Professional collaborative work software aims at reaching a common objective that is defined beforehand, and for which the quality evaluation criteria are known.

Therefore, the nature of the problem to be solved is defined, and the optimisation criterion is one-dimensional. The collaborative work aims at solving this well-defined problem. Often, the group composition also is known a priori: each participant has his/her technical speciality, a defined function in the group, and is in charge of a specific set of tasks, within the division of labour among members of the group. For example, such a collaborative working group will be established to design a new advertising campaign, or a new product, following a specification defined by the customer, or to modify a manufacturing process with an objective of energy consumption reduction, by gathering participants from the relevant functional departments in the firm.

KuneAgi operates before this process takes place, upstream. The question the group is required to answer to is not "How to solve this problem?" but "What should we do together? What should we dedicate our efforts to, as a priority?". The question is on the definition of the working agenda, on the ranking of the actions to be undertaken in common, in a hierarchical order.

This is why the very list of actions to be undertaken (within the framework of the collective's very general mission) is open. The opening of new items in this list is the purpose of the very free procedure of Document creation. This is also why the judgement made on the Proposals is made along pluralistic criteria, taking into account the varied points of view of all members of the collective, with no criterion being evidently considered as superior to the others. Specifically, the relative value of short and long term considerations is not considered as settled. Finally, this is why the composition of the Working Groups is not fixed beforehand, and why each such Working Group may regulate its members' list as it wishes. Specifically, each Working Group has the possibility to choose what it considers as the best compromise for its purpose, between diversity of points of view and richness of information considered, on the one hand, and ease of decision, on the other hand.