1. CALTECH
‘ORCHID’
FUNDAMENTAL
RESEARCH
PROJECT-­
CASE
STUDY
EXECUTIVE
OVERVIEW
This
is
a
story
of
fundamental
scientific
research
being
conducted
in
a
multi-­university
collaboration
across
continents
and
across
various
branches
of
theoretical
and
experimental
physics.
Specifically,
one
project
in
the
‘Orchid’
program
(funded
by
DARPA)
has
combined
the
specialist
expertise
of
two
experimental
laboratories,
(one
at
Caltech
in
the
United
States
and
another
at
the
University
of
Vienna
in
Austria),
together
with
a
global
network
of
renowned
theoretical
physicists.
Their
shared
objective
has
been
to
achieve
a
breakthrough
in
exploring
frontiers
of
knowledge
about
‘opto-­mechanics’,
a
young
field
of
science
focused
on
the
use
of
light
to
manipulate
mechanical
devices
at
nano-­scale.
Despite
this
ambition,
however,
it
is
known
from
previous
studies
that
multi-­university
research
has
a
tendency
to
be
“problematic”.
Multi-­university
projects,
by
comparison
with
multi-­disciplinary
projects
within
single
institutions
have
been
shown
to
have
significantly
fewer
project
outcomes.
Within
this
particular
global
collaboration,
the
challenges
have
been
heightened
by
the
unpredictable
nature
of
fundamental
research,
as
well
as
by
the
diversity
of
laboratory
technology
and
experimental
processes
being
used
by
researchers
in
different
universities.
Therefore,
it
is
notable
that
this
4-­year
DARPA
project
has
produced
some
“milestone”
experimental
findings
documented
in
internationally
recognized
publications1.
Supporting
the
virtual
organization
of
the
research
studied
in
this
case,
there
appear
to
have
been
significant
coordination
mechanisms.
For
example,
the
compelling
mission
of
the
project,
the
contribution
of
graduate
students
from
one
institution
“embedded”
for
lengthy
periods
as
researchers
in
a
counterpart
institution/laboratory
and
acting
in
liaison
or
“straddler”
roles,
timely
use
of
periodic
face-­to-­face
communication
among
scientists,
and
facilitation
provided
by
the
DARPA
program
manager,
all
seem
to
have
made
a
positive
difference
in
the
outcomes
of
this
project.
Thus,
this
experience
may
offer
insights
about
possible
ways
to
meet
the
“costs”
of
multi-­organizational
collaboration,
particularly
in
the
field
of
fundamental
research.
1
Among
the
publications
supported
by
the
Orchid
project
is:
Safavi-­‐Naeini,
A.H.
et
al.,
2013,
“Squeezed
Light
from
a
Silicon
Micromechanical
Resonator”,
Nature
500,
pp.
185-­‐189.

2. HISTORY/BACKGROUND-­‐-­‐SITE
&
PROJECT:
In
June
2010,
faculty
from
the
Division
of
Engineering
&
Applied
Science
and
the
Division
of
Physics
at
the
California
Institute
of
Technology
(Caltech)
began
a
fundamental
or
pure
research
project,
a
theoretical
and
experimental
program
in
‘Optomechanics’
(i.e.
use
of
light
to
manipulate
mechanical
devices
at
nano-­‐scale).
From
the
outset,
however,
Caltech
scientists
conceived
of
this
project
as
a
global
collaboration
with
scientists
at
other
universities
in
Austria,
Germany,
Switzerland,
Canada,
and
the
United
States.
‘Optomechanics’
is
a
very
young
field
of
science
that
started
only
5-­‐10
years
ago,
merging
various
branches
of
physics,
namely,
optics
(the
study
of
the
behavior
and
properties
of
light),
photonics
(the
use
of
light
to
perform
functions
like
information
processing
and
telecommunications,
traditionally
within
the
domain
of
electronics),
and
quantum
mechanics
(the
study
of
the
interaction
of
energy
and
matter
at
the
sub-­‐atomic
scale).
Consequently,
scientists
who
work
in
the
field
of
‘optomechanics’
are
all
physicists
but
come
from
a
diverse
background
of
disciplines.
The
project
is
named
“Optical
Radiation
Cooling
and
Heating
of
Integrated
Devices”
(ORCHID).
It
originated
from
an
applied
physics
research
proposal
that
was
made
in
2009
to
the
Microsystems
Technology
Office
of
DARPA
(Defense
Advanced
Research
Projects
Agency)
of
the
US
Department
of
Defense.
The
proposal
built
upon
a
theoretical
proposition
regarding
the
use
of
(laser)
light
to
(cool)/reduce
mechanical
motion
at
nano-­‐
scale.
Subsequently,
DARPA
incorporated
this
proposal
into
an
overall
program
of
study.
The
DARPA
‘ORCHID’
research
program
has
had
two
phases.
Phase
One
from
June
2010
to
June
2012
is
fundamental
research,
(R1
on
the
R&D
spectrum,
see
Fig.
1
below),
exploring
frontiers
of
knowledge
about
the
physics
of
optomechanical
devices
through
demonstration
and
measurement
of
various
optomechanical
effects
on
specific
device
platforms
like
microscopic
crystals.
Phase
Two,
from
July
2012
to
June
2014
called
for
applied
research,
(R2
on
the
R&D
spectrum),
thereby
building
a
robust
“toolbox”
of
techniques
for
a
variety
of
application
areas
(sensors,
oscillators,
etc.),
leading
potentially
to
technology
applications
in
cell
phones
and
other
telecommunications
equipment.
Within
the
overall
‘ORCHID’
program,
in
addition
to
the
research
team/project
led
by
Caltech,
there
are
4
other
projects/teams-­‐-­‐2
teams
from
Yale,
1
team
from
UCLA
Berkeley,
and
1
team
from
Cornell
University.
Supporting
all
5
teams
of
‘Experimentalists’
is
one
globally
dispersed
team
of
‘Theorists’.
The
scope
of
this
VOSS
study
is
limited
primarily
to
the
team/project
led
by
Caltech
‘Experimentalists’
(with
support
by
the
‘Theory’
team),
and
is
focused
primarily
on
the
time
period
involving
the
‘pure’
research
of
Phase
One.2
This
virtual
organization
case
study
focuses,
therefore,
on
work
designated
as
‘R1’
(Fundamental
Research)
on
one
extreme
end
of
the
Research
&
Development
continuum,
a
format
for
R&D
based
on
the
classical
work
of
Bell
Labs,
(Mashey
as
reported
in
Revkin,
2008)
and
illustrated
below
in
Figure
1
as
six
stages
or
types
of
Research
&
Development
work.
2
See
Appendix
1:
Methodology

3. Figure 1: A Six-Stage Continuum of the R&D Process3
PROJECT
STAKEHOLDERS:
DARPA
is
the
primary
funding
source
(almost
$5
M)
to
the
Caltech
team/project,
over
a
period
of
4
years.
The
mandate
of
DARPA
is
to
support
‘hard
research’-­‐-­‐out
of
the
reach
of
current
technology
by
a
factor
of
10.
(For
example,
DARPA
is
the
agency
that
gave
birth
to
the
predecessor
of
the
Internet
and
GPS
technologies.)
Therefore,
this
is
an
agency
very
familiar
with
the
challenges
and
requirements
of
sponsorship
and
management
of
highly
exploratory
research.
The
DARPA
funding
is
supplemented
by
grants
from
the
European
Commission,
the
European
Research
Council,
and
the
Austrian
Science
Fund.
Nevertheless,
DARPA
is
the
driving
force
behind
this
research
program,
and
the
DARPA
Project
Manager
is
active
in
promoting
“collaboration”
among
the
scientific
groups,
in
particular
between
the
experimentalists
and
the
theorists.
Within
the
Caltech-­‐led
ORCHID
project,
there
are
5
‘experimentalist’
scientific
groups,
3
located
at
Caltech,
1
in
Austria,
and
1
in
Switzerland,
(see
Fig.
1).
Two
of
the
Caltech
groups
are
located
in
the
same
building
that
houses
the
Department
of
Applied
Physics.
The
third
Caltech
group
belongs
to
the
Department
of
Physics
in
a
separate
location
on
this
small
university
campus.
Each
group
is
led
by
an
experimental
physicist/professor,
with
their
3
Bell
Labs’
R&D
Portfolio
Management
profile,
as
reported
by
John
Mashey
to
Andrew
Revkin
(NY
Times,
December
12,
2008),
and
adapted
by
Carolyn
Ordowich.

4. own
laboratories
staffed
by
graduate
and
post-­‐doctoral
students.
Approximately
20
Caltech
personnel
are
involved
with
the
‘ORCHID’
project
in
some
way.
While
the
Principal
Investigators
(PIs)
of
all
3
groups
and
a
number
of
their
graduate
students
have
conducted
research
and
published
together
quite
extensively,
for
the
‘ORCHID’
project
the
3
Caltech
laboratories
with
their
groups
operate
independently.
The
Micro
&
Nano-­‐Photonics
Group
does,
however,
fabricate
some
of
the
devices
used
in
experiments
conducted
by
the
Quantum
Optics
Group.
Each
group
is
conducting
different
experiments
on
3
different
types
of
optomechanical
device
platforms.
This
VOSS
study
focuses
on
the
working
relationship
between
the
Micro
&
Nano-­‐Photonics
Group
at
Caltech
and
the
Quantum
Optics
&
Nanophysics
Group
in
the
University
of
Vienna,
Austria.
Among
the
collaborations
the
Austrian
laboratory
and
the
Photonics
Group
at
Caltech
have
established
the
closest
relationship.
The
Micro
&
Nano-­‐Photonics
Group
fabricates
its
own
devices
(optomechanical
crystals)
and
conducts
its
own
experiments.
It
is
also
fabricating
devices
for
use
in
similar
experiments
that
are
run,
using
different
methods,
on
significantly
different
equipment
in
the
Austrian
Quantum
Optics
laboratory.
Thus,
there
is
strong
interdependence
between
the
Caltech
Photonics
Group
and
the
Austrian
Quantum
Optics
Group.
The
Austrian
school
is
world-­‐famous
for
their
technical
infrastructures
that
can
do
experiments
at
temperatures
1000
times
lower
than
possible
at
Caltech.
The
Caltech
lab
has
the
advantage
in
the
manufacture
of
quality
devices
for
experimentation,
and
in
this
project,
the
Austrian
lab
depends
upon
the
Caltech
lab
for
state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art
patterning
of
nano-­‐structure
devices.
Another
Caltech
comparative
advantage
is
its
expertise
in
techniques
of
“getting
light
in
and
out
of”
these
devices
using
a
special
fiber
that
has
not
been
replicated
elsewhere
in
the
world.
Until
the
ORCHID
project,
however,
these
2
scientific
groups
had
never
collaborated.
The
idea
for
collaboration
arose
in
an
informal
discussion
between
the
leaders
of
the
two
groups
at
a
scientific
meeting
after
the
DARPA
proposal
was
submitted.
Another
aspect
of
scientific
collaboration
that
is
a
focus
of
this
study
concerns
interaction
between
the
3
groups
of
theoretical
physicists
and
the
experimentalists
(see
Fig.
2).
The
‘Theory’
team
was
brought
together
for
the
ORCHID
project
at
the
initiative
of
the
DARPA
Project
Manager
who
polled
the
experimental
scientists
for
recommendations
of
specific
theoretical
physicists
most
capable
of
providing
“support
for
experimentation”
and
for
advancement
of
optomechanical
theory
based
on
ORCHID
experimental
findings.
The
3
principal
investigators
on
the
theory
team
represented
3
different
schools.
The
three
worked
in
Germany,
Canada,
and
the
United
States.
Only
two
of
the
theorists
have
done
substantial
prior
work
together.
Also,
although
the
members
of
this
theory
team
have
a
track
record
of
collaboration
with
optomechanical
experimentalists,
in
this
specific
case,
only
1
of
the
theoretical
physicists
has
worked
previously
with
1
of
the
Caltech
professors
on
two
joint
publications.
However,
2
of
the
theoretical
physicists
have
contributed
to
a
number
of
joint
publications
co-­‐authored
with
one
of
the
experimental
physicists
who
leads
another
ORCHID
project
team
at
Yale
University.
Professional
links
may
contribute
to
communications
opportunities
and
past
interactions
may
create
assumptions
about
how
work
will
progress.

5.
Indeed,
the
theory
team
proposal
submitted
to
DARPA
anticipated
that
the
ORCHID
project
would
be
particularly
challenging
for
them,
with
respect
to
scientific
management.
First,
there
was
expectation
of
some
“competition”
for
theory
support
from
among
the
5
experimentalist
project
teams,
(the
Caltech-­‐based
team
+
4
other
project
teams
at
Yale,
Berkeley,
and
Cornell).
Secondly,
the
theory
team
assigned
within
its
own
DARPA
budget
a
substantial
provision
for
travel,
as
one
way
to
meet
the
larger
challenge
of
maintaining
a
“close
connection”
with
the
geographically
dispersed
research
groups.
THE
CHALLENGES
OF
‘VIRTUAL
ORGANIZATION’
FOR
FUNDAMENTAL
RESEARCH:
One
of
the
central
collaborative
challenges
in
the
virtual
setting
between
the
Caltech
Nano-­‐
Photonics
Group
and
the
Quantum
Optics
Group
at
the
University
of
Vienna
is
related
to
the
very
nature
of
their
work.
Pure
or
fundamental
research,
(R1
on
our
R&D
spectrum—see
Figure
1)
is
inherently
unpredictable
and
fraught
with
ambiguity.
The
objective
of
the
ORCHID
project
is
discovery
and
knowledge
generation,
with
no
certainty
of
what
will
be
learned
about
the
capabilities
of
specific
device
platforms
to
actually
display
heretofore
hypothetical
optomechanical
effects.
Moreover,
how
to
achieve
such
discovery
has
never
been
entirely
clear
during
the
early
stages
of
the
ORCHID
project,
in
terms
of
questions
that
have
remained
about
what
would
be
the
most
productive
experiments
to
run,
and
how
such
experiments
should
be
designed.

6. Research
has
often
documented
examples
of
the
efficacy
of
clarity
and
predictability
in
work.
Malhotra
et
al.
described
“innovation
without
collocation”
in
their
case
study
at
Boeing-­‐Rocketdyne
where
the
parameters
of
the
desired
outcome
were
clear,
though
not
the
‘how’
of
achieving
a
breakthrough
design
concept
for
liquid-­‐fuelled
rocket
engine
technology.4
Extreme
unpredictability
is
also
directly
contrary
to
findings
by
Olson
et
al.
in
their
decade-­‐long
study
of
science
collaboratories,
where
a
key
factor
leading
to
success
has
been
work
that
is
“unambiguous.”
5
Further
evidence
of
the
challenge
faced
by
the
ORCHID
project
team
is
found
in
Chudoba
et
al.’s
conclusion
that
“work
predictability”
is
a
key
mitigating
factor
for
success
in
a
virtual
organizational
setting6.
Doing
pure
research
in
a
virtual
setting
then,
offers
special
challenges
that
are
inherent
in
the
work
and
the
mode
of
interaction.
A
second
criterion
Olson
et
al.
identified
as
a
factor
leading
to
success
in
collaboratories
was
an
ability
to
act
“somewhat
independently
from
one
another”.
The
Vienna
laboratory
is
dependent
upon
Caltech
to
fabricate
unique
optomechanical
crystal
devices
for
use
in
experiments
that
Caltech
is
depending
upon
the
Viennese
scientists
to
run
on
their
unique
laser-­‐cooling
equipment.
This
substantial
interdependence
between
the
two
laboratories
implies
a
need
for
continuous
and
effective
interaction,
albeit
in
a
virtual
mode.
On
top
of
these
challenges
in
the
nature
of
work
within
this
research
project,
there
are
other
“discontinuities”
(or
factors
that
could
contribute
to
a
decrease
in
cohesion
and
a
capability
for
collaboration).
Chudoba
et
al.
have
already
identified
that
“greater
variety
of
work
practices
negatively
impact
performance”
in
virtual
settings,
and
here
within
the
ORCHID
project,
the
two
experimentalist
groups,
of
Quantum
Optics
and
of
Nano-­‐Photonics
are
based
on
related
but
very
different
disciplines,
and
use
differing
language
to
describe
similar
data.
Moreover,
the
theoretical
physicists
have
their
own
approach
to
problem-­‐
solving
that
differs
from
that
of
either
of
the
experimentalist
schools.
Compounding
the
difference
in
disciplines
or
professional
cultures
that
exists
between
the
two
laboratories
is
the
difference
in
the
equipment
that
they
use
for
experimentation.
It
is
an
overall
advantage
for
the
ORCHID
project
that
the
University
of
Vienna
laboratory
has
a
technical
infrastructure
that
can
do
experiments
at
1000
times
lower
temperatures
than
is
possible
at
Caltech.
However,
the
techniques
that
Caltech
has
perfected
for
“getting
light
in
and
out
of”
its
optomechanical
devices
do
not
work
on
the
Austrian
experimental
infrastructure.
Thus, a key challenge in this collaboration is for the scientists to invent a new
technique for using their devices that would be compatible with the Austrian laboratory. Just the
way this disconnect alone was discovered illustrates a need for close interaction. A graduate
student from Vienna was visiting and noticed that there was a mismatch in the way the
equipment was supposed to fit together. This coincidental visit and the discovery it triggered
greatly facilitated the work of the entire process.
Finally,
all
of
these
scientists
have
experienced
or
are
familiar
with
some
past
failures
or
shortcomings
in
multi-­‐university
research7,
often
due
to
conflicting
priorities
among
4
Malhotra
et.
al.,
MIS
Quarterly,
Jun
2001:
25,
2;
pp.
229-­‐249.
5
Olson
&
Olson,
Human-­Computer
Interaction,
2000:
15,
pp.
139-­‐178.
6
Chudoba
et.
al.
Info
Systems
Journal,
2005:
15,
pp.
279-­‐306.
7
Cummings
&
Kiesler,
Research
Policy,
2007:
36,
pp.
1620-­‐1634.

7. diverse
institutions.
With
the
best
of
intentions,
a
conflict
in
priorities
may
not
be
apparent
at
the
outset
of
a
collaboration,
but
geographic
separation
has
a
way
of
expanding
this
type
of
inter-­‐organizational
“discontinuity”.
Specifically,
within
the
ORCHID
project,
this
factor
has
potential
for
impact,
insofar
as
here,
exploratory
research
is
being
practiced
under
tight
timelines
with
6-­‐month
review
periods
(administered
by
the
funding
agency,
DARPA).
Given
all
of
this
background,
the
primary
challenge
has
been
to
learn
if
and
how
the
geographically
dispersed
teams
of
experimentalist
and
theoretical
physicists
might
effectively
converge
their
thinking
and
diverse
perspectives,
in
order
to
answer
the
fundamental
‘what’
and
‘how’
questions
posed
by
the
ORCHID
project
within
a
virtual
collaborative
scientific
organization.
OUR
FINDINGS:
For
this
case
the
focus
is
on
3
topics;
the
nature
of
the
collaborative
relationships,
identification
of
key
deliberations
involved
in
this
research
process,
and
the
nature
and
media
of
communication
used
by
participants
in
these
deliberations.
Each
of
these
topics
highlights
an
aspect
of
the
work
between
ORCHID
participant
scientists
and
students
as
well
as
in
part
the
influence
of
the
funding
agency
in
creating
a
more
effective
initial
grouping
of
skills
and
capabilities.
Collaboration
The
at-­‐distance
collaboration
between
the
Caltech-­‐based
Micro
&
Nano-­‐Photonics
Group
and
the
Austrian
Optics
&
Nanophysics
Group
has
proven
to
be
even
more
challenging
than
anticipated.
A
major
element
of
the
challenge
came
from
the
need
to
invent
a
new
methodology
that
would
enable
devices
fabricated
by
Caltech
to
run
on
the
experimental
equipment
in
the
Austrian
laboratory.
This
co-­‐invention
required
recognition
or
identification
of
the
problem
and
an
extremely
detailed
mutual
understanding
of
the
technical
capabilities
and
limitations.
The
actual
geographic
constraints
and
virtual
organization
added
to
this
very
challenging
task.
Tremendous
mutual
respect
between
the
leaders
and
staff
of
the
two
laboratories
and
the
shared
strong
“motivation”
to
collaborate
combined
to
enhance
the
chances
of
project
success.
In
the
opinion
of
the
Austrians,
“no
group
worldwide
can
make
such
devices
as
at
Caltech”,
and
similarly,
the
view
expressed
by
members
of
the
Caltech
Group
is
that
the
“Vienna
school
is
world
famous”
for
the
quality
of
its
experimental
scientists
and
the
capability
of
their
equipment
to
do
experiments
at
1000
times
lower
temperatures
than
is
possible
at
Caltech.
The
mutual
respect
between
the
labs
has
also
led
to
a
relationship
that
is
“complementary”
and
“not
competitive”.
Most
importantly,
the
combination
of
the
two
types
of
expertise
creates
a
unique
opportunity
for
scientific
breakthrough.
As
one
group
leader
said,
it
was
“the
first
time
in
principle…to
enter
a
regime
that
we
can
do
[quantum]
experiments
with
truly
microscopic
systems”.
Even
during
the
early
intense
period
of
experimentation
within
this
collaboration,
it
has
already
yielded
a
series
of
internationally
recognized
publications
and
a
“milestone”
experiment/demonstration
of
a
capability
“to
cool
a
miniature
mechanical
object
to
its

8. lowest
possible
energy
state
using
laser
light”
which
“paves
the
way
for…quantum
experiments
that
scientists
have
long
dreamed
of
conducting”8
(See
Fig.
3).
Figure
3:
Nanoscale
Silicon
Mechanical
Resonator
used
in
breakthrough
Caltech
Experiment
8
“Caltech
Team
Uses
Laser
Light
to
Cool
Object
to
Quantum
Ground
State”,
Caltech
Media
Relations
News
Release,
California
Institute
of
Technology,
Pasadena
CA,
October
5,
2011.

9. Credibility
and
capability
have
always
been
important
in
science
but
they
become
more
critical
in
a
virtual
working
relationship.
Competence
is,
therefore,
an
equally
significant
motivation
for
collaboration
between
the
theoretical
and
the
experimental
physicists
within
the
ORCHID
project.
On
one
hand,
theoretical
physicists
want
to
have
connection
with
experimentalists
to
advance
their
understanding
of
what
theoretical
questions
would
be
most
relevant
and
even
feasible
for
experimentation.
In
the
words
of
a
group
leader
and
a
colleague
in
theoretical
physics,
“you
want
to
be
the
first
to
know
about
really
interesting
data…and
so,
you
go
for
the
best
experimental
groups
that
there
are”,
and
the
Caltech
lab
is
“really
one
of
the
leaders
in
the
field”,
having
“the
most
promising”
set-­‐ups/devices
“in
the
world”—“it
was
extremely
natural
to
start
collaborating
with
Caltech”.
Conversely
the
Caltech
lab
and
experimental
physicists
at
Yale
and
other
laboratories,
at
the
request
of
the
DARPA
ORCHID
Program
Director,
actually
selected
this
particular
set
of
theoretical
physicists,
for
their
well-­‐established
reputation
for
collaboration
and
an
ability
to
do
the
calculations
and
modeling
necessary
for
optomechanical
experimentation.
One
of
the
oft-­‐noted
features
of
this
collaboration
has
been
the
respected
and
fairly
active
facilitation
role
performed
by
the
ORCHID
Program
Director
from
the
funding
agency,
DARPA,
who
is
seen
“to
push
the
collaboration”.
For
example,
the
Program
Director
has
convened
periodic
teleconferences
among
the
theoretical
physicists
to
promote
and
review
their
collaboration.
And,
on
a
semi-­‐annual
basis,
the
Program
Director
leads
a
thorough
review
of
the
overall
ORCHID
program,
bringing
together
members
of
the
theoretical
and
experimentalist
groups,
faculty
and
graduate
students.
Key
Deliberations9
The
nature
of
these
scientific
collaborations
becomes
even
more
evident
through
understanding
the
key
deliberations
involved
in
achieving
this
type
of
fundamental
research
project.
For
example,
a
key
deliberation
topic
arising
continuously
during
Phase
One
of
the
ORCHID
project
is
the
Selection
of
what
Experiment(s)
to
run.
This
deliberation
also
illustrates
the
significance
of
serendipity
that
often
surfaces
in
collaborations
such
as
this
one
between
the
perspectives
of
theoretical
and
experimental
physics.
In
one
instance,
a
graduate
student
associated
with
the
German
theorists
took
note
of
experimental
data
that
his
Caltech
colleagues
had
generated
quite
by
chance.
They
were
inclined
to
discount
the
data
as
an
“artifact”.
However,
to
the
German
student
this
data
was
indicative
of
an
“interesting”
optomechanical
effect
that
had
been
predicted
by
theoretical
physicists,
although
the
same
theory
suggested
it
would
be
extremely
difficult
to
achieve
such
an
effect
experimentally.
Once
Caltech
physicists
were
informed
and
persuaded
by
this
theoretical
understanding,
a
new
experiment
was
devised,
and
the
predicted
effects
were
then
effectively
demonstrated.
Among
the
experimentalists,
there
have
already
been
examples
of
joint
participation
in
deliberations
involved
with
the
detailed
Design
of
Experiments
within
ORCHID,
both
in
terms
of
procedures
and
equipment
design.
The
most
complex
example
of
a
sub-­‐topic
in
this
type
of
deliberation
involved
the
challenge
of
what
and
how
to
redesign
in
order
to
9
“Deliberations
are
patterns
of
exchange
and
communication
in
which
people
engage…to
reduce
the
equivocality
of
a
problematic
issue”;
Pava,
Calvin,
1983,
Managing
New
Office
Technology,
The
Free
Press,
New
York,
N.Y.,
p.58.

10. achieve
a
match
between
the
wavelength
characteristics
of
the
optomechnical
device
fabricated
at
Caltech,
and
on
the
other
hand,
the
wavelength
of
the
light
source
to
be
utilized
in
experiments
to
be
run
in
the
Austrian
laboratory.
A
related
deliberation
topic
has
been
the
Design
of
Measurement—what
to
measure
and
how
to
measure—where
once
again,
the
combination
of
theoretical
and
experimental
perspectives
has
been
very
helpful.
Within
the
process
of
actually
implementing
a
specific
experimental
design
or
fabricating
a
specific
device,
there
are
inevitably
multiple
problem-­‐solving
iterations.
In
one
instance,
a
Caltech
graduate
student
spent
6
months
“putting
out
fires”
in
trying
to
develop
just
one
experiment
that
had
a
wide
variety
of
issues
ranging
from
inaccuracies
in
certain
sensing
equipment
to
inconsistencies
in
the
production
of
the
optomechanical
crystal
device
itself.
During
these
trouble-­‐shooting
deliberations
within
the
experiment
conducted
at
Caltech,
the
experience
and
perspective
provided
by
members
of
the
Austrian
laboratory
were
key.
Other
deliberations
for
both
the
theoretical
and
experimental
physicists
have
involved
more
logistical
topics,
such
as
the
timing
and
coordination
for
the
transport
of
optomechanical
devices
between
Caltech
and
the
Austrian
laboratory,
the
allocation
of
staff
resources
(i.e.
specific
graduate
students
or
lab
technicians)
to
work
on
specific
theoretical
questions
or
to
develop
specific
experiments,
or
even
the
“partitioning”
of
research
questions
among
the
theorists
for
particular
study
by
each
of
their
respective
groups.
In
the
way
that
the
various
physicists
have
described
these
deliberations,
it
is
apparent
that
a
particular
deliberation
topic
could
not
only
re-­‐cycle
in
a
non-­‐linear
fashion,
(for
example,
the
‘choice
point’
of
whether
to
run
a
particular
experiment),
but
it
might
also
carry
on
over
an
extended
period
of
time,
with
substantial
lapses
or
“incubation”
time
in-­‐between
communications—“it’s
a
constant
re-­‐evaluation;
where
do
you
want
to
put
your
effort?”
Communications
The
choice
and
use
of
communication
media
are
central
factors
in
the
functioning
of
research
networks
or
virtual
organizations
because
deliberations
are
patterns
of
exchange
and
communication
to
resolve
issues
of
equivocality
in
knowledge
work
processes.
Nevertheless,
to
maintain
communication
between
two
geographically
separated
scientific
groups
has,
in
the
view
of
the
Orchid
project
participants,
required
“enormous
effort”.
Furthermore,
within
the
Orchid
project
experience,
there
appear
to
be
certain
patterns,
whereby
different
modes
of
communication
seem
to
have
come
into
play
at
different
stages
of
specific
deliberations
and
within
the
overall
research
process.
One
pattern
that
has
been
common
for
both
the
experimental
and
theoretical
physicists
is
that
“a
lot
of
the
collaboration
really
goes
on
via
email”,
exchanging
documents
or
experimental
results
without
the
expectation
of
instant
response.
Email
as
a
communication
mode
allows
contemplation
and
preparation
for
what
is
very
often
a
next
step
in
the
deliberation,
namely,
one
or
more
synchronous
Skype
conversations
or
teleconferences
to
discuss
and
make
“sense”
of
the
shared
information.
Sometimes,
a
“screen-­‐sharing”
feature
has
been
utilized
to
supplement
this
‘sense-­‐making’.
Sometimes,
Google-­‐Plus
has
also
been
used,
particularly
by
some
of
the
graduate
students,
to
supplement
email.

11. Skype
calls
have
had
another
use,
distinct
from
email
exchanges,
for
what
some
ORCHID
participants
term
“strategic
decisions”,
for
example,
weighing
options
about
if
and
when
to
run
a
certain
experiment,
or
whether
or
not
to
allocate
additional
resources
to
a
specific
aspect
of
the
project.
The
visual
as
well
as
audio
capability
of
Skype
calls
has
also
enabled
ORCHID
participants
to
sit
in
pairs
or
threesomes
around
a
computer
and
use
Skype
(only
very
occasionally)
as
a
means
to
hold
a
modified
form
of
videoconference,
rather
than
use
a
more
elaborate,
specialized
video
conferencing
technology.
In
fact,
most
teleconferences
seem
to
have
involved
pairs
or
trios
of
(distributed)
ORCHID
participants,
rather
than
the
larger
group
‘gatherings’
for
project
teleconferences
that
might
have
been
contemplated
at
the
outset
of
the
Caltech-­‐based
ORCHID
project.
Virtual
large
group
‘gatherings’
of
diverse
faculty
and
graduate
students
have
proven
to
be
an
overwhelming
organizational
challenge.
One
of
the
principles
of
virtual
communication
that
seems
to
be
foremost
in
the
ORCHID
project
context
is
that
communication
technology
and
procedures
need
to
be
“simple
and
robust”
or
they
will
not
get
used.
Some
of
the
ORCHID
project
members
have
participated
in
videoconferences
within
other
research
networks,
and
there
are
now
plans
in
the
forthcoming
year
for
both
the
Caltech
lab
and
the
Austrian
lab
to
utilize
newly
installed
videoconference
facilities,
particularly
as
the
need
will
increase
for
inter-­‐group
discussions
and
interpretation
of
a
growing
amount
of
data
from
the
intense
period
of
experimentation
in
the
Austrian
lab.
Nevertheless,
most
of
the
ORCHID
project
participants
would
claim
that
much
of
the
most
significant
progress
has
been
made
in
the
research
process
when
there
has
been
the
opportunity
for
face-­‐to-­‐face
(F2F)
communication
between
members
of
these
geographically
dispersed
scientific
groups.
For
example,
the
‘idea’
for
this
scientific
collaboration
“all
started”
through
a
series
of
F2F
meetings
at
Caltech
and
conferences
involving
faculty
and
graduate
students
from
the
Caltech
and
Austrian
laboratories.
And
now,
these
scientists
who
are
now
collaborating
within
the
ORCHID
project
renew
their
F2F
contact,
at
scientific
conferences
to
which
they
are
invited
several
times
a
year,
as
well
as
at
the
semi-­‐annual
ORCHID
Program
review
meetings
convened
by
DARPA.
Similarly,
within
the
early
months
of
the
ORCHID
project,
the
‘theory’
team
worked
entirely
at
a
distance
from
the
experimentalists,
studying
research
papers
and
slides
presented
at
the
ORCHID
program
launch,
in
order
to
make
sense
of
“where
the
experimentalists
were
going”,
and
“what
questions
would
be
important
to
the
success
of
their
experiments”.
However,
“in
terms
of
real
[theoretical]
research
being
conducted…the
most
impressive
example”
occurred
when
the
leader
of
the
German
school
of
Theoretical
Physics
sent
one
of
his
graduate
students
to
work
for
5
consecutive
months
in
the
Micro
&
Nano-­‐Photonics
lab
at
Caltech.
During
this
period,
the
graduate
student
(linked
by
frequent
Skype
and
email
communication
with
his
German
colleagues)
was
“able
to
give
real
time
suggestions
to
the
experimentalists
on
what
they
should
be
measuring”
or
quickly
to
interpret
experimental
data
that
“it
would
have
taken
[the
experimentalists]
a
long
time
to
figure
out”.
Another
example
of
this
type
of
“embedded
researcher”
was
the
graduate
student
from
the
Austrian
laboratory
who
came,
quite
by
chance,
to
Caltech
for
5
weeks
in
September-­‐
October
2010,
when
it
so
happened
the
project
was
experiencing
an
unfortunate
delay
in
development
of
the
optomechanical
device
and
experimental
design
intended
for
use
in
the

12. Austrian
laboratory.
By
all
accounts,
this
graduate
student
and
his
colleagues
in
Austria
could
not
have
been
nearly
as
helpful
with
expediting
this
key
experimental
design,
without
his
physical
presence
and
F2F
communication
with
the
Caltech
scientists.
In
the
words
of
the
Austrian
graduate
student:
“it’s
very
hard
to
really
get
on
the
same
page
and
really
understand
what
the
other
one
means
if
you
don’t
see…the
design,
see
how
the
people
work…I
wasn’t
really
aware
of
how
different
the
experiments
were
[in
Caltech]
than
in
Vienna.
And,
we
just
had
to
merge
those
two
different
approaches
together.”
From
late
2010
to
March
2011,
this
graduate
student
continued
his
F2F
contact
with
Caltech,
traveling
back-­‐and-­‐forth
from
Austria,
transporting
various
prototypes
of
the
optomechanical
device
for
test
runs
in
Austria,
and
since
March
2011,
he
has
begun
a
two-­‐
year
post-­‐doctoral
assignment
with
the
Caltech
Nano-­‐Photonics
Group.
During
2011
and
2012
of
Phase
Two
of
the
ORCHID
project,
he
joined
Caltech
graduate
students
in
periodic
visits
to
the
Austrian
laboratory
where
they
have
taken
the
refined
optomechanical
crystal
device
and
worked
with
the
University
of
Vienna
staff
to
set-­‐up
the
actual
experimentation,
now
successfully
underway
in
Austria
“with
a
full-­‐blown
structure
fully
operational
and
completely
unique”.
Without
this
F2F
contact
by
this
second
“embedded
researcher”,
the
general
opinion
is
that
this
experimental
design
“would
have
been
worked
out,
but
it
would
just
have
taken
much
longer”.
ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS:
Researchers
know
that
“technology-­‐mediated
interactions…complement
face-­‐to-­‐face
interactions”
in
virtual
settings.
Dixon
and
Pantelli
(2010)
documented
this
in
their
study
of
a
UK
government-­‐funded
program
establishing
a
‘virtual
centre
of
excellence’
for
technology
development10.
In
the
ORCHID
project
experience
much
of
the
face-­‐to-­‐face
interaction
actually
occurred
by
happenstance,
and
for
periods
of
time
longer
than
typical
for
graduate
student
exchanges.
These
factors
raise
questions
and
may
also
provide
answers
about
the
nature
and
dynamics
of
this
complementarity
of
communication
media
in
virtual
settings.
More
to
the
point
they
raise
questions
and
may
also
provide
answers
about
how
this
dynamic
works
in
fundamental
research
collaborations.
The
project
participants
interviewed
generally
acknowledge
that
email,
videoconference,
or
any
of
the
technology-­‐mediated
forms
of
communication
“work
best
when
you
already
have
an
idea
of
where
you
want
to
go”,
with
a
particular
work
process
question
or
research
topic.
So,
determining
the
direction
or
strategies
of
a
project
may
require
concentrated
F2F
communication.
Some
of
the
ORCHID
participants
commented
that
this
is
most
apparent
“in
the
early
stages
of
a
project,
when
things
are
so
confusing…everything
is
so
unclear—
you
need
a
lot
of
random
discussions
that
may
lead
to
nowhere…we
just
have
to
talk
again
and
again—it
seems
to
depend
very
much
on
personal
interaction,
the
chance
element.”
This
leads
to
three
inquiries.
• First,
to
what
extent
is
this
initial
confusion
temporary
and
is
it
only
initially
needed
to
develop
an
understanding
of
each
other
and
‘get
on
the
same
page’?
10
Dixon
and
Pantelli,
2010,
“From
Virtual
Teams
to
Virtuality
in
Teams”,
Human
Relations,
63(8),
pp.
1177-­‐1197)

13. • Second,
how
much
is
this
challenge
one
of
“perspective-­‐taking”
among
participants
from
different
disciplines
and
with
diverse
work
practices?11
• And
third,
in
this
virtual
setting
where
most
of
the
geographically
dispersed
participants
had
not
previously
worked
together,
how
much
of
the
challenge
of
mutual
understanding
involves
trust
and
relationship
building?
Taking
these
questions
in
reverse
order,
the
answer
from
Caltech
participants
and
from
the
two
“embedded”
European
researchers,
is
that
it
has
been
“very
crucial”
to
work
together,
“eat
lunch,
and
have
coffee
together”,
or
“to
spend
time
together”,
just
“to
get
to
know
each
other”.
These
interactions
make
it
easier
to
“just
get
on
the
same
page”.
Caltech
graduate
students
and
their
“embedded
researcher”
counterparts
have
developed
a
“personal”
friendship
more
than
just
a
“professional”
relationship.
As
a
result,
they
are
“more
willing
to
have
discussions
[with
each
other]
when
[they]
don’t
have
clear,
conclusive
ideas”,
and
are
“more
willing
to
share
data
that
[they]
don’t
understand”—in
their
words,
“we
are
not
as
hesitant
with
each
other”.
These
participants
now
also
speak
in
a
way
that
suggests
they
are
more
tolerant
or
open
to
some
national
“cultural
differences”
between
the
scientific
groups.
Such
differences
could
otherwise
have
been
serious
“discontinuities”
in
the
collaboration,
especially
given
the
delays
that
have
occurred
with
various
pieces
of
work
in
this
project,
disrupting
coordination
between
laboratories.
One
Caltech
graduate
student
gave
this
example:
“when
the
German
scientists
say
that
they
will
have
a
result
ready
in
4
months,
it
is
ready
in
4
months;
whereas
when
Americans
say
that
they
will
have
a
result
in
2
months,
it
often
takes
longer—we
[North
Americans]
over-­‐promise,
while
the
Germans
are
more
cautious”.
Building
respect
and
trust
is
thus
clearly
connected
to
the
second
challenge
of
“perspective-­‐
taking”
across
the
disciplines
of
theoretical
and
experimental
physics,
or
across
the
disciplines
of
quantum
optics
and
applied
physics,
and
even
more
particularly,
between
scientists
from
two
laboratories
with
methods
and
equipment
for
experimentation
that
are
“very,
very
different”.
Beyond
this
interpersonal
dimension,
though,
the
process
of
integrating
multi-­‐disciplinary
and
multicultural
perspectives
to
solve
technical
problems
has
required
that
scientists
“actually
sit
together…make
drawings
on
the
blackboard
and
discuss
things…again
and
again”.
The
nature
of
these
conversations
appears
to
closely
resemble
the
use
of
“narrative”
and
“boundary
objects”
cited
by
Boland
&
Tenkasi,
in
their
modeling
of
language
and
cognition
to
assist
in
the
design
of
electronic
communication
systems
for
“communities
of
knowing”
within
and
across
organizational
boundaries.12
Indeed,
some
of
the
ORCHID
project
11
Boland
&
Tenkasi,
1995,
“Perspective-­‐making
and
perspective-­‐taking
in
communities
of
knowing”,
Organization
Science,
6
(4),
pp.
350-­‐372.
12
Bruner
(1986)
contends
that
rational
analysis
of
data
is
supplemented
by
how
we
construct
stories
or
metaphors
to
make
sense
of
unusual
or
unexpected
events
in
an
interesting
and
believable
way
that
fits
with
our
particular
cultural
field.
Similarly,
Star
(1989,
1993)
has
observed
how
a
picture,
map
or
diagram
can
provide
a
visible
representation
of
one’s
thinking
and
becomes
a
“boundary
object”
that
makes
one’s
knowledge
available
for
analysis
with
another
individual
or
scientific
community.

14. participants
agree
that
this
kind
of
interdisciplinary
problem-­‐solving
discussion
is
definitely
“possible
at
a
distance,
over
the
internet,
on
a
[video
or
tele]
conference
call
where
you
can
just
draw
things…But
it’s
not
as
efficient
as
if
you
come
for
a
week
or
two
and
just
sit
together
and
just
concentrate
on
one
thing.”
Nevertheless,
the
two
“embedded
researchers”
have
continued
to
perform
within
the
ORCHID
project
a
function
with
respect
to
colleagues
in
their
‘home’
scientific
groups
that
is
very
similar
to
what
Boland
&
Tenkasi
refer
to
as
“semiotic
brokers”.13
Knowing
the
‘language’
and
the
capabilities
of
the
Caltech
lab,
they
have
been
able
to
establish
a
liaison
or
“straddler”
role14
‘translating’
and
expediting
communication
between
the
Caltech
staff,
the
theory
team,
and
staff
associated
with
the
Austrian
experimental
lab.
From
the
perspective
of
the
European
leaders
of
the
ORCHID
project,
this
linking
role
has
been
“absolutely
essential”.
Without
this
role,
and
without
it
being
performed
effectively,
graduate
students
in
one
or
more
of
the
labs
would
lose
interest
and
engagement
with
the
project.
Critical
opportunities
to
focus
the
research
would
be
missed
or
adjustments
would
not
be
made.
Unlike
a
situation
where
the
two
lab
groups
might
have
been
co-­‐located,
in
this
case
of
a
trans-­‐Atlantic
collaboration,
regular
and
spontaneous
meetings
to
critique
progress
don’t
happen
easily,
given
all
of
the
local
distractions
and
priorities
that
take
over
one’s
attention”.
To
the
first
question
about
how
‘temporary’
the
need
is
for
F2F
communication
in
this
work,
the
perception
expressed
by
many
of
the
ORCHID
participants
is
that
there
is
a
general
“threshold”
or
set
of
constraints
associated
with
a
phone
call,
videoconference,
etc.
Part
of
this
perception,
even
for
many
of
the
younger
Millennial
generation
graduate
students,
is
that
there
is
“a
raft
of
minor
issues”—audio
noise,
crossing
over
from
one
information
source
to
another,
time
zone
issues—“that
all
add
up
to
make
virtual
communication
less
appealing,
not
as
easy
for
most
complex
problem-­‐solving”.
More
important,
though,
is
that
F2F
enables
“a
non-­‐restricted
occasion,
meaning
there
is
no
phone
that
when
you
hang
up,
the
person
is
gone…[no]
1-­‐hour
time
slot
for
a
phone
call…you
just
are
around…there
is
the
possibility
to
interact
24
hours
in
principle”.
Thus,
what
is
seen
to
be
lacking
with
electronic
communication
media
is
“intensity
and
spontaneity”
that
these
scientists
contend
are
vital
when
“developing
new
ideas,
new
directions—about
the
experiment,
and
so
on”.
In
science,
“there’s
this
random-­‐chance
occurring
of
ideas…you
chat
about
a
lot
of
different
topics,
and
then,
somehow
the
germ
of
a
new
idea
comes
up”
whereas
“teleconferences
don’t
happen
by
chance”.
Or,
as
another
Caltech
scientist
expressed
the
dilemma,
without
opportunities
for
F2F
communication,
“Eureka
moments
won’t
happen”.
Along
with
this
spontaneity,
there
needs
also
to
be
the
“pressure”
or
“intensity”
of
“constant
exchange”
because
in
“generating
new
ideas,
you
always
have
an
incubation
time”.
13
Lyotard
(1984)
refers
to
the
important
role
of
agents
that
help
to
translate
and
integrate
the
representation
of
concepts.
14
Heeks
et
al.,
2001,
“Synching
or
Sinking:
Global
Software
Outsourcing
Relationships”,
IEEE
Software,
March/April
2001,
p.59.

15. The
question
remains
whether
this
need
for
F2F
communication
to
help
generate
“new
ideas,
new
directions”
exists
primarily
or
solely
at
the
beginning
of
a
fundamental
research
project
like
ORCHID?
Perhaps,
it
is
so
for
projects
more
on
the
‘Development’
side
of
the
R&D
spectrum.
For
fundamental
research,
however,
that
has
as
its
core
objective
to
generate
‘breakthrough’
concepts,
knowledge,
and
experimental
data,
it
seems
more
likely
from
the
experience
of
the
ORCHID
project
over
its
extended
period
of
three
years,
that
there
is
a
rhythmic
cycle
moving
from
one
‘unknown’
through
to
discovery
of
‘known’
results
that
evoke
their
own
new
questions
and
definition
of
a
new
‘unknown’
followed
by
a
further
search
for
‘findings’.
In
the
words
of
the
European
science
leader
for
ORCHID,
“in
fundamental
research,
one
never
knows
in
which
direction
research
is
taking
you—new
opportunities
and
new
challenges
are
continually
opening
up”.
Indeed,
the
experience
of
the
ORCHID
project
has
persuaded
this
European
scientist
that
timely,
periodic
F2F
communication
is
vital
in
virtual
scientific
collaborations
involving
fundamental
research.
F2F
communication
within
the
virtual
organization
of
the
ORCHID
project
may
have
additional
importance.
Findings
from
the
study
of
other
virtual
teams
suggest
that
they
have
a
need
for
“deep
temporal
rhythms
of
interaction”,
with
“face-­‐to-­‐face
meetings…as
a
heartbeat,
rhythmically
pumping
new
life
into
the
team’s
processes”.
The
goal
is
“to
draw
team
members
together…to
connect,
couple,
and
integrate
team
members
so
that
they
communicate
more
effectively.”15
In
this
ORCHID
project,
the
process
of
drawing
people
together
began
early
and
continued
into
the
virtual
setting.
Early
F2F
communication
was
combined
with
the
unique
and
very
powerful
motivation
that
the
dispersed
parties
seem
to
have
for
this
collaboration.
The
science
leaders
of
the
ORCHID
project
“had
talked
to
each
other
a
lot
of
times
before
starting
this
program”,
and
“it
helps
that
a
program
like
ORCHID
is
very
focused
on
one
topic”
of
vital
interest
to
all
the
relevant
scientific
groups.
Indeed,
the
speculation
of
at
least
one
experienced
research
scientist
in
the
ORCHID
project
is
that
success
in
such
multi-­‐university
research
“does
not
depend
so
much
on
technical
difficulties
in
collaboration,
but
more
on
motivation”.
A
strong
motivation
can
combine
with
the
intensity
of
relationship
building,
F2F
or
virtually,
to
enhance
and
support
deliberations
across
multidisciplinary
and
geographic
boundaries.
15
Maznevski
and
Chudoba,
2000,
Bridging
Space
Over
Time:
Global
Virtual
Team
Dynamics
and
Effectiveness,
Organization
Science,
11
(5),
pp.
473-­‐492.

16. REFERENCES:
Boland,
R.J.,
Tenkasi,
R.V.,
1995,
Perspective
making
and
perspective
taking
in
communities
of
knowing,
Organization
Science,
6
(4),
pp.
350–372.
Bruner,
J.
S.,
1986,
Actual
Minds,
Possible
Worlds,
Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press.
Caltech
Media
Relations,
2011,
“Caltech
Team
Uses
Laser
Light
to
Cool
Object
to
Quantum
Ground
State”,
News
Release,
California
Institute
of
Technology,
Pasadena
CA,
October
5,
2011.
Caltech
Media
Relations,
2013,
“Caltech
Team
Produces
Squeezed
Light
Using
a
Silicon
Micromechanical
System”,
News
Release,
Caltech,
Pasadena
CA,
August
7,
2013.
Safavi-­‐Naeini,
A.H.
et
al.,
2013,
“Squeezed
Light
from
a
Silicon
Micromechanical
Resonator”,
Nature
500,
(August
8,
2013),
pp.
185-­‐189.
Chudoba,
K.M.,
Wynn,
E.,
Lu,
M.,
Watson-­‐Manheim,
M.B.,
2005,
How
Virtual
are
we?
Measuring
Virtuality
and
understanding
its
Impact
in
a
Global
Organization,
Information
Systems
Journal,
15,
pp.
279-­‐306.
Cummings,
J.
N.,
Kiesler,
S.,
2007,
Coordination
Costs
and
Project
Outcomes
in
Multi-­‐University
Collaborations,
Research
Policy,
36,
pp.
1620-­‐1634.
Dixon,
K.R.,
Panteli,
N.,
2010,
From
Virtual
Teams
to
Virtuality
in
Teams,
Human
Relations,
63
(8),
pp.1177-­‐1197.
Heeks,
R.,
Krishna,
S.,
Nicholson,
B.,
Sahay,
S.,
2001,
“Synching
or
Sinking:
Global
Software
Outsourcing
Relationships”,
IEEE
Software,
March/April
2001,
p.59.
Lyotard,
J.
F.,
1984,
The
Postmodern
Conditions:
A
Report
on
Knowledge,
Minneapolis,
MN:
University
of
Minnesota
Press.
Malhotra,
A.,
Majchrzak,
A.,
Carman,
R.,
Lott,
V.,
2000,
Radical
Innovation
without
Collocation:
A
Case
Study
at
Boeing-­‐Rocketdyne,
MIS
Quarterly,
25
(2),
pp.
229-­‐249.
Maznevski,
M.L.,
Chudoba,
K.M.,
2000,
Bridging
Space
Over
Time:
Global
Virtual
Team
Dynamics
and
Effectiveness,
Organization
Science,
11
(5),
pp.
473-­‐492.
Olson,
G.M.
Olson,
J.S.,
2000,
Distance
Matters,
Human-­Computer
Interaction,
15,
pp.
139-­‐178.
Pava,
Calvin,
1983,
Managing
New
Office
Technology,
The
Free
Press,
New
York,
N.Y.,
p.58.
Revkin,
A.,
2008.
Dot
Earth:
‘R2-­D2’
and
Other
Lessons
from
Bell
Labs,
New
York
Times,
December
12,
2008.
Star,
S.
L.,
1989,
“The
Structure
of
Ill-­‐Structured
Solutions:
Boundary
Objects
and
Heterogeneous
Distributed
Problem
Solving”,
in
M.
Huhns
and
L.
Gasser
(Eds.),
Readings
in
Distributed
Artificial
Intelligence
2,
Menlo
Park,
CA:
Morgan
Kaufmann.
Star,
S.
L.,
1993,
“Cooperation
Without
Consensus
in
Scientific
Problem
Solving:
Dynamics
of
Closure
in
Open
Systems”,
in
S.
Easterbrook
(Ed.),
CSCW:
Cooperation
or
Conflict,
London:
UK
Springer.

17.
APPENDIX
1:
METHODOLOGY
During
the
late
spring
of
2010,
the
VOSS
research
team
opened
discussions
with
Caltech’s
Micro
&
Nano
Photonics
Research
Group
in
the
Applied
Physics
department.
This
research
group
had
previously
agreed
and
formally
expressed
an
interest
to
participate
as
a
site
in
he
VOSS
project.
However,
a
preliminary
‘scoping’
discussion
was
required
to
determine
the
most
appropriate
multi-­‐university
research
activity
to
focus
upon
for
this
VOSS
study.
After
‘kick-­‐off’
of
the
ORCHID
program
at
a
meeting
of
the
various
research
teams
from
Caltech,
Yale,
etc.,
held
in
Santa
Barbara,
CA
in
June
2010,
preparations
for
the
eventual
experimentation
began
slowly
both
at
Caltech
and
at
the
University
of
Vienna
Quantum
Optics
Group.
Preparations
were
complicated
by
the
need
to
coordinate
the
planning
of
what
research
to
do
and
how
to
do
it,
between
two
laboratories
that
operated
with
very
different
equipment
and
methodologies.
Hence,
it
was
not
until
the
spring
of
2011
that
the
ORCHID
project
Principal
Investigator
signaled
to
the
VOSS
research
team
that
it
was
timely
to
hold
the
first
of
a
series
of
(one
hour)
teleconference
interviews
to
review
the
project’s
progress.
In
the
summer
of
2011,
one
member
of
the
VOSS
team
made
a
visit
to
the
Caltech
laboratories
and
conducted
face-­‐to-­‐face
interviews
with
the
Principal
Investigator
and
with
two
of
the
graduate
students
involved
very
substantially
with
the
ORCHID
project.
Plans
were
also
made
at
this
time
for
phone
interviews
(held
in
the
autumn
of
2011)
with
faculty
and
graduate
students
located
at
the
University
of
Vienna
laboratory,
and
with
European
and
Canadian
members
of
the
ORCHID
project
team
of
theoretical
physicists.
It
was
emphasized
by
the
ORCHID
project
Principal
Investigator
that
PhD
students
and
Post-­‐
Doctoral
associates
within
each
of
the
laboratories
in
Europe
and
Caltech
were
the
individuals
most
involved
in
the
day-­‐to-­‐day
process
of
this
scientific
collaboration,
and
thus,
would
be
preferred
subjects
for
interviews
in
this
VOSS
study.
Finally,
a
second
round
of
interviews
were
conducted
with
the
leaders
and
selected
members
of
the
ORCHID
project
during
Phase
Two,
in
the
autumn
of
2012.
Overall,
during
an
elapsed
time
period
of
three
years,
approximately
20
(60-­‐90
minute)
interviews
have
been
conducted
in
person
or
by
phone,
involving
two
members
of
the
VOSS
research
team
and
one
subject/participant
of
the
ORCHID
project.
Interviews
have
sought
primarily
to
identify:
i) perceptions
of
the
nature
and
challenges
of
this
scientific
collaboration
from
the
perspectives
of
the
various
scientific
Groups;
ii) key
deliberations
(“choice
points”)
in
this
particular
process
of
fundamental
research;
and
iii) the
qualitative
nature
and
frequency
of
use
associated
with
various
media
of
communication
among
participants
in
the
ORCHID
project.