At the Social Workplace Conference the other day a number of presenters emphasised the importance of having a clearly defined purpose for your social business initiative. I found myself nodding in agreement. Today I started reading Euan Semple's book "Organisations Don't Tweet, People Do", and found this recommendation:
"Don't have a clear idea where you are headed. The more fixed you are in your aspirations for your ecology the less likely you are to achieve them. Be prepared to go where people's use of the tools takes you and enjoy the ride."
On the face of it these two views are contradictory. They might not be - and I can guess ways in which it could be argued that they aren't - but as I proceed with Euan's (very readable) book I'm going to be looking for answers to that point.
Saturday, 26 May 2012
Senior managers who don't 'get it'
I had the experience not so long ago of discovering that a senior manager not only didn't 'get' the point of a social intranet, he was positively hostile to it. He valued face to face communication very heavily and saw workplace tweeting and blogging as the pied piper that would lead people away from it. I did my best to bring him round, with arguments such as it's not a replacement, it's a supplement; that it enables people in remote offices and who work from home to feel involved, and so on. I succeeded to the point where he dropped his opposition and allowed his team to work with me to implement it.
The social intranet took off, or seemed to. But this person never contributed anything. I also noticed that nor did the majority of his colleagues on the senior team. My fear is that by working round him (and them) rather than truly getting them on board, I introduced a social intranet that will forever be stunted in its growth. It will remain OK to talk about social and/or non-controversial business topics, but serious business-related discussions - particularly where controversy is involved - won't happen.
I'm still not sure what the right course of action is when top level support isn't really there - work round, or make getting that support the first and paramount goal?
The social intranet took off, or seemed to. But this person never contributed anything. I also noticed that nor did the majority of his colleagues on the senior team. My fear is that by working round him (and them) rather than truly getting them on board, I introduced a social intranet that will forever be stunted in its growth. It will remain OK to talk about social and/or non-controversial business topics, but serious business-related discussions - particularly where controversy is involved - won't happen.
I'm still not sure what the right course of action is when top level support isn't really there - work round, or make getting that support the first and paramount goal?
Blog re-boot time
I've been neglecting this blog for sometime now. I've use the excuse to myself that Twitter is my new preferred place for self expression and networking with others, and that blogs are maybe a bit passé. I knew it wasn't really true, but couldn't really face getting started again on the blog. It felt a bit daunting to try and think of the appropriate words of wisdom.
Well, that changed today, and the trigger was a tweet from @themaria , who talked about the same issue, and how a different perspective changed that for her. Incidentally, I don't know her and had never heard of her until today, but her tweet had been retweeted by someone I follow. Serendipity Twitter-style.
So that's the kick-off! There will be more to come.
Well, that changed today, and the trigger was a tweet from @themaria , who talked about the same issue, and how a different perspective changed that for her. Incidentally, I don't know her and had never heard of her until today, but her tweet had been retweeted by someone I follow. Serendipity Twitter-style.
So that's the kick-off! There will be more to come.
Sunday, 29 January 2012
The push-pull conundrum
We've launched our social intranet at the charity I'm working for. It's been going for about three weeks now. Needless to say there have been a few technical issues, some of which are minor bugs of the sort that you get with any software and one or two of which have been more problematic. On the whole, though, the platform (Igloosoftware's SaaS offering) is working pretty well already, and adoption is coming on apace.
Aside from bugs, one of the key concerns that keeps cropping up relates to the intended demise of 'All Staff' emails. Reducing or eliminating these is supposed to be one of the benefits of the new set-up - a reduction in spam and an increase in choice as to information consumed. I've explained during my training sessions how this can work: scan the activity streams, subscribe to content you're interested in and/or visit the site often.
But it's not quite that simple in practice. In fact, All Staff emails, with all their faults, are a lot simpler. It takes a little while to figure out exactly how to optimise your alerts, and how they are working. Even if you've got them set up just how you want them, and even if there are some that have been set up by an administrator for all staff, there is still uncertainty. The user remains uncertain that he'll see that crucial message (especially about cakes in the kitchen - we like our cakes at the charity) and the poster isn't sure who's seen it.
Of course, there's never certainty that everyone has read an email, unless you specify a read receipt and go through all of them to check - not too likely for over 100 staff. But at least people have only one place to look for that critical message.
Our solution? Really key messages from 'the centre' go out as specially formatted emails, everything else goes (or will go) onto the intranet somewhere, and it's down to you to make sure you see it. Emails can still be used for sub-groups of staff, but people are being encouraged to link to content on the intranet rather than to put it in the email itself.
Whether this will work well or not depends on how quickly people take to the new platform-centric, 'pull' concept. That might in turn be a function of people's experience to date with Web 2.0 on the Internet, which will vary from person to person.
If you have any other suggestions for tackling this one, please post a comment.
Aside from bugs, one of the key concerns that keeps cropping up relates to the intended demise of 'All Staff' emails. Reducing or eliminating these is supposed to be one of the benefits of the new set-up - a reduction in spam and an increase in choice as to information consumed. I've explained during my training sessions how this can work: scan the activity streams, subscribe to content you're interested in and/or visit the site often.
But it's not quite that simple in practice. In fact, All Staff emails, with all their faults, are a lot simpler. It takes a little while to figure out exactly how to optimise your alerts, and how they are working. Even if you've got them set up just how you want them, and even if there are some that have been set up by an administrator for all staff, there is still uncertainty. The user remains uncertain that he'll see that crucial message (especially about cakes in the kitchen - we like our cakes at the charity) and the poster isn't sure who's seen it.
Of course, there's never certainty that everyone has read an email, unless you specify a read receipt and go through all of them to check - not too likely for over 100 staff. But at least people have only one place to look for that critical message.
Our solution? Really key messages from 'the centre' go out as specially formatted emails, everything else goes (or will go) onto the intranet somewhere, and it's down to you to make sure you see it. Emails can still be used for sub-groups of staff, but people are being encouraged to link to content on the intranet rather than to put it in the email itself.
Whether this will work well or not depends on how quickly people take to the new platform-centric, 'pull' concept. That might in turn be a function of people's experience to date with Web 2.0 on the Internet, which will vary from person to person.
If you have any other suggestions for tackling this one, please post a comment.
Saturday, 2 April 2011
I made this announcement to all staff yesterday:
"As many of you will know, the team that has been evaluating intranet software for the past few weeks has been having difficulty determining the best choice for the charity. It has therefore been decided to ‘skip a generation’ of technology and adopt emerging best practice. This new technology not only enables more effective communication and knowledge-sharing but has very low TCO (total cost of ownership). It is also easy to maintain without technical skill. The new intra-net will consist of a large net made of fine plastic cabling, formed into a geodesic-dome style receptacle. Those wishing to participate simply climb into it and begin to associate with each other. In accordance with the well-understood net-work effect, the more who participate the more intense and productive communication becomes.
If we can get all 100 of us into the net at the same time we might learn a lot."
Friday, 5 November 2010
Getting cynical - or real? - about E2.0
Is the Enterprise 2.0 concept going anywhere? Ever since Andrew McAfee coined the phrase there have been various evangelists beating the drum for it. I suppose I could count myself as one of them, at least to a degree. There are various definitions, but I want to stick with what seems to me to be the most radical version, which is the concept of making organisations less hierarchical, less command-and-control, more 'human' and maybe a little anarchic, as a result of introducing Web 2.0 style technologies into the enterprise and getting the workforce to use them.
It's a lovely idea, it really is. But, you, know, it has me thinking back to past 'enthusiasms' relating to the re-invention of corporate life. One of these was TQM (now pretty-much morphed into Six Sigma). TQM was more than just techniques for using statistics and measurement to identify the root cause of defects and so enable process improvement. It was that, but it included - read your Deming - calls to "drive out fear", and "Remove barriers that rob the hourly paid worker of his right to pride in workmanship". Many managers viewed this sort of talk as subversive, and internal consultant types who promoted it, like me, as dangerous anarchists. Ditto 'change programmes': very cathartic for junior workers who at last had a voice with which to grass up the more egregious managers, and fun if you were a facilitator, but, not surprisingly, anathema to middle management. Yet the objections often remained unspoken, because it would be like objecting to motherhood and apple pie.
What these managers (some poor, but some actually rather good) really wanted to say was, "I hear what you say, and it's good in theory, but let me tell you two things: 1. It's not how real work gets done, and 2. I have a team to run, and I'm damned if I'll let your initiative or any other get in the way of that."
So what has this got to do with Enterprise 2.0? A great deal, I suggest. Many managers will see wholesale public transparency of thought on the part of the workforce, even behind the firewall, as dangerously subversive. They will pay lip service to it, because it's hard to voice objections without seeming to be a fascist. But they won't encourage it, and may well put roadblocks - disguised, perhaps, as security concerns - in the way.
How about just getting rid of all middle managers? After all, with the improvement in communication and collaboration that Enterprise 2.0 offers, who needs them? Strange how that question seems to have been posed repeatedly for several decades, even before the advent of E2.0, but it never seems to happen. Maybe they're needed after all?
It's a lovely idea, it really is. But, you, know, it has me thinking back to past 'enthusiasms' relating to the re-invention of corporate life. One of these was TQM (now pretty-much morphed into Six Sigma). TQM was more than just techniques for using statistics and measurement to identify the root cause of defects and so enable process improvement. It was that, but it included - read your Deming - calls to "drive out fear", and "Remove barriers that rob the hourly paid worker of his right to pride in workmanship". Many managers viewed this sort of talk as subversive, and internal consultant types who promoted it, like me, as dangerous anarchists. Ditto 'change programmes': very cathartic for junior workers who at last had a voice with which to grass up the more egregious managers, and fun if you were a facilitator, but, not surprisingly, anathema to middle management. Yet the objections often remained unspoken, because it would be like objecting to motherhood and apple pie.
What these managers (some poor, but some actually rather good) really wanted to say was, "I hear what you say, and it's good in theory, but let me tell you two things: 1. It's not how real work gets done, and 2. I have a team to run, and I'm damned if I'll let your initiative or any other get in the way of that."
So what has this got to do with Enterprise 2.0? A great deal, I suggest. Many managers will see wholesale public transparency of thought on the part of the workforce, even behind the firewall, as dangerously subversive. They will pay lip service to it, because it's hard to voice objections without seeming to be a fascist. But they won't encourage it, and may well put roadblocks - disguised, perhaps, as security concerns - in the way.
How about just getting rid of all middle managers? After all, with the improvement in communication and collaboration that Enterprise 2.0 offers, who needs them? Strange how that question seems to have been posed repeatedly for several decades, even before the advent of E2.0, but it never seems to happen. Maybe they're needed after all?
Friday, 24 September 2010
Linked Data: the future of the Web?
I attended a one day conference, organised by the UK arm of the International Society for Knowledge Organization, earlier this month. The subject was Linked Data. This being a subject I knew very little about, but which I suspected might be important, not least because it's related to Sir Tim Berners-Lee's Semantic Web concept, I decided to pay the fee and see what I could find out.
There was a very international group of speakers, including two from France, one from the Netherlands, one from Germany and one from Austria. The degree to which they engaged me varied, but most had something interesting to say. Presentations that I particularly liked were Nigel Shadbolt on what the government is up to with its data, and John Goodwin on Ordnance Survey.
The basic idea behind linked data is to extend the hyperlink concept of the Web from the current norm of linking web pages and other (largely) unstructured media like documents and video clips, to the linking of datasets. Provided this is marked up in a standard way, using RDF (resource description framework) it can be made sense of by machines and re-used in, for example, mashups.
There's a lot of quite complex stuff related to ontologies, with a nice new collection of acronyms to learn, such as OWL and SPARQL. There was also a fair bit of quasi-philosophical talk about the difference between the name of a thing and the thing itself. One of the problems with this conference was that it was billed as being for beginners (albeit KM-savvy beginners), yet it assumed an understanding of some of these concepts. I don't think anyone explained what a 'triple' was, for example.
The process of putting linked data out there on the Web, and using other people's linked data, is not one I can see non-technical people getting to grips with, at least in the short term. Maybe the process will become easier just as putting up a web page has. Remember when that required knowledge of HTML? Now it's all wysiwyg. I can, however, see how linked data could work nicely where a data provider (such as government - www.data.gov.uk) wants to see its data used and presented, but doesn't want to build the UI for that. Given that there are loads of developers out there willing to do it for them, why should they? Equally, if you build aps you'd be grateful for lots of free linked data to power them.
There are of course risks. I do wonder whether the government has really thought through the implications of licensing its data for any purpose, allowing even that it be modified. When this thought was put to Professor Shadbolt, he rightly pointed out that the media routinely (mis?)present data the way they need to for the 'angle' they are taking, so this is no worse. Good point, but I think the jury's out. It feels like a welcome move towards transparency, though, and could save the taxpayer money.
Where's this all going? I have two opposing thoughts on this, both related to the structured v unstructured information debate. The first is that one of the primary reasons for the success of Tim Berners-Lee's brilliant invention, the World-wide Web, was its focus on unstructured information (web pages with text and some images, mainly), because that's what non-technical people relate to most naturally. A move away from this would therefore be retrograde, it could be argued. The counter argument is that the Web only really got going properly when databases started being used behind the scenes to drive websites. Search engines and ecommerce sites both depend on them, and there are countless other examples. So linking datasets across the web is just an extension of this and could bring even greater benefits, perhaps.
I think the second argument's possibly true, but only if the structure of the data is kept well hidden from the layman, and he doesn't have to learn a second meaning for that nocturnal bird of prey with the round face.
What do you think?
There was a very international group of speakers, including two from France, one from the Netherlands, one from Germany and one from Austria. The degree to which they engaged me varied, but most had something interesting to say. Presentations that I particularly liked were Nigel Shadbolt on what the government is up to with its data, and John Goodwin on Ordnance Survey.
The basic idea behind linked data is to extend the hyperlink concept of the Web from the current norm of linking web pages and other (largely) unstructured media like documents and video clips, to the linking of datasets. Provided this is marked up in a standard way, using RDF (resource description framework) it can be made sense of by machines and re-used in, for example, mashups.
There's a lot of quite complex stuff related to ontologies, with a nice new collection of acronyms to learn, such as OWL and SPARQL. There was also a fair bit of quasi-philosophical talk about the difference between the name of a thing and the thing itself. One of the problems with this conference was that it was billed as being for beginners (albeit KM-savvy beginners), yet it assumed an understanding of some of these concepts. I don't think anyone explained what a 'triple' was, for example.
The process of putting linked data out there on the Web, and using other people's linked data, is not one I can see non-technical people getting to grips with, at least in the short term. Maybe the process will become easier just as putting up a web page has. Remember when that required knowledge of HTML? Now it's all wysiwyg. I can, however, see how linked data could work nicely where a data provider (such as government - www.data.gov.uk) wants to see its data used and presented, but doesn't want to build the UI for that. Given that there are loads of developers out there willing to do it for them, why should they? Equally, if you build aps you'd be grateful for lots of free linked data to power them.
There are of course risks. I do wonder whether the government has really thought through the implications of licensing its data for any purpose, allowing even that it be modified. When this thought was put to Professor Shadbolt, he rightly pointed out that the media routinely (mis?)present data the way they need to for the 'angle' they are taking, so this is no worse. Good point, but I think the jury's out. It feels like a welcome move towards transparency, though, and could save the taxpayer money.
Where's this all going? I have two opposing thoughts on this, both related to the structured v unstructured information debate. The first is that one of the primary reasons for the success of Tim Berners-Lee's brilliant invention, the World-wide Web, was its focus on unstructured information (web pages with text and some images, mainly), because that's what non-technical people relate to most naturally. A move away from this would therefore be retrograde, it could be argued. The counter argument is that the Web only really got going properly when databases started being used behind the scenes to drive websites. Search engines and ecommerce sites both depend on them, and there are countless other examples. So linking datasets across the web is just an extension of this and could bring even greater benefits, perhaps.
I think the second argument's possibly true, but only if the structure of the data is kept well hidden from the layman, and he doesn't have to learn a second meaning for that nocturnal bird of prey with the round face.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)