►
From YouTube: Social Practice Theory and Transformation with Jabe Bloom Red Hat OpenShift Commons Briefing
Description
Social Practice Theory and Transformation
Jabe Bloom (Red Hat)
Commons Briefing
hosted by Diane Mueller (Red Hat)
July 31 2020
B
B
Luckily,
for
for
me,
part
of
my
dissertation
is
working
with
people
to
help
them
understand
these
ideas.
In
fact,
part
of
the
requirement
for
my
dissertation
is
that
I
show
that
I
have
shared
the
materials
with
practitioners
and
and
potentially
change
their
behaviors.
So
please,
you
know
this
is
material
that
I
would
love
for
you
guys
to
use.
However,
it's
very
important
that
I
get
attribution
for
for
the
phd.
B
We
don't
want
any
confusion
about
the
source
of
the
materials,
so
you
know
everybody
should
attribute
everyone,
always
because
it's
a
good
way
of
maintaining
a
meaningful,
purposeful
community,
but
in
this
case
please
be
careful
with
with
the
materials
if
you
use
them.
Thank
you.
So
I
I
have
the
the
presentation
broken
into
two
pieces,
just
theory
as
an
explanation
so
like
what
is
social
practice
theory?
What
does
it
explain
and
then
theory
of
change?
B
B
What
can
it
help
us
understand
better,
so
I'll
start
with
a
very
convoluted
quote,
and
then
we'll
try
to
get
simpler.
So
a
practice
is
a
routinized
behavior.
So
it's
something
that
you
do
routinely
it's
not
something
novel
or
new,
something
that
you
do
regularly
and
it
consists
of
multiple
elements
that
are
kind
of
connected
together.
So
it's
not
just
an
activity
right.
So
it's
it
is
an
activity,
but
it's
not
just
an
activity.
B
B
Practice
includes
the
violin
and
the
reason
you're
playing
violin
and
the
knowledge
you
need
to
have
in
order
to
play
the
violin.
All
of
those
things
are
considered
part
of
a
practice
in
this
frame.
So
a
simply
a
simpler
one
to
kind
of
like
make
it
easier
to
kind
of
grab
on
to
a
practice
is
a
social
phenomena.
So
the
thing
that
was
missing
from
the
last
piece
was
this,
maybe
a
little
bit
more
of
a
pointing
at
what
at
social.
B
So
this
isn't
something
a
social
practice,
isn't
something
that
an
individual
does
without
other
people,
and
I
don't
mean
that
other
people
have
to
be
present
for
the
practice
to
happen,
but
the
reason
you're
doing
the
practice
if
it's
a
social
practice
has
it
is
because
it
has
a
social
context
and
meaning
that
makes
the
practice
purposeful.
So
there
there
are
social
phenomena
and
there
are
performance
right
there
they're
that
that's
the
way
in
which
it's
social.
B
It's
you're
performing
for
other
people
in
some
way
with
expectations
and
things
like
this
right,
the
same
way
you
can
think
of
being
on
stage
you're
performing
yeah,
and
then
there
there's
it
entails
the
reproduction.
So
the
there's.
This
idea
that
cultural,
meaning
and
skill
and
tools
here
all
those
things
need
to
be
constantly
reproduced
recreated.
B
B
In
other
words,
they
they
think
that
you
did
a
good
job,
manipulating
the
materials
in
order
to
achieve
the
meaning
that
they
expect
yeah.
So,
like
a
a
practical
example,
a
lot
of
social
practice
theory
is,
frankly,
from
from
work
that
people
are
doing
on
sustainability
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
anal
social
practice.
B
What
time
you
should
do
it,
what
type
the
conditions
should
be,
what
what
the
laws
are,
all
those
things
right
so
procedure
or
skill
has
to
do
with
negotiating
all
of
those
particular
aspects,
and
then
finally,
meaning
right
is,
is
why
do
we
launder
like?
What's
the?
Why
of
laundering?
In
a
way-
and
so
what
we
get
is
this
idea
of
like
in
different
cultures,
these
meanings
have
could
be
different
yeah,
so
you
you
could
say
that,
like
laundry,
is
it's
clutter?
It's
on
your
floor.
B
You
need
to
smell
good
in
public.
You
need
clean
clothes.
It's
a
sign
of
status
to
have
clean
clothes.
All
of
these
ideas
have
are
why
we
launder
right.
We
launder
for
these
reasons
and
the
skills
that
we
use
to
interact
with
the
materials.
Allow
us
to
achieve
those
meanings
and
part
of
like
the
important
piece
to
notice
here
is
that
we
can
swap
bits
and
pieces
out
of
a
practice
and
still
have
the
same
practice.
B
So
line
drying
could
be
done
in
different
cultures,
for
different
meaning
or
could
be
done
with
different
materials
or
could
require
different
skills
because
of,
for
instance,
different
regulatory
frameworks
or
different
expectations
of
time.
So
there's
this
kind
of
wiggliness
to
it
where
a
practice
is
identifiable
because
it
involves
similar
things,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
be
explicitly
the
exact
practice.
So
you
know
one
way
of
saying
that
is
like
social
practice
is
not
best
practice
right.
Like
best
practice
would
be
highly
highly
defined.
B
What
all
of
these
things
would
be.
On
the
other
hand,
best
practice
can
be
a
social
practice,
so
you
could,
you
could
use
best
practice
as
a
way
of
reinforcing
and
creating
a
social
practice.
Maybe
it
would
be
brittle,
but
we
can
have
other
conversations
about
that.
So
an
individual's
behavior,
then,
is
a
performance
of
a
social
practice
right
so
again,
it's
the
ability
to
negotiate
those
various
constraints
and
also
like
I
like
to
use
jazz
for
this
right,
like
there's
a
materiality
to
jazz
your
instruments.
B
B
So
the
important
part
I
think
about
this-
that
stability
and
routinization
are
not
the
end
points
of
of
normalization.
Rather,
they
should
be
understanding
as
ongoing
accomplishments,
in
which
similar,
not
not
the
exact
same.
Similar
elements
are
repeated
and
linked
together
in
similar
ways.
So
again,
a
social
practice
doesn't
have
this
idea
of
narrowing
to
a
specificity.
B
B
I
have
a
friend
mark
bergauer
and
I,
when
I
talk
about
with
him
one
of
the
things
I
we
talk
about
is
kind
of
fried
eggs
or
scrambled
eggs
and
mark
lives
in
in
edinburgh
and
or
outside
edinburgh,
and
he
he
flew
over
one
year
and
stayed
with
me
and
I'm
said
to
him
like:
do
you
want
to
have
scrambled
eggs
in
the
morning?
He
said
sure,
and
so
I
made
scrambled
eggs
the
way
that
I
was
taught
so
again
that
points
to
that,
like
social
learning,
part
of.
B
Social
practice,
and
so
I
made
something
that
I
call
that
are
called
scramble
fried
eggs
right,
so
you
basically
fry
the
egg
a
little
bit
and
then
you
scramble
it
yeah,
and
you
know
I
used
a
pan.
I
used
a
spatula,
I
used
a
bowl,
I
used
eggs.
I
used
a
stove,
you
know
all
these
things,
but
mark
when
he
was
watching
me
observed.
B
B
Still
so
like
it
was
a
different
set
of
materials
a
little
bit
different
as
in
like
it
wasn't
on
his
stove,
but
it
was
very
similar,
similar
ingredients,
things
like
that,
but
it
was
a
different
skill,
so
I
had
mutated
the
skill
in
a
way
that
he
didn't
recognize,
but
I
was
still
using
the
same
materials
to
achieve
the
same
meaning
yeah.
So
this
is
wiggliness
about
it
that
allows
it
to
be
recreated
and
re-performed.
B
I
I
think
of
it
sometimes
like
they're
they're,
like
heuristics,
for
the
relationship
between
the
three
and
that,
in
the
way
that
you
don't
necessarily
always
have
to
have
explicit
rules
for
for
heuristic
to
work,
you
don't
have
to
have
specific
materials,
meanings
or
skills.
You
just
have
to
have
a
relationship
that
makes
it
appear
similar.
B
I
I
by
the
way,
went
and
stayed
with
mark
and
he
makes
like
a
french
style
scrambled
eggs
like
very.
I
guess
I
I
think
of
you
in
my
head
as
european
they're,
very
wet
and
loose,
and
we
had
a
great
conversation
about
how
he
was
literally
using
the
same
things
with
a
different
set
of
skills,
low
heat,
long
period
of
time,
constant
movements
very
different
than
the
way,
the
skills
that
I
deploy
to
make
the
scrambled
eggs.
B
B
We
don't
really
recognize
that
other
people
might
do
what
we're
saying
in
a
different
way.
They
might
implement
the
practice
or
perform
the
practice
differently
than
we
do,
and
so
you
get
weird
things
right,
like
different
people
do
tdd
differently,
but
it's
for
the
same
purpose.
Yeah
and
one
of
the
ways
that
you
can
kind
of
generally
judge
that
someone's
competent
is,
if
they're
doing
tdd
for
the
right
reasons,
as
opposed
to
doing
it
with
a
specific
tool
set
or
doing
it
with
a
specific
process
yeah.
B
B
But
the
idea
of
it
is
this
that
there's
things
that
you
have
an
opportunity
to
do,
and
then
there's
capabilities
and,
of
course,
like
one
of
the
things
I'm
going
to
point
out
here,
is
that
that
is
that
capability
is
the
same
type
of
capability
that
we're
talking
about
in
a
in
a
in
a
in
a
social
practice
context
right,
it's
the
ability
or
the
skill
to
do
something,
and
so
opportunities
and
challenges
in
the
social
practice.
Theory
come
from
changes
in
materiality
and
changes
in
meaning
yeah.
B
So
the
the
reason
why
those
things
change
is
is
is
kind
of
orthogonal.
It's
not
important
for
right
now,
but
those
are
the
things
that
change
and
therefore
give
you
opportunities
and
therefore
give
you
challenges.
Yeah
and
your
your
capabilities
grow
your
ability
to
perform
in
different
contexts
in
a
way
that
people
see
you
as
being
competent.
B
So
what
I
mean
by
the
constraints
that
arise
from
is
just
when
the
material
conditions
change
when
the
social
meaning
changes
when
you're
asked
to
do
things
in
a
different
way,
new
policies,
except
like
that,
those
create
constraints,
those
those
make
those
force
you
to
change
your
behavior
and
to
create
closure
means
to
change
your
behavior
in
a
way
where
you
can
realign
these
three
things
again
and
therefore
continue
to
produce
the
practice.
In
a
way.
That's
conceived,
considered
competent
in
your
social
system
yeah.
So
one
other
thing
about
social
practice.
B
That
means
that
I,
I
should
have
some
expectation
about
what
you're
about
to
do
in
relationship
to
whatever
we're
working
on
together
and
you,
if
you
perform
to
my
expectations
within
reason,
like
from
what
I
observe
or
what
I
think
is
important,
then
I
will
think
that
you're
predictable,
I
can.
I
can
modify
my
behavior
based
on
what
I
expect
your
behavior
to
be
doesn't
always
necessarily
have
to
be
positive,
behavior.
B
Maybe
the
inner
predictability
is
that
you'll
do
something
poorly,
but
as
long
as
I
can
kind
of
predict,
what's
going
to
happen,
I
can
coordinate
behavior
between
different
organizations
and
different
individuals,
yeah
and
and
of
course,
this
points
at
this
idea
again
of
the
way
in
which
attitudes
and
actions.
So
that's
that
again
that
collection
of
meanings
and
skillful
coping
create
common
ground,
meaning
of
knowledge,
beliefs
and
assumptions
in
order
to
create
this
kind
of
facilitated,
coordinative
action
right.
B
So
one
of
the
ways
you
could
think
about
this
is
like
cultural
expectations
are
built
on
these
same
structures
right,
the
that
you
will
do
certain
things
in
certain
at
certain
times
of
the
day
with
certain
types
of
materials,
and
if
I
see
you
doing
those
things
at
certain
times
of
the
day
with
those
certain
types
of
materials,
and
you
produce
some
outcome
that
I
can
look
at
I'll,
think
yeah,
you're,
pretty
predictable
and
that's
great.
I
don't
have
to
pay
a
lot
of
attention
to
you
because
you
seem
competent.
B
On
the
other
hand,
if
you
do
things
at
the
wrong
time
of
day,
according
to
my
viewpoint
or
with
the
wrong
materials
or
with
the
wrong
process,
or
you
produce
something
that
I
don't
expect,
we
kind
of
reduce
the
social
network
or
or
challenge
the
social
network,
and
that's
that's
important
to
kind
of
think
through
when
we
think
about
social
practice.
So
again,
another
wall
of
text
from
from
chotsky
but
but
important
part
of
this
is
that
it's
not
just
like
a
social
system.
B
That's
n
networked
together
with
social
practices,
it's
actual
practices
that
get
networked
together.
So
again,
I
pointed
at
when
we're
talking
about
frying
eggs
like
frying
eggs,
cleaning
dishes
eating
a
meal
setting
the
table.
All
of
those
social
practices
are
kind
of
like
a
network
of
practices
that
are
interrelated
around
common
themes
or
meanings,
and
skills
and
materials
right
and
so
there's
three
ways
that
schotzky
says
that
these
things
kind
of
interact
with
each
other.
They
either
interact
through
understandings,
so
they
these
are
again.
B
I
think
what
we
would
call
expectations
of
what
people
should
know
or
that
common
ground
that
we
pointed
at
earlier
through
explicit
rules,
principles
and
instructions.
So
literally,
the
practice
is
hold
together
by
people
creating
rules
to
define
how
they
interact
with
each
other
and
then
finally,
through
what
he
calls.
Teleoffective
structures
and
effective
structures.
Talio
effectively
means
future
feelings,
yeah,
so
things
our
expectations
are
things
that
we
think
should
happen
and
how
the
practices
should
relate
together
to
achieve
tasks
purposes.
Projects
ends
goals.
B
Things
like
that,
so
the
network
is
stabilized
by
these
three
three,
these
three
types
of
things:
the
network
of
practices,
is
stabilized
by
these
three
types
of
things.
So
what
you
can
think
of,
when
you
think
of
a
nexus
of
practices,
is
that
you
might
have
one
practice
and
there's
some
stabilizing
factors
on
that
practice
and
some
destabilizing
practice
factors
on
that
practice.
So
the
stabilizing
practices
are
the
things
we
are
sorry.
The
stabilizing
factors
are
the
things
we
just
pointed
at
understandings
policies,
daily,
effective
structures,
expectations,
things
like
that
and
that
stabilizes
the
practice.
B
The
the
practices
are
related
to
each
other
yeah,
they
might
share
material,
they
might
share,
meaning
they
might
share
policy
or
procedure
or
skill,
and
the
sharedness
of
them
makes
them
into
this
kind
of
fabric
or
network
of
of
of
of
practices.
Maybe
one
might
call
it
a
complex
of
practices.
The
final
thing
to
point
out
really
quickly
here
is
that
all
practices
again
produce
outputs,
so
they
they
reconfigure
change,
modify
a
material
condition
in
a
way
that
achieves
or
does
not
achieve
an
outcome
yeah.
B
So
the
kind
of
back
and
forth
there
is
the
recognition
that
practices
change,
materials,
the
material
conditions,
a
and
b,
the
change
in
material
conditions
is
going
to
be
judged
by
some
social
system.
That's
the
whether
or
not
you're,
competent
or
not,
and
then
the
feedback
from
the
social
system
about
the
output
and
outcome
modify
the
practice
itself
as
well.
So
we've
got
a
couple
different
ways
of
like
thinking
through
kind
of
practice
as
an
individual
practice
as
a
network
of
practice
as
something
is
stabilized
and
destabilized.
B
We
we
we
are
trying
to
of
with
social
practice
we're
trying
to
avoid
a
completely
atomistic
theory.
What
I
mean
by
that
is
the
idea
that
each
individual
in
our
organization
is
completely
autonomous
and
can
act.
However,
they
want
can
can
access
kind
of
a
temporal
non-contextual
logic
that
will
drive
their
behavior,
and
you
know
that
is
represented
by
kind
of
homo
economicus.
B
This
kind
of
theory
that
there's
a
rational
decision
maker
involved,
so
social
practice
doubts
that
right,
social
practice
is
suggesting
that
that
individual
doesn't
is
is
doesn't
really
exist,
can't
really
exist,
because
it
doesn't
explain
any
of
the
normative
expectations
that
a
independent
person
would
have.
How
do
they
get
the
normative
models?
How
do
they
understand?
What's
desirable
and
not
desirable?
How
do
they
model
their
needs?
All
those
things
seem
to
be
not
explained
well
by
somebody
who's
completely
rational.
B
B
All
right,
so
that's
social
practice.
Theory
really
quickly!
Now
now,
let's
talk
about
like
a
theory
of
change
for
transforming
social
practices.
So,
instead
of
talking
about
social
practices
directly,
we
want
to
talk
about.
How
do
we
change
social
practices
yeah?
So
the
first
thing
to
point
out
is
like
there's
this
idea:
that
transformation
can
be
an
event
that
it
can
happen
like
I
call
it.
B
The
way
that
you
work
every
day
at
work,
the
flow
state
that
you
get
into
will
be
made
up
of
different
practices
or
will
be
made
up
of
newly
configured
practices
that
have
new
material
meanings,
etc.
So
transformation
is
not
going
to
be
this
kind
of
switch
that
we
turn
on.
It's
going
to
be
the
mutation
of
individual
practices
in
the
network
of
practices
that
we've
been
talking
about.
B
So
one
of
the
principal
implications
of
the
theory
of
practice
is
that
the
sources
of
behavior
change
lie
in
the
development
of
and
the
relation
between
the
practices
themselves.
In
other
words,
behavior
change
from
a
social
practice
lens
doesn't
occur
in
the
individual.
It
occurs
in
the
modification
of
the
social
norms,
the
materials
and
this
competencies
of
a
social
network,
not
an
individual
yeah
and
therefore
the
practices
of
the
locality
of
change,
not
the
individuals
involved,
which
is
not
to
say
that
individuals
don't
perform
those
things.
B
But
it's
just
to
say:
that's
not
the
unit
of
analysis
that
we're
looking
at.
So
this
is
a
crazy
slide
to
try
to
talk
through
kind
of
three
different
places
in
which
you
might
think
of
intervening
if
you
were
doing
a
social
practice-based
transformation,
and
so
the
first
one
might
be
to
reconfigure
the
network
of
practices.
So
you
might
determine
what
practices
you
want.
B
For
instance,
you
might
determine
that
you
want
to
do
cicd
and
in
order
to
do
ci
cds,
you
decide
that
you
also
need
to
have
better
test
driven
development
and
a
better
source
code,
control,
evaluation
and
a
little
bit
more
kind
of
pure
evaluation
of
written
work,
and
things
like
this.
So
those
end
up
being
a
network
of
practices
that
you
want
to
reconfigure.
You
want
to
change
the
configuration
of
the
practices
in
order
to
enable
that
ci
cd,
continuous
deployment
style
yeah.
B
So
you
have
this
network
of
things
that
you
want
to
change,
and
you
want
to
reconfigure,
and
you
want
to
be
conscious
about
the
relationships
between
those
things
and
how
they
might
work
right.
I
think,
when
you
think,
through
that
kind
of
theory,
the
reconfiguration
of
a
network
of
practices-
I
I
like
to
talk
about
my
brain-
is
not
gonna
produce
the
thing
that
I
wanna
say
right
now:
a
maturity,
mapping,
yeah,
so
maturity.
B
Mapping,
which
you
can
look
up
online
really
quickly
is,
is
focuses
on
that
particular
type
of
change.
Yeah
you,
you
might
want
to
reconfigure
the
practice
itself,
so
that
might
mean
you
currently
have.
Your
ticket
system
is
currently
jira
and
you
want
to
move
to
rally
which
means
you're
going
to
change
the
materiality
of
the
system,
while
trying
to
preserve
the
skill
and
meaning
of
the
system.
So
you
might
reconfigure
the
practice
to
new
materials.
B
You
might
reconfigure
the
practice
to
new
sets
of
skills
with
the
same
materials.
Things
like
that,
and
you
also
might
replace
the
practice.
So
you
might
try
to
eliminate
a
practice
and
re-populate
the
space
in
which
it
was
with
a
new
practice.
So
you
might
want
to
move
from
gantt
charts
to
kanban
boards
and
one
of
the
ways
to
think
about.
B
So
when
we
think
about
kind
of
the
ways
that
those
might
happen,
we
could
think
about
the
idea
that
the
relationships
between
things
can
be
undesigned.
The
materials
could
be
undesigned,
in
other
words,
removed
from
the
system.
You
could
redesign
the
materials
and
the
interactions
as
in
reconfigure
them
modify
them
kind
of.
Do
you
know
any
sort
of
kaizen
or
kaikaku
style
of
change
there,
but
that
is
the
improvement
or
the
additional
like
design
as
adding
additive
progressive.
B
As
opposed
to
undesigned
removing
and
then
when
we
look
at
meanings,
we
could
like
denormalize
something
we
could
say.
We
used
to
believe
that
we
don't
believe
that
anymore
or
we
could
renormalize
something
by
adopting
a
new
practice
and
trying
to
change
the
way
people
think
about
the
current
set
of
meanings
that
re-normalize
around
a
new
set
of
meetings
and
finally
like
skills,
which
I
think,
frankly,
are
the
primary
interaction
point
for
most
transformations
like
the
idea
that
we
need
to
modify
skills
is
a
significant
one.
B
B
So
one
of
the
things
to
kind
of
think
through
here
again
is:
are
there?
Are
there
other
people,
who've
tried
to
kind
of
think
through
transformation
like
this
and
shook?
Has
this
this
model
that
he
uses
to
describe
how
things
worked
at
noomi,
and
one
of
the
things
that
he
points
out?
Is
that,
like
the
the
traditional
transformation
or
change
model,
starts
with
the
idea
that
you
need
to
change
the
culture
and
then
it
will
change
the
values
and
it'll
change?
B
What
actually
happens,
what
people
actually
do
and
in
shine's
version
of
it,
which
is
similar
and
where
the
pyramid
frankly
comes
from
in
the
first
place
you
have
you
know
what
we
need
to
do
is
change
the
assumptions
and
then
we
can
change
the
values
and
then
we
can
change
the
artifacts
to
the
outputs
of
the
system
yeah
and
for
shook
and
shine.
What
they
both
eventually
arrive
at
is
the
idea
that
you
can't
start
from
the
bottom
of
the
pyramid.
You
have
to
start
from
the
top
of
the
pyramid.
B
I
think
so
part
of
that,
I
think,
is
because
of
the
way
that
people
make
their
work
lives
meaningful,
and
so
this
is
called
the
harmonic
hermeneutic
loop
and
the
really
simple
way
of
saying
this
is
is
just
you
have
a
world
view.
You
have
an
idea
of
what
the
world's
like
the
whole
world,
your
whole
world.
B
It
becomes
you,
you
don't
understand
how
to
experience
the
world
anymore,
because
all
the
meanings
that
you
used
to
have
that
were
related
to
your
skills,
the
materials
that
you're
used
to
become
meaningless,
and
therefore
you
have
no
skill
to
interact
with
the
materiality
of
the
world
anymore.
So
one
last
point,
and
then
we
can
chat
as
much
as
you
guys
like
when
we
think
about
kind
of
organizations
as
open
systems.
One
of
the
things
we
can
think
about
is
that
they
they
become
more
and
more
complex.
B
They
become
more
and
heterogeneous
internally.
In
other
words,
there
there's
more
and
more
skill,
there's
more
social
practices
involved,
the
social
practices
mutate
and
change
a
little
bit,
and
therefore
that
network
of
social
practices
becomes
more
complex,
but
also
the
network
of
social
practices
becomes
stable
so
that,
if
you,
if
you're
in
an
organization,
that's
not
stable,
that
quote-unquote
does
not
work,
then
it
will
not
last
for
a
long
time.
B
So
in
any
organization
that
you're
in
that's
been
around
for
any
extended
period
of
time,
despite
your
beliefs
that
it
may
or
may
not
be.
You
know
a
group
of
incompetent
people
who
don't
know
what
they're
doing
and
or
that
there's
no
way
it
could
possibly
survive.
If
it's
surviving,
then
it
it
is
at
a
steady
state,
it
is
a.
It
is
a
network
of
relationships
of
social
practices
that
reproduces
itself
every
day
when
you
show
up
at
work.
B
So
one
of
the
things
to
say
about
that
kind
of
network
of
social
practices
is
one
of
the
things
we
might
think
about.
Is
that
what
we
end
up?
Having
is
more
and
more
these
kind
of
bubbles
where
it
says
inside
these
are
these
bubbles
of
practice
and
that
inside
each
bubble
of
practice
is
a
set
of
social
practices
that
are
meaningful
inside
that
that
that
bubble,
but
may
or
may
not
be
meaningful
to
other
parts
of
the
organization
inside
their
bubbles.
B
B
So
these
I
call
boundary
practices
and
they're
the
practices,
the
social
practices
that
bind
together
multiple
social
groups
in
a
way
where
their
interdependency
and
their
interpretability
becomes
useful
and
stabilizes
the
system
right.
So
what
we
should
expect
in
any
organization
is
to
be
able
to
find
a
set
of
practices
that
are
meaningful
to
a
certain
social
group
and
a
set
of
practices
that
are
meaning
to
meaningful
between
any
number
of
other
social
groups.
B
B
So
when
we
talk
about
transformation,
we
want
to
be
able
to
identify,
establish
and
maintain,
maintain
and
remove
boundaries.
Again.
All
of
those
boundaries,
I
think,
are
made
up
of
social
practices
and
in
relationships
to
this
ability
to
transition
is
a
process
by
which
boundaries
in
organizations
how
those
boundaries
are
decided
who
lives
in
those
boundaries.
B
A
A
Well,
I'm
all
about
community
development,
and
maybe
maybe
community
development,
ops,
right
and
the
toolings,
but
it
really
illustrated
for
me,
you
know
the
different
pieces
of
a
practice
very
nicely.
So
I
and
what
popped
into
my
head
immediately
when
you
put
the
laundry
thing
up,
was
code
contributions.
A
A
A
I
want
to
see
in
other
people
and
that's
sort
of
the
autonomous
atomic
automatist
atomists,
whatever
that
that
that
word,
it's
not
atomic,
it's
I
don't
and
I
go
atomic
I
mean
people
don't
adopt
the
thing
that
I
want
and
you're
really
giving
us.
I
think
a
very
nice
way
to
see
how
to
how
everything
breaks
down
in
in
practical
ways
not
breaks
down
as
in
fails,
but
how
to
break
down
when
you
want
to
affect
change.
A
But
I
think
I
found
the
little
thing
that
overlaps
all
of
these
different
things
and
trying
now
to
show
each
of
them
the
usefulness
to
bring
them
together
to
change
the
way
we
look
at
community
development,
and
I
wish
that
we
could
be
so
successful
doing
that
as
we've
done
with
devops
and
other
practices
too,
and-
and
maybe
that
would
do
it
so
I'll,
zip
and
see
if
anybody
else
wants
to
chime
in
too.
Because
I
know
maybe
it's
not
just
my
mind.
That's
been
blown
but
a
few
other
folks
as
well.
So.
A
B
A
Compact,
like
at
red
hat,
we
have
the
open
organization
compact
right,
which
we
assume
everybody
believes
in
and
and
does,
but
even
within
silos
we
dev
different
basic
compacts.
So
you
know,
and-
and
I
think
that
one
of
the
key
things
in
transforming
organizations
is-
is
teasing
out
what
those
basic
compacts
are
and
our
assumptions
about
them.
You
know
we
just
you
know
because,
like
things
like,
we
have
like
how
people
are
metric.
A
We
are,
I
think,
we're
just
achieving.
Now
we
don't
have
open
metrics,
like
I
don't
know
what,
but
someone
else
in
another
organization
or
business
unit
is
being
metric
on,
or
maybe
we
do,
but
I
haven't
figured
out
how
to
get
to
the
mojo
page
where
it's
hidden,
so
you
know
I
and
on
daily
basis
I
don't
know,
but
so
the
all
of
the
things
that
affect
our
basic
compacts
within
an
enterprise
organization
or
within
a
community
of
the
developers
working
on
an
open
source
project.
A
There
are
so
many
assumptions
that
are
left
unsaid
or
undiscussed,
and
I
wondering
I
know
with
devops.
We
created
this
whole
sort
of
culture
of
explaining
what
devops
is
and
teaching
it
and
all
of
that
sort
of
stuff,
but
how
you
get
people
to
tease
out
what
that
basic
compact
is.
Everybody
has
together.
B
So
I
mean,
I
think,
a
couple
things
one.
I
like
one
of
the
things
I
always
like
to
say
about
devops
kind
of
early
in
the
conversation
is
that
I
don't
think
devops
is
a
culture.
I
think
it's
a
way
of
changing
a
culture
and-
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is
this.
I
think
good
devops
makes
better
developers
by
letting
developers
understand
how
their
code
works
in
operation.
B
It
makes
better
operators
by
letting
operators
understand
how
developers
create
code
yeah
and
like
it's
not
trying
to
create
more
developers
who
can't
operate
their
stuff,
which
I
think
is
a
is
like.
That's
the
no
ops
theory
and
I
think
it's
it's
a
miss
and
I
also
don't
think
it's
about
making
operators
into
developers,
although
I
do
think
it
is
definitely
about
making
operators
understand
how
to
apply
software
practice
to
operations
a
different
different
thing,
but
I
think
there's
always
good.
A
B
It
is
a
practice,
it's
a
set
of
practices
and
to
me
again,
the
transformation
activity,
if
you
want
to
do
devops,
is
to
sit
down
with
the
development
and
operations
team
and
figure
out
what
they
share.
You
don't
want
to
trans.
You
don't
want
to
homogenize
the
organization,
you
don't
want
to
say
all
the
developers
have
to
be
operators.
Now
all
the
operators
have
to
be
developers.
Now
you
have
to
know
you
have
to
have
the
complete
understanding
of
either
sides
activities
and
knowledges
right.
That's
not
what
we're
trying
to
achieve.
B
What
we're
trying
to
achieve
is
we're
going
to
say,
there's
certain
things.
There's
certain
materials
you
share,
there's
certain
skills
that
you
have
to
perform
together
in
order
to
achieve
meaningful
outcomes.
If
we
can
identify
those
things
and
focus
our
devops
transformation
on
those
things
without
like
trying
to
change
the
whole
way,
everybody
works.
We're
going
to
be
much
more
successful
because
it's
going
to
focus
on
those
defining
of
boundaries.
B
B
A
Okay,
well
meritocracy,
for
me
is
such
a
touchy
subject:
mm-hmm,
so
even
bringing
it
up
here.
We
could
go
on
for
another
hour
and
and
one
of
the
things
like
going
back
to
the
laundry
thing,
because
that's
when
the
meritocracy
bit
is
there
is
the
different
parts
of
the
infrastructure
and
the
skills
and
the
other
things
and
the
you
know
the
privileges
and
all
of
that.
A
The
baggage
that
comes
with
you
know,
measuring
success
and,
and
what
I
liked
about
going
back
to
the
laundry
and
probably
the
toilets
and
the
bidet
conversations
is
by
breaking
these
things
down.
We,
we
can
start
to
see
where
the
inadequacies
in
our
judgments
on
people's
and
for
me
for
code
contributions
and
and
things
of
that
ilk
break
down,
and
we
we
kind
of
hide
behind
different
versions
of
the
conversations
around
meritocracies
in
order
to
rise
up
through
organizations
or
get
credit
for
efforts
that
we
put
in.
C
So
hi
jade,
so
this
is
where
I,
when
I'm
dealing
with
these
situations,
this
is
where
I
have
and
let's
use
the
laundry
example
again.
So
if
I
for
me
when
I
come
from
a
perspective
of
understanding
that
the
whole
system
is
important
to
me,
not
just
that,
you
know
for
a
professional
laundry,
it's
about
doing,
doing
it
in
the
fastest,
most
cost
effective
fashion
right
and
for
other
people.
I
know
it's
just
about
clean
clothes.
Just
I
don't
care,
I
don't
care
how
much
it
costs.
C
B
B
I
wear
the
same
pair
of
shorts
for
like
a
week,
and
I
don't
care
I
because
it
doesn't
have
any
meaning
to
me
when
I
go
to
work.
I
don't
right,
because
I
know
that
I
have
to
show
up
wearing
different
clothes
every
day
or
people
will
go
what's
wrong
with
you
right,
so
laundry
and
and
and
and
social
presentation
of
dress
and
all
these
things
are
related
in
a
set
of
meanings.
B
Yeah
and-
and
I
think
the
important
part
is
the
common
ground
is
to
say
we
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
last
time.
I
think
we
chatted
it's
requisite
coherence
where
requisite
means
minimal
right.
It's
not
because
the
requisite
coherence
has
to
be
balanced
by
requisite
variety,
because
it's
the
tension
between
the
two
that
allows
kind
of
like
an
exploration
of
the
space
by
more
people
or
another
way
of
saying
an
exploration
of
space.
Is
it
it
it?
B
If
you
only
have
one
way
of
making
meaning,
then
everyone
is
forced
into
that
way
of
being
yeah,
as
opposed
to
having
multiple
ways
of
being
that
are
only
loosely
collected
by
common
ground,
where
common
ground
again
means.
When
I
bring
my
laundry
to
the
laundromat,
I
have
an
expectation
of
what
the
laundry
will
look
like
when
it
comes
out
and
to
the
extent
that
they
produce
that,
then
I,
when
we
have
an
interpretable
relationship,
but
I'm
more
likely
to
use
them
yeah
yeah.
That
makes
sense.
C
B
We
we
like
to
do
cooking
laundry
yeah,
I
mean
they're
easy
to
understand,
but
showering
is
a
good
one
too.
In
that,
like
how
do
you?
How
did
you
learn
to
shower?
How
do
you
reproduce
your
showering,
like
most
people
can't
remember,
being
taught
like
anyone
taught
to
shower
in
school,
usually,
but
the
material
conditions
of
the
shower
really
stabilize
your
relationship
to
it
like
if
you
have
shampoo
and
soap
and
all
these
things,
those
those
like
tell
you
what
to
do.
I
need
to
soap.
I
need
to
shampoo.
B
I
need
to
do
if
those
things
weren't
in
there,
you
wouldn't
necessarily
do
those
other
things.
You
wouldn't
think
to
do
them,
and
this
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
it's
really
hard
to
destabilize
and
change.
Some
systems
is
because,
to
the
extent
the
social
practice
is
private
or
is
isolated
in
some
way
like
taking
out
trash,
showering
cooking
things
like
this
there's
there's
less
judgment,
there's
less
judgment
of
the
confidence
on
it
and
therefore
it
becomes
more
difficult
to
modify
those
behaviors
so
from
a
sustainability
perspective.
B
The
reason
people
study
those
things,
those
particular
practices
is
because
those
are
the
practices.
The
the
everyday
practice
of
the
way
of
being
in
the
world
of
the
modern
western
person
is
what
is
causing
the
system
to
be
unsustainable,
and
it's
not
like
you
know,
one
practice
that
needs
to
change.
It's
a
bunch
of
them,
and
so
that's
really
kind
of
interesting
and
just
one
really
quick.
Last
point
around
meaning
right.
B
One
of
the
things
that
comes
out
of
sustainability
practice
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
you
can't
just
change,
meaning
that's
shown
by
these
studies-
is
that
if
you
ch,
if
you,
if
you
convince
me
to
recycle,
I
do
recycle.
But
if
you,
if
I
didn't-
and
you
convinced
me
to-
and
you
gave
me
a
bunch
of
environmental
reasons
for
why
I
should
be
recycling-
and
I
accepted
them-
and
I
started
recycling.
So
you
changed
my
behavior.
B
The
correlation
between
my
behavior
change,
around
recycling
and
showering
and
laundering
and
electric
use
is
non-existent.
In
other
words,
you
can
convince
me
that
environmentalism
is
good,
but
you
will
have
to
convince
me
again
to
change
each
practice
because
the
practices
don't
change
by
themselves,
just
because
meaning
changes.
This
is
just
too
easy
to
modify
the
practice
to
achieve
this,
the
same
meaning.
Basically,
though,
they're
uncorrelated,
that's
why
it's
why?
B
A
That
brings
up
an
interesting
thing
that
you
also
talked
about
in
the
boundary
practices
segment
of
this
conversation
about
social,
social,
spanning
roles.
You
know,
because
we
have
things
like
agile
coaches,
and
you
know:
devops,
coaches
and
devrel
people
and
communities
and
the
people
who
span
those
things
and
the
importance
of
those
those
rules
and
the
other
idea
about
the
boundary
practices
stabilizing
the
system.
A
A
B
Yeah,
so
I
think
I'd
love
to
come
back
and
do
it
to
talk
with
you
guys
about
social
technical
systems
design
because
that's
a
whole
another
long
set
of
theory
that
I
think
is
really
interesting
and
useful,
but
boundary
spanning
rules,
I
think,
is
one
of
the
most
important
implications
of
it
and
boundary
spanning
is
so.
The
way
that
I
usually
describe
it
initially
is
just
is
pretty
simply
agile.
B
Let's
say:
I'm
not
a
huge
fan,
but
it's
neither
here
nor
there.
If
I
were
going
to
talk
about
boundary
spanning
role,
though
I
would
think
of
it
as
a
coach
that
sat
literally
in
between
teams-
and
so
the
the
first
thing
to
think
about-
is
that
this
often
an
organization
ends
up
being
the
manager,
because
the
manager
is
the
person
that
connects
the
two
teams
together,
yeah.
But
of
course
the
problem
is
the
power
differential?
Just
like
you
have
you
don't
make
your
boss,
your
scrum
master?
B
You
don't
you
know,
you
don't
make
the
boundary
person
your
boss,
because
they
don't
there's
no
way
to
kind
of
disarm
your
boss
enough
to
have
these
difficult
conversations.
So
it
is
a
coaching
role
that
specifically
sits
in
between
teams
a
and
b.
It
specifically
is
there
to
modulate
the
boundary
and
to
keep
it
flexible
and
negotiated.
B
So
one
of
the
ways
to
say
that
is
this
often
in
organizations,
the
way
that
boundaries
are
negotiated
is
that
the
boss
person
creates
a
set
of
policies
in
order
to
keep
people
from
coming
into
their
office
and
harassing
them
about
the
interaction
between
conflicting
teams
yeah.
So,
okay,
so
we're
going
to
have
a
policy
about
that.
Now
and
of
course,
you
get
the
classic
wall
of
confusion,
policy
wall
problems
going
right,
which
is
that
the
relationship
between
the
teams
becomes
highly
transactional.
B
You
must
perform
this
ritual
with
this
outcome
in
order
to
transact
with
this
other
team,
not
in
order
to
negotiate
with
them,
but
in
order
to
satisfy
their
particular
requirements.
Yeah.
So
again,
the
result
of
this
is
things
like
what
causes
devops,
which
is
developers
create
too
much
code.
They
break
the
operators
system
that
they've
been
using
for
years
to
deploy
every
six
months
by
asking
them
to
deploy
every
two
days.
B
The
operators
get
all
pissy
because
they
get
called
all
the
time
and
the
code
that
they're
getting
they
think
is
crappy,
because
it
doesn't
have
any
operational
consistency
to
it,
and
so
their
lives
are
being
ruined
while
the
opera,
while
the
developers
are
off
having
a
party
because
they're
releasing
new
features
all
the
time
yeah.
So
what
do
the
operators
do?
The
operators
and
the
operators
bosses
erect
these
huge
policy
walls.
That
say,
you
have
to
jump
through
16
hoops
in
order
to
deploy,
which
slows
the
developers
down,
but
that
doesn't
actually
solve
the
problem.
B
If,
instead
of
having
that
policy
wall
in
that
transactional
relationship,
you
had
a
more
reciprocal
relationship
where
you
had
someone
who
was
coaching
the
two
sides
to
negotiate
on
practices
and
expectations
and
outcomes
and
with
the
recognition
that
all
of
those
things
probably
need
to
not
be
defined
up
front
but
in
fact,
evolve
over
time,
because
the
materials
and
skills
need
to
change
in
order
to
achieve
the
agreed
on
purposes
that
we
agree
on,
and
those
things
can't
happen
tomorrow,
just
because
we
want
them
to.
We
have
to
actually
practice
the
practices
right.
B
So,
like
one
of
the
things
I
like
to
point
out
to
people,
that,
like
is
a
great
study,
is
the
study
of
adult
computer
use
in
the
united
states,
and
if
you
ask
most
people
like
how
long,
especially
people
like
us,
who've
used
computers.
How
long
does
it
take
to
learn
to
use
a
computer,
and
I
don't
mean
like
program-
I
mean
like
open
a
browser
and
send
an
email.
B
We
can
get,
we
understand
it,
but
for
someone
who
doesn't
know
what
any
of
those
metaphors
mean,
they
can't
even
interact
with
the
computer
right.
They
can't
work
with
it,
and
so
you
get
like
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
places
like
people
talk
about
like
well,
we
want
to.
We
want
to
make
job,
helping
people
find
jobs
easier
and
whether
we're
going
to
put
a
job
board
up
and
we're
going
to
give
people
access
to
a
computer
in
a
library.
B
Well,
they
can
only
use
the
computer
for
a
couple
hours
at
a
time
and
there's
people
waiting,
so
they
don't
get
enough
practice
time,
so
they
never
learn,
and
so
everybody
who
uses
computers
all
the
time
is
just
like.
Why
can't
they
figure
out
how
to
use
a
computer?
It's
simple!
Well,
no,
it's
not
simple!
You're
competent
and
they're,
not
competent.
That's
not
a
judgment
on
their
ability
to
become
competent.
A
So
I
said:
hey,
let's
sit
down
over
here
and
let's
go
to
the
website
as
soon
as
I
lost
her
as
soon
as
I
said,
for
the
orchid
garden
place
we're
going
to
go
to
in
florida
next
week.
I
sat
her
down
and
there's
a
keyboard
attached
to
a
terminal,
and
I
said:
okay,
let
me
and
I'm
typed
in
something
on
the
keyboard
and
the
website
came
up
and
she
looked
at
me
and
said
how
come
it's
not
doing
anything
because
she
saw
the
terminal
as
a
tv.
C
A
A
It's
like
the
actual
physical
thing
that
the
computer
was
wasn't
even
a
concept
in
her
mind
and
it
that
was
my
first
user
experience,
user
design
epiphany
about
you
know
what
it
really
means
to
know
nothing
at
all
about
the
objects
that
we
are
so
deeply
embedded
in
our
lives
and
devices
that
there
are
whole
generations,
cultures
of
people
that
have
no
experience
of
how
the
keyboard,
which
no
longer
even
has
a
cord
anymore.
To
that
it's
like
a
wireless
thing
or
it's
attached
to
your
laptop.
A
B
But
anyway,
so
we
gave
her
the
computer
and
we
were
like
you
know
here
it
is,
and
she
clearly
interpreted
the
computer
as
a
typewriter,
because
what
happened
was
we
came
back
a
year
later
for
christmas
and
she
very
proudly
came
out
with
a
big
pile
of
paper
and
said
I
I've
transcribed
all
the
songs,
and
I
I
think
this
is
all
of
them
and
it
was
a
big.
I
mean
it
was
like
a
couple
hundred
pages.
I
think,
and
I
was
like
great-
can
I
have
the
files
she
was
like?
B
What
do
you
mean?
I
was
like
well,
you
know
when
you
typed
it,
you
saved
each
version
of
like
nope.
She
printed
them
because
it
was
a
typewriter
and
then
she
turned
the
computer
off
and
walked
away.
She
had
no
idea
that
there
was
a
way
of
saving
the
text,
and
so
it's
it's.
You
know
when
you,
you
associate
the
physical
materiality
with
some
other
thing
and
then
you
try
to
skillfully
interpret
it.
That
way.
I
I
like
to
say
the
same
thing
happens
with
like
machines,
vms
containers,
materially
naively,
people
can
be
like.
B
Oh
those
are
the
same
thing,
but
if
they
do
that,
they
literally
don't
understand
the
skill
sets
that
are
required
to
effectively
use
a
container,
because
a
container
is
nothing
like
a
machine
if
you
actually
are
using
it
skillfully.
In
fact,
the
whole
point
of
the
container
is
to
make
it
as
little
like
a
machine
as
possible,
because
that's
the
whole
point
of
it,
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
mean
to
swear,
but.
A
Anyway,
yeah
vmware,
vms
and
cement
boots
and
we'll
have
another
conversation
about
that,
but
I
I
think
that
there's
like
there's
so
much.
We
could
talk
about
here
and
you
know
I
I
do
want
to
respect
everybody's
time
and
and
effort,
but
I
definitely
want
to
continue
a
conversation
about
like
applying
this
to
com.
A
I
guess
I'm
trying
what
I'm
trying
to
as
these
communities
spanning
social
spanning
roles,
because
one
of
the
things
as
a
community
development
person,
I
span
product
management,
sales,
marketing,
open
source
projects,
foundations
all
of
these
things.
So
I'm
in
this
this
I
I
think
I
believe
one
of
those
roles
but-
and
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
other
people
who
are
in
roles
that
are
similar.
A
Another
app
there's,
always
lots
of
conversations
with
you
jeb,
but
to
figure
out
how
we
identify
and
empower
those
people,
and
you
know,
and
then
then
don't
turn
them
into
power.
Crazy
people.
That's
that's
the
other.
The
edge
of
the
the
sword
is,
you
know
how
how
you
do
this,
and
and
and
do
it
well,
and
you
know
I
think
that
another
conversation
about
social,
technical
practices
and,
oh
boy,
there
was
so
much
in
this
today.
So
I
I
truly
appreciate
your
time
and
effort.
A
A
B
A
So
barbara
and
everybody
else,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
comments
and
everything
again
great
stuff
and
boy.
This
is
this
is
a
challenge
I'm
going
to
be
watching
this
one
again
I'll
upload
this
to
youtube
and
I'll
grab
the
slides
from
jave
and
tweet
it
out
shortly.
So
thanks
again,
everybody
and
do
come
back,
I'm
not
quite
sure
who
we
have
on
deck
next
week
for
a
transformation
friday,
because
I'm
on
vacation,
but
we
will
put
somebody
up
there
and
make
them
talk
to
themselves
cool.
Thank
you.
Take
care.