Abstract:
Relationships among members of a social network are automatically characterized by determining the pattern and purposes of electronic messages communicated between such members. By leveraging an organization&#39;s existing messaging infrastructure, the present invention can inexpensively and unobtrusively provide management with insights into interpersonal interactions that are either helpful or harmful to the performance of high-impact teams. Such insights are useful in mitigating human interactional problem areas, improving individual and group performance, and in team building and self-assessment or research activities.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
   This claims priority to and the benefit of co-pending, U.S. provisional patent application No. 60/270,752, filed Feb. 22, 2001, the entirety of which is incorporated herein by reference. 

   TECHNICAL FIELD 
   The present invention relates to ascertaining the performance of a social network and more specifically to characterizing the interrelationships of individual members of the social network. 
   BACKGROUND 
   A social network refers to a set of social entities that interact and exchange information in a social relationship. Social entities include, for example, people, teams, groups, organizations, and countries, while social relationships refer to friendship, employment, or other relationships between these social entities. Dialogues between members of the social network, such as exchanges, promises, commitments, and other interactions that are necessary for a common business purpose or other activity, form and develop the social relationships between each entity in the social network. 
   Researchers, business managers, executives, social network participants, and other individuals and entities with a vested interest in the efficiency and success of a particular social network are concerned with monitoring and improving social relationships so as to optimize performance on the part of individuals and across the entire network. Traditional techniques for monitoring social relationships rely on manual data collection, such as questionnaires, interviews, observations, and self-assessment surveys, which are fraught with inaccuracies, unreliability, and subjectivity. While technological innovations have improved upon these manual techniques and now afford limited electronic monitoring capabilities, a continuing need exists for improved data gathering and interpretation techniques that automatically and objectively characterize the interactions between and among individuals and groups. 
   SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
   The present invention leverages an organization&#39;s existing messaging infrastructure (e.g., electronic mail) by monitoring electronic messages transmitted between social network participants. The invention characterizes the relationships in the social network by monitoring the dialogues of the network participants to determine emerging patterns of behavior, a purpose for each individual message in the dialogues, and the outcomes of these dialogues. The invention then uses this pattern, purpose, and outcome information to explicitly characterize the nature and quality of the relationships between each network participant. 
   In this manner, the invention enables, for example, individuals to see how their interactions with others are characterized as a set of objective metrics that capture the quality, depth, balance and accountability in relationships as sell as their response times and the quantity of their communications. These metrics provide individuals with feedback that can be used to adapt their own interactions in order to improve these metrics. Similarly, the close correlation between these metrics and individual and group performance enables management to intervene in ways to improve both individual and group performance. Management can also extend the criteria used to select members of a new group by including metrics generated by the invention for any candidates involved in prior social networks, together with each candidate&#39;s individual, technical skills. This expanded set of criteria thus provides management with an improved ability to gauge the likelihood that the interpersonal skills of each technically-qualified group member will result in a highly efficient and productive group. The metrics can also form the basis of compensation systems. 
   In one embodiment, a method performed in accordance with the invention characterizes relationships among members of a social network. The invention receives a plurality of messages (e.g., electronic mail messages) communicated during a dialogue between members of the social network, determines a “purpose” for each such message, and determines at least one “pattern” in the messages. The purpose determined for each message corresponds to a speech act (also known as a primitive) and/or a sequence of speech acts, which characterize the message as, for example, a note, an acknowledgement, a counter, a reverse counter, a complete, a commit, an acceptance, a decline, an offer, an invitation, a withdrawal, an opt-out, a request, or a question. Similarly, the pattern in the messages may correspond, for example, to a frequency of interaction, a latency in response, a latency in completion, a successful completion ratio, a nonresponsive ratio, an unsuccessful ratio, and/or a number of participating members until completion. The purposes of each message may be analyzed to determine the pattern in the messages. The relationships among the members of the social network are characterized, at least in part, based on the pattern and purposes of the messages. 
   The invention may select one of a plurality of purpose categories and embed indicia of the selected purpose category in a message. For example, the indicia may be embedded in, and later extracted from, the body section of the message and/or from the header section of the message. The invention assigns a score to each member of the social network participating in the dialogue based, at least in part, on the purpose determined for each of the messages transmitted by that particular member. The purpose can be further classified by type, such as favorable, unfavorable, or neutral. The invention increments the score assigned to particular participating members in response to favorable purposes associated with messages transmitted by that particular member and decrements the score in response to unfavorable purposes. The technique discussed above is preferably repeated for a plurality of dialogues between members of the social network and the score assigned to each such member is based on the set of messages transmitted by each member during the dialogues. These scores, together with the characterized relationships in the social network, can be used to assess the interactions within the existing social network, as well as to select members for a new social network. 
   A system for characterizing relationships among members of a social network in accordance with an embodiment of the invention includes a message transmission-reception process, a primitive-detection process, a pattern-detection process, and a group-performance process. A “process,” as used herein, refers to software code that is executing within an execution environment of a digital data processor, such as a computer. The message transmission-reception process receives a plurality of messages communicated during a dialogue between members of the social network. The primitive-detection process determines a purpose for each of the messages by, for example, extracting indicia of such purpose from a body and/or header section of the message. The pattern-detection process classifies the determined purpose of each message as being of a favorable, unfavorable, or neutral type. In one version of this embodiment, a primitive/dialogue-selection process selects one of a plurality of purpose categories and embeds indicia of the selected purpose category in at least one of the messages. The pattern-detection process determines at least one pattern in the messages communicated during the dialogue by, for example, analyzing the purpose of each of the messages in the dialogue. 
   The group-performance process characterizes the relationships among the members of the social network based on the pattern and purposes of the messages. For example, the group-performance process may assign a score to each member of the social network participating in one or more dialogues based, at least in part, on the purpose of each of the messages transmitted by that participating member. The group-performance process increments and decrements the score assigned to particular participating members in response to favorable or unfavorable purpose types, as previously described. 
   In this manner, the present invention provides management and other interested parties with insights into interpersonal interactions that are either helpful or harmful to the performance of groups or entire organizations. 

   
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
     The invention is pointed out with particularity in the appended claims. The advantages of this invention described above, and further advantages, may be better understood by reference to the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which: 
       FIG. 1  provides illustrative examples of primitives that can be communicated between a pair of entities in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; 
       FIGS. 2A-2F  provide illustrative examples of FYI, Note, Offer, Invite, Question, and Request dialogue protocols that can be supported by the present invention; 
       FIG. 3  is a block diagram of the data, messages, and processes operating in the messaging clients and messaging server of the present invention; 
       FIG. 4  is a flow diagram illustrating the steps performed by each of the processes of  FIG. 3 , in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; 
       FIG. 5  provides a representation of the graphical user interface (GUI) of a new email message incorporating a drop-down list box populated with available primitive selections and illustrating exemplary indicia of a selected primitive in a subject line of the email message, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention; 
       FIG. 6 . provides a GUI representation of an email inbox illustrating the additional flags and fields provided by the present invention; 
       FIG. 7  provides a GUI representation of an email message responsive to the message of  FIG. 5  in which a subset of valid, responsive primitives is displayed in a drop-down list box and where the selected primitive is embedded in the subject line of the responsive email message; 
       FIG. 8  illustrates exemplary paths, states, and outcomes associated with the email messages of  FIGS. 5 and 7 ; and 
       FIGS. 9A-9C  provides examples of group aggregate-outcome scores, average performance metrics across all groups, and metrics associated with a particular individual&#39;s interactions within one or more groups, as provided via a web-based portal. 
   

   DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
   The present invention recognizes that communication patterns between and among individuals and groups can be objectively determined and analyzed in order to ascertain the quality of human interactions that form the culture of a particular group. This information can then be used to target interpersonal problem areas (e.g., between pairs of particular individuals in the group) and thus, in aggregate, improve the overall group culture, which drives the responsiveness, productivity and innovation of the group. 
   Communication patterns between entities can be determined from fundamental speech acts (hereinafter “primitives”) embedded within messages that are communicated between the entities during particular dialogues.  FIG. 1  provides illustrative examples of primitives that can be communicated between a pair of entities, “A” and “B.” As the dialogue between the pair of entities progresses, the sequence of primitives embedded in the messages communicated between the parties forms a pattern (hereinafter “dialogue protocol”). The name of the dialogue protocol preferably matches the name of the primitive that initially spawned the dialogue. 
     FIGS. 2A-2F  provide illustrative examples of dialogue protocols that are supported by the present invention.  FIG. 2A  illustrates an FYI protocol in which entity A informs entity B about something in a message, and an FYI primitive is embedded therein. Since the FYI protocol does not require a response from B, this protocol only includes an FYI primitive in the depicted sequence to achieve the completed end state ( 2 ), hereinafter referred to as an “outcome.”  FIG. 2B  illustrates a Note protocol in which entity A informs entity B about something and expects an Acknowledgement primitive to be used in return. Since this Note protocol requires an acknowledgement from entity B, there are two possible outcomes, ( 2 ) and ( 3 ). Outcome ( 2 ) is classified as a complete and favorable outcome and includes a Note and an Acknowledge primitive in the depicted sequence. Outcome ( 3 ) is classified as an incomplete and unfavorable outcome due to B&#39;s silence and failure to acknowledge A&#39;s message. Similarly,  FIG. 2C  illustrates an Offer protocol in which entity A offers something to entity B, with states  2 - 4  and  6 - 7  representing possible outcomes;  FIG. 2D  illustrates an Invite protocol in which entity A invites entity B to join a particular group, with states  2 - 4  as possible outcomes;  FIG. 2E  illustrates a Question protocol in which entity A requests that entity B provide certain information, with states  2 - 5  as possible outcomes; and  FIG. 2F  illustrates a relatively complex Request protocol in which entity A requests that entity B perform a particular action, with states  4  and  6 - 13  as possible outcomes. 
   The present invention monitors the dialogue protocol and primitive information embedded in electronic messages, in order to characterize the interactions between particular entities in a group. With reference to  FIG. 3 , a system in accordance with an embodiment of the invention includes a plurality of messaging clients  310 ,  312 , which convey electronic messages to each other via a messaging server  314  that is coupled to the messaging clients  310 ,  312  by a data communications network  316 . Although the invention applies to all types of electronic messaging systems, the invention is preferably embodied as an enhanced electronic mail (“email”) system that is capable of being implemented by introducing particular software modules into a group&#39;s existing email infrastructure, such as POP/IMAP and SMTP, Exchange, or Lotus Notes. 
   In one embodiment, each messaging client  310 ,  312  comprises one or more software processes that execute within an execution environment in a memory of a digital data processing device, such as a personal computer, computer workstation, pocket PC, personal digital assistant, WAP phone, or any other type of information appliance capable of operating as a thin client. Similarly, the messaging server  314  comprises one or more software processes that execute within an execution environment formed within a memory of a digital data processing device, such as an email server, application execution server, file server, web server, etc. The software processes of the messaging server  314  can also be executed within the execution environments of a plurality of distributed digital data processing devices. For example, software processes performing message routing activities can execute within an execution environment of an existing email system hosted on an application execution server, while other software processes performing interpretation and display activities can execute in a different execution environment on a remote server (e.g., as processes associated with a portal hosted by a particular web server). In some implementations, the software processes of the messaging server  314  can also be executed, entirely or partly, within the execution environment of the data processing devices hosting the messaging clients  310 ,  312 . The data communications network  316  corresponds to any type of communications network capable of conveying electronic messages, such as a LAN, MAN, WAN, Internet, Intranet, etc. 
   In operation and also with reference to  FIG. 4 , a user (not shown) of the messaging client  310 , who desires to initiate an email dialogue with a user (not shown) of the messaging client  312 , selects “New” from a graphical user interface (GUI) of the messaging client  310 , which signals a primitive/dialogue-selection process  318  of the messaging client  310  to access available primitive and dialogue protocol information  320  stored in a data structure  322  coupled to the messaging client  310  (step  410 ). Data structure  322  (like other data structures described herein) typically resides on a mass-storage device, such as a hard disk. The primitive/dialogue-selection process  318  displays the available information  320  in a drop-down list box or other GUI object so that the user can select the type of dialogue protocol that corresponds to the purpose of the email message. Alternatively, the type of dialogue protocol corresponding to the email message can be automatically and non-invasively determined by the primitive/dialogue-selection process  318  by analyzing the contents of the email message prior to its transmission. For example, the process  318  may search the message text for key words or phrases (e.g., “FYI,” “please reply,” etc.) indicative of the protocol. 
   Regardless of how the dialogue protocol is selected, the primitive/dialogue-selection process  318  embeds indicia of a corresponding primitive in the email message (step  412 ). This indicia corresponds, for example, to text, flags, or other identifiers that are embedded in the body and/or header of the email message (e.g., identifying a Question Protocol by embedding the letter “Q” in the subject line of the email message). This indicia can be inserted with or without the knowledge of the user and can be either visible or invisible in the GUI representation of the new email message. The primitive/dialogue-selection process  318  can also append to the email message an email header associated with the messaging server  314 . This is useful when various software processes of the messaging server  314  are distributed across a plurality of digital data processing devices. Once the indicia have been embedded in the modified email message  323 , the message-transmission/reception process  324  (hereinafter “msg-tx/rx process”) transmits the modified email message  323  to a message-routing process  332  of the messaging server  314  (step  414 ), which routes the email message  323  to a msg-tx/rx process  334  of the messaging client  312  (step  416 ). 
   Concurrently with the transmission of the email message  323 , the primitive/dialogue-selection process  318  stores message and dialogue parameters associated with the email message  324  in the data structure  322  (step  418 ). These parameters (referred to hereinafter as “dialogue status  321 ”) include, for example, one or more identifiers of the selected dialogue protocol and embedded primitive, a timestamp, a state of the dialogue (analogous to the intermediate and end state conditions depicted in  FIGS. 2A-2F ), and the email addresses of the sender and recipient. The primitive/dialogue-selection process  318  also instantiates a state machine to track the progress and state of the dialogue initiated by the email message  323  and to update the dialogue status  321  as the dialogue progresses. A server-update process  326  executing preferably as a background task on the messaging client  310  detects the updated dialogue status  321  in the data structure  322 , prepares a dialogue-status message  327  including the dialogue status  321 , and transmits the dialogue-status message  327  to a pattern-detection process  328  of the messaging server  314  (step  420 ). The pattern-detection process  328  accumulates such dialogue status  321  relating to one or more email messages in a data structure  330  coupled to the messaging server  314  (step  422 ). 
   Meanwhile, the msg-tx/rx process  334  receives the email message  323  (step  424 ) and passes it to a primitive-detection process  336  on the messaging client  312 , which extracts the indicia of the dialogue and primitive embedded in the email message  323  (step  426 ). The primitive-detection process  36  also instantiates a state machine to track the progress and state of the dialogue initiated by the email message  323  and to reflect message parameters, such as the name of the user who sent the email message  323 , the time elapsed since receipt of the message  323 , and the state of the message (e.g., whether the dialogue is complete, pending, etc.). The primitive-detection process  336  records the message parameters and dialogue state information as dialogue status  344  in a data structure  342  coupled to the messaging client  312 . 
   When the user of the messaging client  312  responds to the email message  323  by, for example, selecting “Reply” on the GUI of the email system, a primitive/dialogue-selection process  338  of the messaging client  312  accesses the dialogue status  344  in the data structure  342  and the state machine to determine whether the dialogue associated with email message  323  has achieved an “end” state (step  428 ), such as any of states ( 2 )-( 5 ) in the Question Protocol of  FIG. 2E . If the dialogue status indicates that the dialogue is at an intermediate state (i.e., not an outcome of the dialogue), such as at state ( 1 ) in  FIG. 2E , then the primitive/dialogue-selection process  338  selects a particular set of primitives from a larger set of available primitives  340 , which corresponds to valid transitions of the current dialogue protocol, and includes them in a drop-down list box or other graphical element in the GUI of the email system. For example and with reference to  FIG. 2E , if the current dialogue protocol is a Question Protocol at state ( 1 ), then the valid transitions displayed in the drop-down list box include Answer and Don&#39;t Know. 
   Once the user of the messaging client  312  selects one of the valid transitions from the drop-down list box, the primitive/dialogue-selection process  338  embeds indicia of the corresponding primitive and dialogue into the reply email message  349  as previously described and instructs the msg-tx/rx process  334  to transmit the reply email message  349  to the message-routing process  332  on the messaging server  314  (steps  410 - 414 ), which forwards the message  349  to the msg-tx/rx process  324  of the messaging client  310  (step  416 ). The primitive/dialogue-selection process  338  also advances the state machine to the next state and updates the dialogue status  344  with the message and dialogue parameters (step  418 ). A server-update process  346  detects the updated dialogue status  344 , forms a dialogue status message  348  that includes the dialogue status  344 , and transmits the status message  348  to the pattern-detection process  328  of the messaging server  314  (step  420 ). As previously described, the pattern-detection process  328  accumulates the dialogue status  344  provided in the dialogue status message  348  in the data structure  330  (step  422 ). 
   The processes of the messaging client  310  respond similarly to those of messaging client  312  by receiving the message  349 , detecting the dialogue protocol and primitive, determining the current state of the dialogue, embedding indicia of a selected primitive in response to valid transitions to the email message  349  as appropriate, advancing the state machine on the messaging client  310 , and updating the data structures  322 ,  330  on the messaging client  310  and messaging server  314  as previously described. The interplay between and among the processes of the messaging clients  310 ,  312  and messaging server  314  continue until the dialogue reaches a terminal state or outcome. 
   The pattern-detection process  352  of the messaging server  314  detects the terminal state of the dialogue from the contents of the dialogue status message transmitted by the server-update process that encountered the terminal state and stores the updated dialogue status and parameters in the data structure  330 . The pattern-detection process  352  then analyzes the dialogue status  321  recorded during the dialogue, in order to compute metrics useful in detecting one or more patterns in the dialogue and in characterizing the interactions of the dialogue (step  430 ). For example, the time-stamp information in the dialogue status  321  can be used to compute a latency-in-response (i.e., the time it takes for one user to respond to the email message of another user) between the two participants in the dialogue and a latency-in-completion of the dialogue (i.e., how long it takes to complete the dialogue). Similarly, the number of participating users in this and related dialogues is a measure of the degree of skill and quantity of information known by each participating member, as well as a measure of the “flatness” (e.g., levels in a corporate hierarchy) of the group. For example, a relatively small number of participating users in a particular dialogue may indicate that each such user has a relatively high level of knowledge and/or skill that enables requests in the email message to be serviced without relying on the inputs of many others. Similarly, a relatively small number of participating users may be indicative of the group&#39;s flatness, since messages transmitted within a group that has several levels of hierarchy typically requires the involvement of many intermediaries before the requests in such messages are properly serviced and the dialogue is brought to a closed state. 
   Further, the pattern-detection process  352  can access the dialogue status of a plurality of prior dialogues, together with the status of the current dialogue, between the same two participating users in order to determine their frequency of interaction, a successful or unsuccessful completion ratio (i.e., the percentage of time that the interactions between the a particular pair of users resulted in a successfully or unsuccessfully completed dialogue), a non-responsive ratio, and a measure of the directionality of the dialogue (e.g., whether one of the two users typically initiates the dialogue). 
   The dialogue status  321  also provides insights into the efficiency of the interactions that occurred during a particular dialogue. For example and with reference to the Question Protocol of  FIG. 2E , the interactions resulting in the outcome of state ( 2 ) can be characterized as being favorable, since user B&#39;s answer directly terminated the dialogue without requiring intermediate transitions or new dialogues. Similarly, the interactions resulting in the outcome of state ( 4 ) may be deemed neutral or unfavorable depending upon the conventions agreed to by the members of the group. The interactions leading to outcome ( 5 ) would likely be characterized as being unfavorable due to user B&#39;s unresponsiveness. In this manner, the particular transitional path followed in a dialogue protocol, independently and/or coupled with the metrics and patterns described above, can be used by the pattern-detection process  328  to compute an outcome score  354  for each of the two participants in the current dialogue (step  432 ). The degree of positive or negative effect that these metrics, patterns, and/or transitional paths have on the outcome scores  354  can be based on the group conventions, which were established by the entity who initially formed the group and which were agreed to by each of the group members who accepted the invitation to join the group. 
   The pattern-detection process  328  also updates the prior outcome scores of the two user participants (generated as a result of prior dialogues between the user pair) by adding, subtracting, or otherwise incorporating the positive, negative, or neutral effect of the current outcome score with the prior outcome scores in order to provide a current representation of the relationship between the two users (step  434 ). In one embodiment, a group-performance process  352  of the messaging server  314  further characterizes the quantity and quality of the interactions in the group by evaluating the cumulative outcome scores for each user pair in the group and, based on a total or average of these scores, rates or otherwise characterizes the efficiency of the group (step  436 ). In one embodiment, the group-performance process  352  communicates with portal software, which enables the metrics, patterns, dialogue outcomes, and other information determined by the present invention to be displayed to group members via the Internet (step  438 ). 
   In one embodiment, the entity (e.g., a group administrator or any other individual with access to the systems and methods of the invention) who initially formed the group subscribing to a particular set of conventions, sends an email message inviting a plurality of member candidates to join the group, in accordance with the Invite Protocol depicted in  FIG. 2D . The particular conventions to be agreed to and followed by the group members can be specified in the body of the email message and can be stored in the data structure  322  of each user&#39;s messaging client  310  and/or in the data structure  330  of the messaging server  314  upon acceptance by that particular user. In this manner, the conventions used to characterize the interactions of members within a group can be tailored to the specific needs, goals and environment of particular groups. In one embodiment, access to the scores, metrics, and pattern information determined for one or more of the group&#39;s members can be restricted by the group&#39;s conventions to group members or other authorized individuals. 
   With reference to  FIG. 5  and as a non-limiting example, Adam initiates a Request Protocol ( FIG. 2F ) with Betty by selecting “Request” from the list of available primitives in a drop-down list box  510  in the GUI representation of a new email message  512 . The primitive/dialogue-selection process  318  of Adam&#39;s messaging client  310  embeds the text “REQ” as indicia  514  of Adam&#39;s request into the subject line of the email message  512 . Upon transmitting the email message  512  to Betty and copying himself on the message, Adam&#39;s inbox  610  ( FIG. 6 ) includes “Who,” “Now,” and “Elapsed” fields  612 ,  614 ,  616  in addition to the traditional fields normally provided in a user&#39;s inbox. The Who field  612  for the email message  512  to Betty identifies Betty as having been tasked with the request. The Now field  614  identifies that the current state of the email message  512  is “Considering,” which indicates that the message has been received at Betty&#39;s messaging client  312 , but that Betty has not yet replied. The Elapsed field  616 , for example, begins at one minute and continuously increments while the dialogue is in an open state. The contents of these fields are stored and maintained in the data structures  322 ,  342 ,  330  of the messaging clients  310 ,  312  and messaging server  314  as part of the dialogue status  321 ,  344 ,  321 . Betty&#39;s inbox is similar to Adam&#39;s except that the Who field  612  is populated with the literal string “You” and a flag is turned on in her inbox for this message  610 . In this manner, both Adam and Betty can view the current status of their request dialogue. 
   With reference to  FIG. 7 , Betty replies to Adam&#39;s email message  512  by preparing and transmitting a responsive email message  710 . The primitive/dialogue-selection process  338  of messaging client  312  populates a drop-down list box  712  in the email message  710  with a set of valid primitives  714  that are appropriate for responding to Adam&#39;s email message  512  at the current stage of this Request Protocol. In the present example, Betty has selected the “Commit” primitive, which informs Adam that she has committed to performing the requested task. Betty could alternatively have selected “Done?” to indicate that she had anticipated the request and already satisfied it, “Decline” to indicate her unwillingness to undertake the request, or “Counter” to propose a revision to the request (e.g., propose an alternate due date). Indicia of these responsive primitives are similarly embedded into the subject line of the responsive email  710 . 
   When Betty sends her responsive email message  710  to Adam, the Now and Elapsed fields  614 ,  616  of her inbox are updated to indicate that the current status of the dialogues is that Betty is “Working” on the task and that a particular period of time has passed since this email  710  was sent. This status and time information appears in Adam&#39;s inbox once Betty&#39;s message  710  is received. This information is also stored as part of the dialogue status in the data structures of the messaging clients and messaging server, as previously described. When Betty completes the task requested by Adam in his email message  512 , Betty replies to Adam&#39;s original message  512  and selects “Done?” as the valid primitive. Upon transmission of this third email message, the primitive detection processes  336 ,  350  of the messaging clients  312 ,  310  update their corresponding state machines to reflect that the dialogue in now in a “Reviewing” state and that the dialogue has progressed for a particular time period. The dialogue status  321  of the messaging server  314  is also updated by the server-update processes  346 ,  326 . The transmission of this third email message also triggers an update to Adam and Betty&#39;s inboxes to indicate who is now tasked with responding (in this case, Adam) and to set forth the current state of the dialogue (i.e., reviewing). Since the Request Protocol is now in a state that requires a response by Adam, a flag in Adam&#39;s inbox is enabled to identify that he owes something to another and the flag in Adam&#39;s original email in Betty&#39;s inbox is turned off to indicate that there is no further action due by her. The terminal state or final outcome of this Request Protocol is achieved when Adam confirms that the task is complete by sending an email to Betty with a Done primitive selected, at which time his flag for this task is also turned off and the Elapsed field  616  stops incrementing. 
   With reference to  FIG. 8 , Adam&#39;s Request Protocol can be terminated by a number of transitional paths  810 . In the example provided above, Adam and Betty&#39;s dialogue progressed through a set of intermediate states  812 - 816  to achieve a desired closed state  818 . However, the dialogue could have progressed through other intermediate states  820  and/or achieved other closed states  822 - 832  that are not as favorable as the desired closed state  818 . As previously discussed, dialogue status information is maintained in each of the data structures of the messaging clients  310 ,  312  and messaging server  314  for the particular path followed by Adam and Betty. The corresponding state machines on the messaging clients  310 ,  312  and messaging server  314 , which maintain the state information for the dialogue are substantially in lock step, subject to some jitter due to the time delay in the actual transmission time of the email messages. The individual messages transmitted during the dialogue are uniquely identified with a dialogue identifier that is embedded into each email message so as to properly associate each such message with a particular dialogue. 
   If Adam&#39;s request were made to multiple recipients, such as to Betty and Charlie, the invention would treat the request as two separate Request Protocols, i.e., a request from Adam to Betty and a request from Adam to Charlie. The invention also accommodates nested dialogues, where Adam makes a request of Betty (a parent request) and Betty makes a subsequent request (child request) for help on Adam&#39;s task to Charlie. Although Adam&#39;s inbox does not provide information on the child request, since this request is only communicated between Betty and Charlie, Adam can view the status of the sub-dialogues for this child request via the information provided by the group-performance process  352  to a web portal accessible to Adam. For example, Adam can sort through the available messages in the portal to identify entries with a common initiator as his message (in this case, Adam), the individual who is presently tasked with the request (Charlie), and/or the individual who owes Adam a response (Betty). Adam can also use the dialogue identifier inserted into each of the messages associated with his Request Protocol to identify all participants in the dialogue as well as obtain its current status. 
   With reference to  FIGS. 9A-9C , the group-performance process  352  of the messaging server  314  can display the metrics and patterns that characterize the interactions of particular groups in a web-based portal, which is accessible to the members of such groups. For example,  FIG. 9A  illustrates the aggregate-outcome scores (under the “Net” column) for each group of interest. In this example, the interactions among the members of the Neptune Project group have resulted in an aggregate-outcome score of  114  according to that group&#39;s conventions, which clearly surpasses the aggregate-outcome score of the Division Summer Outing group.  FIG. 9B  illustrates the average aggregate-outcome scores across all groups in a particular organization during a period of time.  FIG. 9C  illustrates some of the metrics that can be gathered for a particular member in each of and/or across all groups in which the particular member is associated, and the different manners in which these may be presented. 
   Although the invention has been described as operating in a peer-to-peer architecture with each messaging client  310 ,  312  exhibiting substantially the same functionality, the invention can also be implemented by incorporating one or more of the processes executing on the messaging clients  310 ,  312  into the messaging server  314 . Further, the functionality of a particular software process can be combined with or dispersed across one or more one or more different software processes. 
   Having described certain embodiments of the invention, it will now become apparent to one of skill in the art that other embodiments incorporating the concepts of the invention may be used. Therefore, the invention should not be limited to certain embodiments, but rather should be limited only by the spirit and scope of the following claims.