{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025256849315068493, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003424657534246575, 'mean_word_length': 5.546218487394958, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Collective Intelligence and Three Aspects of Planning in Organizations: A NASA Example

We construe " collective intelligence " (CI) in terms of a) activity and b) outcome, rather than in terms of the supporting technology: collective intelligence is a) the generation, apprehension, and use of distributed information through collaborative processes and b) the knowledge or products resulting from such activity. Our perspective on collective intelligence concerns planning within an organization. By " planning " — the process, we mean identifying events and scheduling them in time, with the intent to guide or anticipate future actions. By plan—the product, we mean an externally represented specification of a (partially) ordered set of activities. In organizations, planning depends on collective intelligence and plans in turn provide input to collective intelligence. While study of planning by people and computers has a long and varied tradition (e.g. Wilensky, 1983; Fikes & Nilsson, 1971), designing effective tools to support complex planning by groups of people remains a very difficult problem Our core example comes from the domain of planning by the ADCO controller group (Attitude Determination and Control), which is part of NASA's mission control of the International Space Station. This group plans the detailed sequence of activities needed to position the ISS, while collaborating across groups to ensure the appropriateness of the planned activities in the wider context of the ISS mission. In addition, we are informed by NASA Ames research and application development for several other planning domains, including planning for Mars Rover scientific activity and scheduling activities in a bed rest facility Temporal Structure of Planning Planning/Scheduling is organized around temporal structure, and its temporal structure is distinctive and complex. Further, from a technology point of view, CI tools that work effectively for domains not organized around temporal structure (in many examples of CI from bookmarking to wiki‐writing) may be unsatisfactory for domains primarily structured by time. Nevertheless, planning typically is and ought to be a collective intelligence activity. Indeed, the need for complex planning and scheduling primarily arises for complex sociotechnological systems. Such systems