaled opportunities. This 2-day hands-on module focuses on topics that help you develop scaling strategies for your initiatives, products, and organization.

Mastering Systems Leadership:
September Thu 27 – Fri 28

What are the key capacities that a leader needs so that their organization can thrive in the 21st century? 
Systems Leadership is a leadership capacity that circumvents the profound limitations of the current leadership models that are simply not suited for the increasing complexity and change of our era. Leaders of the 21st century need to have the confidence and capacity to navigate their organizations and teams through increasingly dynamic, complex, and rapidly changing challenges. Not playing the systems game creates a massive risk on two fronts (a) a risk of being disrupted or made irrelevant, and (b) the risk of not spotting massive opportunities for system change and market creation. Thus, two key capacities that leaders of the 21st century need are:

1. to respond to rapidly change
2. to envision a desired future and innovate practical yet transformative pathways towards achieving it.

Mastering Systems Leadership covers key mindsets and tools that an avant-garde leader need to navigate complex systems to arrive at leveraged intervention designs while building an ecosystem that fosters agility and innovation.

Comments about the System Transformation Masterclass from past participants:

“In my 30 years as an institutional leader, I have attended numerous workshops – this is by far the most outstanding and transformative one”

“The most frame-changing and transformative experience – it changes how I am going to consider my work”

“I realize now that what I have been doing and teaching in the past is completely wrong, and might explain why we get the outcomes that we do”

The experience

Each System Transformation Masterclass module is an intense interactive two-day workshop that will give you deep insights, theoretical principles, powerful frameworks, and hands-on tools that will immediately set you on a pathway to transform your personal and organizational impact.

Who should attend

This is a course for decision makers, strategists, and change-makers who are on a leadership track, who find themselves in dynamic, multi-dimensional, ambiguous, scaled, and complex challenges. This is for leaders who are willing to reframe the game they have been playing, transcend the “Business As Usual”, and build capacity for scaled value creation, resilience, and impact capacity in their teams and organizations.

Prices

We encourage you to take the two modules as a set, but they can be taken as single modules.
Single module price: $3350
Two module bundled price: $5700 (enter the code: TWOMODULE to access the two module bundled price)

Not-for-profit single module price: $2500
Not-for-profit two module bundled price: $4250
(please contact Annette Zou: azou@stanford.edu to access the not-for-profit ticket prices)

Format of the module

Each module is a two-day in-person workshop at Stanford University with a “gap day” between the two for internalizing the big wave of new insights, networking, hatching new plots, or enjoying the Bay Area. Going by our past experiences, your peers in the Masterclass will be as much of a source of information as the instructors are and you are encouraged to join our growing international Systems Leadership community.

The System Transformation Masterclass Series

The System Transformation Masterclass Series is designed to equip leaders and decision makers with a holistic set of techniques, perspectives, and mindsets to play in the systems arena, when change, uncertainty, and scale are important factors. They are System Acupuncture: Rethinking Innovation and Leadership, Designing the Scale Advantage, and Mastering Systems Leadership. Upon completion of all three Modules of the System Transformation Masterclass Series, you will receive a System Transformation Leadership Certificate issued by Stanford ChangeLabs. System Transformation is a deep and extensive field that takes time and practice to develop expertise. The completion of the Masterclass series marks the start of your journey towards System Transformation mastery.

Your Instructor

Banny Banerjee – Director of Stanford ChangeLabs

Banny Banerjee is the Director of Stanford ChangeLabs, which advances innovation methodologies for complex, and scaled challenges. He is well known for his pioneering work in design thinking and more recently his advanced systems based innovation methodology and Systems Leadership models for large-scale transformations in multi-dimensional challenges. The trans-disciplinary nature of his work, which combines design thinking, technology strategy, business innovation, applied social psychology, behavioral economics, diffusion theory, and resilience theory, is pioneering the formation of a new type of innovation: “System Acupuncture”.

At Stanford Banny teaches system transformation, business innovation, design thinking, and leadership. His class on “Innovating large scale system transformations” at the d.school has led students to develop scaled initiatives and set them on leadership tracks. He is also a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future’s Council on Systems and Platforms and works with industry leaders in fostering cultures of innovation and Systems Leadership.

A blast from the 90s 🙂

https://www.vam.ac.uk/exhibitions/chance-and-control-art-in-the-age-of-computers

https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChanceandControl?src=hash

cybernetic serendipity – Twitter Search

In the category of ‘is it really systems thinking?’ ‘well, I don’t know, but I’m putting it here anyway’ is commitment-based management. I include a bunch of good links below and would value comments and questions on my commentary here.

This is one of only two management/leadership systems I have *ever* come across which (1) has been actually implemented across whole organisations, in full and (2) has led to significant performance improvements. The other is Jacques’ stratified systems theory and later versions of this in requisite organisation and MacDonald et al System Leadership Theory. Interestingly, both are significantly about clarification of limits and scope of discretion, and engaging discretionary activity. The latter seems to me potentially more ‘complete’ and blending structure, management, and leadership, and technical and social solutions, whereas commitment-based management seems more like an integrative mechanism that could increase performance in any context, but might not shift all those other elements.

I suspect that a third is ‘command and control management’, as originally conceived and named – The Puritan Gift has some potential evidence of this, but I would welcome more.

It can of course be argued – quite powerfully – that some forms of distributed management, as set out for example in Reinventing Organisations, and other documented examples of cooperative and related forms (Gore, that orange company in California). However, while these are great examples of organisational success and sometimes of transformation, I’m not convinced that there is any replicable system (such as Holacracy sets out to be) behind this. Nor am I convinced that the ‘teal’ philosophy or similar provides this kind of potential.

Some will make claims for ‘lean’ and Deming-based management systems. Again, there’s a potential category argument here – are they operations and coordination interventions ‘only’? Do they actual comprise a management/leadership model?

Some might also make claims for Beyond Budgeting, but I think they are weaker in terms of being an actual ‘methodology’. I am sure I am missing some approaches.

Of course, all these are just attempted solutions to the problems of organisational coherence and coordination and managing both hierarchies and networks and their emergent properties, and all are context-dependent and specific. Perhaps I’m just more impressed that commitment-based management and Jacquesian approaches have succeeded in making traditional hierarchies highly functioning. Oh, and ‘agile’ (much like project management) seems to me to be a tactical solution to the same kind of coordination problems.

NB that I do have good evidence that the application of the Viable Systems Model across whole organisations has had similarly impressive effects – but this is more of an organisational structure question than a management or leadership approach, from my perspective

Commitment-based management

https://www.managementexchange.com/hack/commitment-based-management-20-making-and-keeping-commitments

Managing By Commitments – 5 Disruptive Practices To Improve Execution
By David Arella – CEO at 4 Spires, Inc.
June 24, 2011 at 5:40pm

Summary
Failure to execute is the key 21st century management problem. Current work-norms are dysfunctional. There is one profoundly simple thing we can change that will dramatically improve execution – we need to get better at making and keeping commitments. Simple, but radical practices are described. New supporting systems are coming.

Problem
The biggest problem today is not creating visions, nor developing plans. The real problem is a failure to execute. Balls get dropped, deadlines are missed, deliveries are half-done, priorities constantly change, projects overrun budgets, initiatives don’t get accomplished. And it’s easy to see why. We have an overload of messages and communication to wade through. Communication about execution is more and more conducted remotely, not face-to-face or even in real time. Coordination is more difficult as organizations become more and more matrixed, and as the need for collaboration increases, personal accountability becomes more diluted and unclear. Employee engagement is in decline. A return to 20th century command and control hierarchy will not work, as today’s workforce wants more influence over decisions that effect their day to day work, not less. The solution is to develop new processes that both improve execution and simultaneously create more commitment.

Solution
Managing by Commitments – A Brief History

Managing by commitments is not a new idea. Commitment Based Management was first introduced as an innovative management practice in the 1980’s with the work of Fernando Flores (UC Berkeley) and Terry Winograd (Stanford). They described a “conversation for action” where two parties make an explicit agreement to deliver a specific outcome by a certain date. The core idea was that the performer was required to negotiate a specific commitment, leading to more buy-in to meeting the commitment and therefore better results and a more collaborative environment. The process of a virtuous conversation between the requester and the performer was defined in three stages: negotiation, delivery, and assessment. Early implementations to enable this process were eventually perceived as too prescriptive and confining, but the core idea offered profound promise.

Twenty-five years later the need for coordination and collaboration has grown many-fold. Accountability is even more diffused. Communication overload has reached epidemic proportions with new and multiple channels operating at once, but the communication is unstructured and not presented in a useful context. Technology advancements enable better access and easier adoption. It’s time to reinvent and reinvigorate management by resurrecting the core principles and practices of Commitment Based Management, but with better implementations.

Commitments Drive Better Execution

There is one profoundly simple thing we can change that will dramatically improve execution – we need to get better at making and keeping commitments. It’s as simple as saying what you’re going to do and then doing what you said. Simple, but not easy.

Scrutiny reveals that our common work norms do not support this principle. In fact, many common work practices actually get in the way. People make vague requests. Actual performers are unspecified. Delivery dates are proposed without confirmation – if they are mentioned at all. Agreements to deliver, when they are obtained, shift and derail without clear dialog. Expressions of satisfaction with the delivery, or of dissatisfaction, are absent. Closure is rarely achieved.

Even worse than these mechanical flaws, we are all familiar with the attendant interpersonal breakdowns. Team members are silent about their cynicism toward a proposed request. Real engagement by employees is lacking, and there is little incentive for contributing any discretionary effort. People work on their favored assignments and leave other tasks to decay. Low trust that deliveries will be met on time forces a need for backup systems and frequent check-ups by “management”.

We all have accepted this dysfunction for a long time. Isn’t it time to disrupt the old system and try something new? Let’s get back to basics and recreate our working relations around the foundational principle of “say what you’re going to do, and do what you said”.

Negotiating a commitment, rather than being coerced or given an assignment has powerful implications. Accountability is increased since the performer has ownership over the commitment (because they had a real part in creating it). Clarity and transparency build trust between both parties. “Requestor” confidence is increased many fold. The quality of the ensuing dialog between performer and requestor removes vague assumptions and instead forms clear and realistic agreements. Our word creates a bond with the other person.

Five Disruptive Practices For Making and Keeping Commitments

Managing by commitments can be readily implemented with a small set of repeatable and observable behaviors. The behaviors are simple, but profound. They are as obvious as they are radical. The following 5 disruptive practices describe what such an approach would look like:

1. Make requests, not assignments. This practice is not limited to hierarchical roles; requests go down, up, and sideways within and outside organizations. Other roles include stakeholders and observers, but let’s be clear on who is being asked to deliver what to whom.

The requester formulates an explicit request (i.e. in the form of a question, not a statement). For example, “Bill, can you get the spec to me by August 1?”; not “Bill, I need the spec by August 1.” Bill responds by making sure he understands the specific details and expectations associated with the request. A clear request is composed with a specific due date.

2. Negotiate clear agreements. This is the part about “saying what you’re going to do.” For delivery dates that you cannot meet, make a counter-promise you can keep. The requester changes from a position of hope (i.e. “I assigned this task to Bill with an August 1 due date, and I’m hoping he will deliver.”), to a position of confidence (i.e. “Bill said an August 1 delivery was really a problem for him, but he committed to getting it to me by August 5”).

Decline the request if you know you will not or cannot deliver. Make no mistake, however, this is a radical notion. Allowing team members at any level to “decline” requests from upper management would be a very disruptive concept in most organizations today. And yet, where performers never have the ability to say NO, there is not the possibility of a committed YES. The practice of negotiating commitments is not one most workers are adept at or even comfortable with; some personal courage is called for. This practice puts the performer more on a peer-to-peer footing with the requester, but yields clear accountability.

3. Keep communication going during the delivery stage. Stuff happens along the way. Agreements are not guarantees that the delivery date will be met, but agreements must be honored in a manner that is far different than failing to deliver on an assignment dropped on your lap without dialog. Having made a promise to deliver, the performer is now obliged to alert their customer as soon as anything comes up that may interfere with meeting their agreement. An observable hallmark of this practice is early notice of potential problems with meeting a commitment.

4. Present the deliverable explicitly. The performer makes a clear statement saying “Here is what I said I would deliver” or “This is why I could not deliver”. This is the essence and evidence of accountability. In our current work norms, this step is frequently “fudged”. Deliveries that are nearly complete slide in more or less on the day they were hoped for. It is rare for a performer to make a clear statement that today I am delivering on the agreement we made.

5. When the requester, always acknowledge and assess the delivery. Honesty and truth demand an assessment as to whether the delivery met the original expectations. Answering the question – were you satisfied? – completes the cycle and assures closure. This underutilized practice is the minimum quid pro quo to the effort of the performer and serves to represent the customer’s accountability to honor the agreement. Moreover, these are the “golden moments” when feedback can enhance both future performance and trust. End-of-year performance reviews have lost much of their value, and this practice heightens the value of more continuous performance feedback.

[a little more in the original]

http://www.vision.com/our-approach/commitment-based-management.aspx
[prime European based proponents and appliers of the model]

Excellent Art Kleiner piece on Flores:
https://www.strategy-business.com/article/09406

Harvard Business Review articles:
https://hbr.org/2003/06/managing-by-commitments
https://hbr.org/2007/04/promise-based-management-the-essence-of-execution

http://www.conversationsforaction.com/
The original thinking as from Fernando Flores

Click to access commitment_based_management_.pdf

pdf overview

A video:

[Someone has asked me about Participatory Mapping – which seems systems thinking-adjacent, or practice-related at least – does anybody know it well and want to recommend technology or methodology? Benjamin]

Participatory Mapping

What is Participatory Mapping?

Participatory mapping – also called community-based mapping – is a general term used to define a set of approaches and techniques that combines the tools of modern cartography with participatory methods to represent the spatial knowledge of local communities. It is based on the premise that local inhabitants possess expert knowledge of their local environments which can be expressed in a geographical framework which is easily understandable and universally recognised. Participatory maps often represent a socially or culturally distinct understanding of landscape and include information that is excluded from mainstream or official maps. Maps created by local communities represent the place in which they live, showing those elements that communities themselves perceive as important such as customary land boundaries, traditional natural resource management practices, sacred areas, and so on.

 

What criteria is there to recognise and denote community maps? 

Participatory mapping is defined by the process of production.The processes used to create the maps can be as valuable as the maps themselves. Participatory maps are planned around a common goal and a strategy for use and are often made with input from an entire community in an open and inclusive process. The higher the level of participation by all members of the community, the more beneficial the outcome because the final map will reflect the collective experience of the group producing the map.

Participatory mapping is a product that represents the agenda of the community. Participatory mapping is map production undertaken by communities to show information that is relevant and important to their needs and is mainly for their use.

Participatory mapping produces maps which depict local knowledge and information.The maps contain a community’s place names, symbols, scales and priority features that represent local knowledge systems.

Participatory mapping is not defined by the level of compliance with formal cartographic conventions. Participatory maps are not confined by formal media; a community map may be a drawing in the sand or may be incorporated into a sophisticated computer-based GIS (geographic information system). Whereas regular maps seek conformity, community maps embrace diversity in presentation and content. That said, to be useful for outside groups such as state authorities, the closer the maps follow recognised cartographic conventions, the greater the likelihood that they will be seen as effective communication tools.

(CTA and IIED, 2006)

Why is it useful? 

In recent years, there has been a growing effort to promote community engagement in decision-making processes concerning natural resource management. Participatory mapping has emerged as a powerful tool that allows remote and marginalised communities to represent themselves spatially, bringing their local knowledge and perspectives to the attention of governmental authorities and decision-makers. For this reason, participatory mapping is commonly used to create maps that represent land and resource use patterns, hazards, community values and perceptions, to gather information on traditional knowledge and practices, to collect data for assessments or monitoring, to present alternative scenarios and to empower and educate stakeholders.

MappingForRights

MappingForRights, an initiative of the Rainforest Foundation UK (RFUK) and local partners, is intended to enable forest communities themselves to demonstrate their presence in the forest; decision-makers and the private sector to take account of and recognise this presence; and to assist the international community in designing programmes concerned with those rights and ensure that forest communities are equitable beneficiaries of future developments.

Since it was launched in 2011, it has supported hundreds of forest communities across the region to produce maps of their lands and resources covering over five million hectares. In 2016, MappingForRights was recognised by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as part of the UN Momentum for Change awards.

View this short video to find out more about participatory mapping in the Congo Basin

Source: Participatory Mapping: presenting spatial knowledge of local communities

[Via David Ing. Academic paywall, unfortunately]

Source: On Evaluating the Scientific Contribution of the Apollo Moon Missions Via Information Theory: A Study of the Scientist-Scientist Relationship | Management Science