Starbucks, Star Struck with Social Computing?

In many ways, I'm thrilled about "My Starbucks Ideas", which provides Starbucks' customers an opportunity to share ideas on improvements for Starbucks.

On the other hand, I wonder if there is an overly optimistic expectation that this approach will deliver amazing breakthrough results. That some folks might be "star struck" with the notion of social computing.

And although this endeavour should drive value such as improved customer relations and incremental innovation, there are limitations (opportunities) that could be used to enhance the environment and ultimate results. To explain the potential, I'll use the engagement model.


Motivation

Unlike other heralded examples of 2.0 style innovation systems (i.e. GoldCorp, Innocentive), there is no major incentive for someone to provide their ideas to Starbucks. Without any explicit incentives, the motivated respondents will likely be those who are loyal Starbucks enthusiasts. Those willing to go through the effort to establish an ID, and write a description of their idea. Not that they should be ignored, but it does miss out on the opportunities from a more varied set of perspectives that could bring a totally different set of ideas.

So in absence of hard incentives what motivates? How about, what's in it for me (wiifm). It should be no surprise that a good number of the most popular ideas will be about giving "me", free stuff . A quick scan of Starbucks' top 10 most popular ideas show that half of these ideas are about giving me free stuff (whether it's coffee, wi-fi, content). Now who wouldn't vote for free coffee and free wi-fi? I like it!

Although "freeconomics" has been quite a popular topic recently, ultimately, Starbucks needs to understand how this translates into profit. For example, one of the ideas is about giving away free coffee on your birthday. Would this make you spend more money at Starbucks? Would it really make you more loyal? Of course it's popular (voted on), but how can they use this to drive their longer-term business model?

Now what if there was a reward or compensation for an idea that was linked to driving profits? You just might get others motivated to share their insights from a different angle.



Opportunity

On the surface, it appears that customers now have an opportunity to really share their ideas and support their favourite ideas through voting. This is true... to an extent... The opportunity however is only for those that vote favourably on an idea.

Consider a scenario in which Idea X has 100 positive votes and Idea Y also has 100 positive votes. You'd think they were equal right? Not necessarily. We haven't give an opportunity to those that would disagree with an idea. Those that are saying, "if you implement that idea, I'd leave Starbucks!". What if Idea X has 100 votes and 0 Negative votes, but Idea Y has 100 votes and 500 negative votes?

The current model only gives the opportunity to vote in favour for an idea. Digg style voting could come in handy for Starbucks if they want to understand the potential downside in addition to the potential upside of an idea.



Capability

Although there is much to be learned from the wisdom of crowds in prediction markets, can it really be used to identify 'disruptive' concepts? Clayton Christensen's work on the Innovator's Dilemma explains the challenges organizations face in promoting innovation, indicating that shareholders and customers don't want the disruptive innovation, until it's too late. Christensen's work illustrates how once innovative organizations are "held captive" by their existing customers needs.

I recently wrote a post on Steve Jobs & Innovation that quoted Steve Jobs quoting Henry Ford, which I think is useful... 'So you can't go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There's a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, 'If I'd have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me "A faster horse." '

Also previously posted was a conversation I had with a consultant that had worked with Starbucks. He shared a story about how on the surface Starbucks customers, when asked what they wanted, would reply "faster service, more reasonable (cheaper) prices" but after deeper needs analysis they identified that the real reason customers went to Starbucks wasn't because of faster service, or cheaper prices, it was a luxurious escape they could take in an otherwise hectic day. Reducing costs, rushing the experience, and having a proliferation of stores all went against the "specialness" and "luxurious" concepts.

The point here, is that asking customer is good but they may not have the knowledge/capability to give you insight into the next big thing. Digging deeper to uncover needs analysis or root-value analysis can lead to richer and more useful results.

So, I am certain I've added a little controversy to the great Starbucks initiative. Like I said earlier, I actually think their initiative is a good one. It's not that I dislike what they're doing, I just think the coffee cup is only half full :)

5 Social Computing Benefits that Adoption Rates Don't Show

Are you are promoting social computing in your organization and being questioned about the low "participation levels" or "adoption rates"? Well, here are 5 points that should help you explain that it's not just about the percentage of people that actively participate.


1. Thanks for Asking

Sometimes it's just being asked that matters! Even if people choose not to participate, it's still a choice. Have you noticed the term "employee engagement" showing up everywhere these days? The term happens to be the most common search phrase leading people to my blog.

To engage employees means that you actually need to start by asking for their input. Even if they don't have specific input right now, that's fine. What you don't want to do is incent the wrong behaviours such as "gaming" a system to meet an objective. Providing opportunity is an implicit benefit of social computing. It demonstrates respect for the employees input and leads to a more engaged and committed organization.


2. La crème de la crème

A favourite book of mine is, "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. In the book, Jim explains that the role of leadership is NOT to motivate. If you have to motivate and convince people to do something, you're already starting in a bad position. Instead, if you have the right people and the right opportunity they will be "self-motivated". The role of leadership then becomes making sure you don't let people become "de-motivated". Jim goes on to explain the importance of making sure you find the right people. But how do you do this?

One way is to leverage the power of self-organization. For example, we run on-line "jam" sessions and invite 1000's of people to participate. Not everyone will, but those that do tend to be "passionate" and willing to take on accountability. And those concepts that rise to the top tend to be well thought through. The point... Even if you only have 10% participation. It's likely that the 10% you want!


3. Needle in a Haystack

Mass collaboration isn't about simple consensus. It also provides greater opportunity to find a few gems by casting a much bigger net. 60 Minutes had a great story on John Kanzius , a retired Radio and TV engineer who's invention may ultimately cure cancer. He has zero medical training and his unorthodox method involves the use of radio waves and nano-particles! He likely would never have been invited to any discussions on the topic. And it is only that his own very unfortunate situation has inspired him to look for an answer. Is there a way to purposefully stimulate more creative ideas?

I often hear people ask for "out of the box thinking" and if they truly want that, we apply different techniques. One of the techniques is simply to bring in experts in different fields than the topic we're actually working on. Why? To drive a completely different perspective on a given situation. Hopefully leading to a breakthrough. Social computing allows us to invite many many people each with different views and perspectives. Even if you don't have high participation, if you get that one breakthrough idea, it's all worth it!


4. One for All

A well designed social computing environment encourages interactive participation of the right people. For all of you "executives" that believe this is something you let "employees" do but aren't actually engaged in yourself, you are missing a huge opportunity. The opportunity to drive "trust" and "confidence" throughout the organization.

When I see an executive who "gets it", the effect can be amazing. You can read a conversation that is authentic, public an non-hierarchical. The participants in the conversation see a "real" side of an executive whom they otherwise may never have even met. But what if it's only a handful of people engaged in the discussion? That's fine. Because even if the participation level is low, the folks that read and view the conversation also benefit. The readers will also see an genuine conversation which aids in building trust and confidence in your organization.


5. Back to The Future

By the time I write this blog, I hope many people will read it and benefit from it. I also hope many people will discuss it. But realistically, I know that it's value may really be in the future. Unless you need this information now, it may be just an interesting (which I also hope) article. In the future, when someone really needs help in this area, it will be available to them, and perhaps will help them articulate the additional benefits in leveraging social computing.

This pertains to your organization as well. Even if you don't have immediate participation, the conversation is not time bound, and employees can still join the conversation even into the future. They can understand the context (how we came to decisions we did) in addition to the ultimate decisions. This depth of understanding helps ensure smarter, better, more complete decisions can be made moving forward.

So the next time someone challenges you, that your social computing endeavours just aren't "engaging enough people", you can explain that the full value of social computing and enterprise 2.0 is more than the number of people fully interacting. These 5 real benefits just can't be determined by some magic "participation rate".

Sun Tzu and the Art of Social Computing

Sun Tzu, the influential author of, "The Art of War", might be the last thing you'd consider relevant to social computing and enterprise 2.0. And although not all of his beliefs can be directly ported, if you think of the "enemy" as, "poor collaboration", "inefficiency", "bureaucracy" or "employee frustration", there are some good insights that can help you achieve success with your enterprise 2.0 / social computing initiatives.


Sun Tzu on Planning & Strategy

"Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose. " - Sun Tzu

"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." - Sun Tzu

When building social computing systems or events, we spend a great deal of effort in the upfront design. Based on our experience, we are well aware that a poorly thought-through social computing environment can inadvertently do more damage than good.

It can waste valuable resources, create false expectations leading to distrust, question your credibility, question the credibility of the tools, and potentially further alienate employees, just to name a few consequences of poor design.

If at first you don't succeed...You may not get a second chance....

Companies sometimes jump to implementing enterprise 2.0 technology because they have read a good book, or a good article. Perhaps they heard a good success story. Every time I read, "just try it and see what happens", I get shivers. Your circumstances may be completely different then the anecdotal success story that was told. Knowing when "not to do something" is sometimes a more difficult but useful discipline.


Sun Tzu on Knowing your Enemy and Yourself

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." - Sun Tzu

The enemy in this situation is in-effective collaboration. Knowing yourself includes understanding strength and weaknesses of the culture, the organizational processes, and the technology to be deployed.

What prevents us from collaborating? Several things. To help understand the challenges we use what we refer to as the "engagement model". This model groups the critical elements of collaboration into 3 categories (motivation, opportunity and capability). I've written a more detailed analysis of this in the past. In this post, I'll suggest a few questions to consider.

Don't assume employees will simply just adopt new technology no matter how "cool" it is. The often talked about "Wikipedia 1%" where only 1% of all Wikipedia users actually create the majority of content may be sufficient if we're talking about the entire global population, but does 1% work for your company?

Let's consider the employee's perspective. What's in it for me (WIIFM)? Do I see the benefit? Or do I see this as another management flavour of the day which I've learned to ignore? Do I feel threatened that my "reputation" as the "gatekeeper" or "go to person" will evaporate? Does the existing compensation system (process) actually motivate me to horde information such as in a competitive system?

And even if I was motivated. Do I have the opportunity to participate (real or perceived)? Or are the pressures of my job prohibiting my ability to engage in a meaningful way? How are employees being notified about these new tools? Are they aware? Are they aware of why? And what is the informal message I am getting from my immediate boss about these tools? Do they buy in to it?

Motivation and opportunity alone are still not enough. Do the employees have the skills? How will they get them? The full value of social computing is only achieved after critical mass of adoption. Mass levels of adoption require removal of as many obstacles as possible. In other words.... Simplicity (which is actually pretty hard to design).

"There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army: By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey; This is called hobbling the army. By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army; This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds. By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers." - Sun Tzu


Sun Tzu on Aaptability

"Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards... Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain. " - Sun Tzu

You can't plan for everything. Things will evolve, and you will learn, but you can accelerate that learning and stack the odds in your favour. This is not like implementing "SAP" where an employee MUST use the tool to do their job and there is no choice. These enterprise 2.0 technologies are often used (or not) by choice.

The power of self-organization and allowing for emergent use can compliment a well thought through plan. Learn from how people self-organize and build upon it. Guy Kawaski tells a good story about the launch of the Ford Mustang and how the marketers where initially upset because the car was being bought by "the wrong customers". Learn from it and adapt.

Even if you choose to ignore the Sun Tzu spin, don't ignore the importance of upfront design. And always keep in mind the bigger picture.

"Unhappy is the fate of one who tries to win his battles and succeed in his attacks without cultivating the spirit of enterprise; for the result is waste of time and general stagnation." - Sun Tzu

Keeping the Faith: The E2.0 Evangelist

It's said that when asked if she would join an anti-war protest, Mother Theresa responded that she would rather be pro-peace.

I was reminded of the Mother Theresa story in a post by Euan Semple and it was timely for me after a long week.

Many of us who push the concepts of social computing, and enterprise 2.0 are often referred to as "evangelists". From my experience, this is a pretty good way to describe what we do. We spend huge amounts of effort & time bestowing the values of engaging employees, providing them an opportunity to be heard, to really collaborate en mass.

And we have to do that without having hard "proof". Belief without proof? Well, I guess that's referred to as faith. Considering the number of blogs I have seen that talk to "trying" to calculate an "ROI" for Enterprise 2.0, I am guessing that several others share this challenge on selling the concepts of social computing in an organization. It's hard, it's really really hard!

So why is it so hard? Well, corporations are often geared towards "risk management". When I've had to push concepts of social computing in my professional career, I have on several occasions encounter folks that jump to "risk management". Why not? Haven't we trained people to think this way?

Companies often say they want to promote "risk taking" and "innovation" but we don't reward them for that. The truth is that we ask for this, but when we take a risk and it doesn't pay-off, the company often comes down hard on those people. Actions speak louder then corporate messaging. Over time, we train people to be risk averse. You won't get fired for NOT adopting social media in the company.

When did all the departments shift from being centres of excellence to becoming "risk management" centres? Human Resources (HR) is about what we shouldn't do. Corporate Communications is about what we shouldn't say, Finance is about what we shouldn't fund. Someone help! We are "risk managing" ourselves to death!

Perhaps the pendulum has swung in the wake of the big corporate scandals. Perhaps it's just reinforcing Maslow's hierarchy and we're too busy worrying about survival that we're nowhere close to self-actualization. Whatever the reason, one thing is clear, and that is the challenge ahead of all E2.0 evangelists is enormous.

But keep faith my friends! Because in your organization, there will be people that "get it". That will support your concepts. They may not get it yet, but they will. Because what you're evangelizing isn't about a bunch of technology. It never has been. It's about the human potential. About a more efficient and effective way to collaborate. Collaboration is the ENTIRE reason a company exists. That's why we brought people together, because we could do more together. Our perspective needs to change and you need to be that agent of mental change management. In a way, you too are managing risk. The risk that your organization will be irrelevant if doesn't start thinking about what social media means.

I'll give you a tip. There is no "one way" to succeed. I've seen top-down, bottom-up, middle-out evangelism that have all been successful. There are several tactics you can use, but I'll save that for another post. For today, I just wanted to remind you that it's worth the effort and you're not alone! Don't give up.

Lessons on Innovation, Collaboration & Leadership from Steve Jobs

Fortune put out excerpts from an interview with Steve Jobs earlier this month. Jobs makes some very candid, and direct points. The whole interview is quite insightful and helps to disprove some of the common misconceptions around what collaboration is all about.


Misconception 1: Collaboration means "wisdom of crowds" is better than "experts".

I am not sure why there seems to be an argument in many forums about whether "wisdom of crowds" is better than "experts". Optimal collaboration taps into the masses, but is refined through the experts. It's not one or the other, it's the intelligent collaboration of both.

So you can't go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There's a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, 'If I'd have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me "A faster horse." '

In reference to the debates over embedding a sophisticates OS X in a cell phone Jobs states, "I had to adjudicate it and just say, 'We're going to do it. Let's try.' The smartest software guys were saying they can do it, so let's give them a shot. And they did."

Misconception 2: Innovation is the result of an individual genius.

There have been several noted authors that have proven this to be usually wrong. Read Andrew Hargadon's work on, "How Breakthroughs Really Happen". For example, the light bulb (the symbol for innovation) wasn't actually created by Edison.

In discussing people, Jobs talks to the need for passion in addition to smarts. "They have to be really smart. But the real issue for me is, Are they going to fall in love with Apple? Because if they fall in love with Apple, everything else will take care of itself."

To be the best requires individuals to understand broadly and not just their area. "So the way to do that is to have them know everything, not just in their part of the business, but in every part of the business. "


Misconception 3: Who cares if it's not perfect. Get your product out and then iterate.


There is much to be said about focus and getting it right the first time. I've often heard folks argue that, "Shoot first then aim later. Who cares if the bullets are cheap"... I guess the problem with that approach is that you can kill the wrong thing, and you can't "un-kill" if you made a mistake.

"Apple is a $30 billion company, yet we've got less than 30 major products. I don't know if that's ever been done before.... People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are."

"At Pixar when we were making Toy Story, there came a time when we were forced to admit that the story wasn't great. It just wasn't great. We stopped production for five months.... And if they hadn't had the courage to stop, there would have never been a Toy Story the way it is, and there probably would have never been a Pixar.we never expected to have another one. But you know what? There's been one on every film. It's been that way with [almost] every major project at Apple, too.... Take the iPhone. We had a different enclosure design for this iPhone until way too close to the introduction to ever change it. And I came in one Monday morning, I said, 'I just don't love this. I can't convince myself to fall in love with this. And this is the most important product we've ever done.' "And we pushed the reset button. "

The article has many more insights and worth the read.

Video Games + Social Computing?

I admit, one reason I've written fewer posts recently is because I am the new owner of a Wii. Each time I turn it on, I feel a "pang" of guilt, knowing full well, that there is always house stuff to do, great articles to read, blog posts to complete....

But thanks to an interesting article in Discover Magazine titled, "This is Your Brain on Video Games: Gaming sharpens thinking, social skills, and perception", I have been able to partially justify my addiction. It turns out that the hours spent playing these games is really an intellectual investment in myself. Yay!

"they now recognize the cognitive benefits of playing video games: pattern recognition, system thinking, even patience. Lurking in this research is the idea that gaming can exercise the mind the way physical activity exercises the body: It may be addictive because it’s challenging."

"The findings contradict nearly all the preconceived ideas about the impact of games. The gaming population turned out to be consistently more social, more confident, and more comfortable solving problems creatively. They also showed no evidence of reduced attention spans compared with nongamers. "

The article is full of interesting references to various scientific studies, and examples of the application of video games into the real-world. I can't do it justice in this post, so suggest you take a read.

I do want to highlight a couple points that have implications in the world of social computing and Enterprise 2.0

1. Focus

You've likely read articles that talk about the lack of focus in today's youth. For example, they are unable to read a whole article, never mind an entire book. That they are constantly in the need for "multi-tasking" but is that really just another way of saying they can't focus? Well have you ever tried to pull them away from a video game?

The article provides examples of how several subjects were able to withstand high-levels of discomfort and distraction for hours playing a video game simulation. Now think about an E2.0 work environment where we ask for collective input from our employees. Perhaps we ask a sales person to update the sales manual, or a service rep to provide their thoughts on how to provide awesome customer experience through a blog.

Unless you are one of a very few companies that actually provides time for employees and have changed your compensation model to allow for this activity, it is likely, these requests are additional "volunteer" work that people just can't find the time to do because they are too busy or become distracted by the barrage of e-mails, phone calls, etc...

In a world of Blackberrys, it's pretty easy to get distracted. Using game design may help ensure focus on the social applications we build, or simply how we work. Have you been to a presentation that you just couldn't focus on and perhaps once or twice you peaked at your Blackberry? The next two points can provide some clues as to how to do this.

2. Optimal Learning and the "Regime of Competence"

This concept talks about finding the sweet spot to learning. Basically, the challenge can't be too hard where it's frustrating nor should it be too easy where it is dismissed. If you create a packaged application that is designed for the masses, you will undoubtedly have some people that will dismiss/ignore the application and others that will be frustrated by it.

Video Games however, stagger difficulty on a progressive basis, that finds the "sweet spot" (or as psychologists refer to it, a regime of competence). Similarly in any social application you deploy consider offering a basic "level" which anyone can get started, but then increasing the challenge level after they successfully master a level.

The concept of raising the challenge progressively ensures that people develop and enhance skills always in the sweet spot. If it's too easy, people dismiss it and if it's too hard people give up.

"In October 2006 the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) endorsed video games as a potential means for teaching 'higher-order thinking skills, such as strategic thinking, interpretive analysis, problem solving, plan formulation and execution, and adaptation to rapid change.'"

3. Reinforcement & Motivation Theory

That which gets rewarded gets repeated. Video game designers knows this really well. So much is written on motivation theory, so let me just provide a couple of "video game" concepts that work.

• Relative ranking: With online gaming, you can see how good you really are relative to other players in the world. You can also see it based on various other dimensions (i.e. Geography, Level, etc.). Vroom's infamous Expectancy Theory talks to the valence concept which is the value held to the reward. The value to an extent is relative (i.e. If I achieve a score of 10,000 I might be pretty happy, but if I find out that score is in the bottom 5% I am not going to be as thrilled). Competition helps ensure we don't become satisfied with a certain level of performance but strive to do better and better with a known achievable benchmark.


• Badges: After achieving a special feat you are awarded badges. This is an emblem to show others or for personal fulfillment of accomplishment. What makes this effective is knowing they you have achieved a certain level of distinction which can be proudly shown to others.


• Progression levels: If you have completed 37/40 levels, the desire to just complete it after you've spent so much effort is there. In fact, smart design may actually skew the level so it is non-linear. In other words, level 1-30 may really have been very easy but 31-38 hard and 39-40 extremely hard. Gamers only see that they are "so close" when really the design was intentionally done to get them to that level.

• Unlocking Surprises: Often games will provide a "surprise" that you can accidentally find. This seemingly "random" reward is a powerful motivating factor. Think of the power of slot machines as an example. Several studies have examined various reinforcement schedules and have found the the most "addictive" of these is Variable Ratio. Variable ratio has the highest rate of responding and the greatest resistance to extinction compared to other reinforcement schedules.

I can now go back to my parents and explain that I really wasn't wasting my life away playing all those video games. If James Gee, a professor at the University of Wisconsin is correct, we can expect the video game generation well prepared for a 2.0 world

"They’re going to think well about systems; they’re going to be good at exploring; they’re going to be good at reconceptualizing their goals based on their experience; they’re not going to judge people’s intelligence just by how fast and efficient they are; and they’re going to think nonlaterally. In our current world with its complex systems that are quite dangerous, those are damn good ways to think.”

Now if you don't mind.... "Scuse me while I kiss the Sky" on Guitar Hero III

5 Facebook Lessons to Improve Employee Engagement in Your Company

So perhaps your company isn't sold on this whole Myspace/Facebook thing. Perhaps they've dismissed it as a fad for young people, much like how the Internet had been dismissed when it first exploded over a decade ago. You may even be hearing the familiar concerns around "lost productivity" and "control of content" that you heard during the explosion of the Web.

Few today would argue that the Internet is a fad or that it's not important to an organization. But the Internet from 10 years ago is not today's Internet. Today's internet is all about collaboration. Sure there is a lot of over-inflated hype in web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 but there are underlying truths you can benefit from.

Today, according to Forrester, over 60% of Internet traffic is considered User Generated Content (UGC). This is not a "revolutionary" event. It didn't happen overnight. It's simply an alternative means to communicate and collaborate that can be more efficient in some situations. IS it Facebook? No! I sure hope not! But the underlying concepts that Facebook and similar environments have created can teach us several lessons in employee engagement. Lessons that will help your company be successful.

These concepts can be applied to your corporate applications or portals. In fact they can be applied outside of technology into your processes and meetings to drive employee engagement and collaboration. In this post, I've listed 5 Facebook lessons for your corporate consideration.


1. PERSONALIZATION

No two Facebook profiles will be exactly the same. This is because your profile is unique just like you are. In Facebook, the world revolves around you. It's your friends, your applications, your feeds, your notes, your wall, your profile that everyone else connects to. This level of personalization isn't just an "ego fix" (although that's part of it). It drives efficiency. With all the websites on the Internet, you are never going to see them all, nor would you want to. We often hear about how the Millennials spend so much time on the Internet, which there is some truth to, BUT it's only on a few select sites. These sites cater to the individual needs giving them ONLY what they need (and perhaps a few ads!).

Can you see how an employee might benefit from having everything at their finger tips? And don't forget the "human" piece. Companies often say, "you matter" but then only communicate in a "mass communication" or "form letters" that treats you like everyone else. Extreme personalization caters to the individual.


2. AGILITY

In a previous blog, I commented on a Forrester finding that showed only 10% of the knowledge you need, as an information worker, is actually acquired through formal training. The 90% is actually sourced ad-hoc and developed via collaboration. The speed of commerce is simply too fast, to formally learn things. And the cost to deeply understand is often outweighed by the realities that knowledge has a shelf life! Agility in how we get information, how we share information, how we add applications, are all concepts that your teenager understands and employees could benefit from. Are the Millennials different than every other generation in regards to agility? I don't think so. I think the difference is we've been told over-and-over that it just takes time. So we accept it. Even though it's not true.


3. FUN

Can work be fun?! Absolutely. Unfortunately, we've taken the fun out of work often because on misconceptions around productivity. "Don't waste time chatting! Get back to work!" I find it funny (funny peculiar) how we as Enterprise 2.0 practitioners are asked to justify ROI for social media but nobody asks us to show them the ROI on taking that client to the hockey game or what's the ROI of that golf game? We know people collaborate best because of relationships. Not just business clients. ALL people. Yes, even our employees! If you treat employees as machines don't expect any breakthroughs or creative thoughts. Machines are not capable of that.


4. TRUST

Surprise! You are more likely to believe your friends than you are corporate advertising. Forrester also did some recent surveys that show Trust in Corporate Advertising is at an all-time low! Adding social elements to applications, processes, meetings, improves relationships and ultimately trust. Trust is accelerated by the informal. By the, "So how did your daughter do in that soccer game?".

Can you create ways for employees to converse amongst themselves around business messages and still yield productivity results and maintain focus of the message? Yes! In fact, I would argue, you'd be surprised that the employees might even know the message better than the executives if given a chance.


5. COLLABORATION

Facebook would be pretty boring if you were the only face on it. The ability to connect with people, and provide opportunities for self-organization are core. In a past post, I talked about the engagement factors (motivation, opportunity, capability) and Facebook gets it. It's fun and respects the individual. It feeds our ego centric curiosity and we're motivated for more. It's open to anybody. You can leverage "spare moments of time" to update your status and read your aggregated news feed. You have the opportunity. And it's simple! You don't spend time reading the manual to use Facebook. Everyone has the capability.

Ultimately, this allows people to interact and collaborate. In a corporate setting, I would suggest you add some direction to the area you need to focus on, but maintain the elements for engagement.

Theses are my 5 key lessons from Facebook. If you want to read more about lessons from Facebook, take a look at this good post by Derek Abdinor, "Facebook: 10 lessons for the Enterprise".

I know we apply these when designing social applications. What other lessons can you think of that can be applied to a corporate setting?

Is CNN manipulating the YouTube Presidential debate?

Should CNN by using editorial control in selecting YouTube questions for the US Presidential debate? That's the topic in a recent Wired article titled, CNN-YouTube Debate Producer Doubts the Wisdom of the Crowd.


Wired provides arguments on both sides of the debate. I suspect most 2.0 enthusiasts will disagree with me on this, but I think CNN should have some editorial control. Surowiecki's "wisdom of crowds" is a powerful concept, BUT it only works when the crowd is aligned on the objective. Unfortunately, people have other agendas and motivations then those that the may have posed the initial question. This is an important lesson learned from swarm theory.


Applied to the CNN debate, CNN may be looking for the most thought-provoking intellectually stimulating questions but the respondents may have a different agenda. They may be looking for the most entertaining and humorous questions. Unfortunately, these 2 different objectives may not align. The Wired article quotes the CNN SVP David Bohrman (pictured here with political director Sam Feist) stating that the previous debates most viewed questions were 1) Whether Arnold Schwarzenegger was a cyborg sent to save the planet Earth? and 2) Will you a convene a national meeting on UFOs?


There are several examples of "hijacking" including the piece I wrote about on the CBC's Great Canadian Wish, that seem to lend it's support to CNN.


The challenge though becomes how much editorial control should CNN have? According to the Huffington Post's Marty Kaplan, CNN is going beyond filtering the "jokes" and is stacking the debate by purposefully rejecting several 'authentic' videos. CNN defends themselves by stating that these questions were "planted" and "manipulated" and don't really represent what the voting population really want to see.


Personally, I don't see a "perfect" process that would properly seek out the wisdom of crowds via social media to help the rest of the nation make the best decisions.


How would you propose CNN handle this?

Or do you think social media isn't appropriate at all?

When self-organization fails

I had an interesting discussion with my friend Peter the other day about when social computing may be less effecting or perhaps inappropriate completely. One of the items touched on was the concept around self-organization.

In situations, where you are looking for the passionate, motivated and driven people in a mass crowd, self-selection can help navigate the social network through transparency and openness. For example, if a company wanted to identify new product features for a niche product, it may simply open up a forum of some sort to all, and allow those with interest self-organize and provide input.

But what about when you need to bring people together who don't want to come together. Perhaps it's a sales team VS a marketing team where you need to make a critical decision for the company? Holding a forum and providing opportunity for participation may yield no benefit as both groups may see it as a "waste of time". What if the "experts" in the room are so set into their thinking they have dismissed the new "concepts" flat out? Or if the new "concepts" do not heed the wisdom of the experts?

Ever hear of the concept of "locking people in a room until they solve the problem"? What happens when the people don't want to be in the same room? Sometimes, the face-to-face session is necessary to "force" collaboration. Through tailored collaboration events and skilled facilitation professionals, you can chip away at the limitations of self-organization. Perhaps an E2.0 approach could be a sequential next step once you've overcome the motivational factors that oppose collaboration.

There are other areas where social computing (as an initial start) may be less effective that I've discussed before but would love to hear your thoughts.

Swarm Theory & Social Computing

As a father, I've watched the movie "A Bug's Life" several times. In the movie, there is a scene where the locust (the bad guys) are laughing about how they can boss around the wee little ants (the good guys), until the head locust illustrates to the other locust that as individual ants, they are puny, but if they were to organize themselves they would be over-powering mass force. Yes, I realize I am referring to a kids cartoon, however, the power of self-organization by insects and animals to overcome huge challenges is the topic of this months National Geographic. The article is called Swarm Theory and it has interesting applications to social computing and mass collaboration concepts.

The article has several very interesting examples of how ants, bees, fish and other animals can do seemingly complex tasks even though individually these creatures really aren't all that intelligent. For example an experiment on bees shows how scout bees select the best new home through a democratic process based on individual assessments. Read the article, it's fascinating. The ability to do this isn't dictated through some genius bee nor is it a simple group think. Instead it is individual analysis where some bees select one home and others select another home. "Voting" by the bees is used to make the final decision for the colony on the "best" location.

"One key to an ant colony, for example, is that no one's in charge. No generals command ant warriors. No managers boss ant workers. The queen plays no role except to lay eggs. Even with half a million ants, a colony functions just fine with no management at all—at least none that we would recognize. It relies instead upon countless interactions between individual ants, each of which is following simple rules of thumb. Scientists describe such a system as self-organizing."

For a company looking to enter in the social computing domain, there are lessons we can learn from nature. The ability to harness social computing and mass collaboration requires opportunity but also individual assessment. If we let people loose to "self-organize" but they don't have enough expertise to make a "valid" decision or they get lazy and go with the most popular we lose the benefit from mass collaboration. When rules and laws are well understood mass collaboration is powerful. Simple rules lend itself to large groups but complex rules, if understood well, can also be addressed through collaboration.

"an important truth about collective intelligence: Crowds tend to be wise only if individual members act responsibly and make their own decisions. A group won't be smart if its members imitate one another, slavishly follow fads, or wait for someone to tell them what to do. "

Before you expect great things from social computing in your organization, consider whether or not your employees are equipped to act responsible and empowered to make their own decisions. Thank-You Vanessa for pointing out this article.

Thoughts on "The Ignorance of Crowds"

One of the best "web 2.0" type articles that I've read recently has got to be Nicholas Carr's article "The Ignorance of Crowds". It's a balanced view of the potential of peer production and mass collaboration. With so much hype around Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Peer Production, Mass Collaboration, it's refreshing to see such a grounded article. As Nick writes...

"The bottom line is that peer production has valuable but limited applications. It can be a powerful tool, but it is no panacea. It’s a great way to find and fix problems, to collect and categorize information, or to perform any other time-consuming task that can be sped up by having lots of people with diverse perspectives working in parallel. It can also have the important added benefit of engaging customers in your innovation process, which not only allows their insights to be harnessed but also may increase their loyalty to your company."

Through a series of examples such as the limitations of Wikipedia, the governance model for Linux, and an overall reference to the paper, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar” written by Eric Raymond, Nick argues his points and cautions the reader about thinking peer production is a panacea.

Although Nick's focus isn't directly on the corporation, there are implications I believe that will allow companies to reap greater benefits of mass collaboration, peer production and social computing. For example, you would be wise to think of 3 layers at work and tailor your corporate program to all 3 layers.

1. The Individual

Acknowledge that the breakthrough ideas tend to be product of a single individual. Numerous examples abound on this. Steve Job's on his IPod Design. Even the open source example of Linux is the brainchildren of Linus Torvald. What web 2.0 & enterprise 2.0 allows for is the opportunity for those individuals and their ideas to be found. This is an example of tapping into the long tail to reduce the degrees of separation. This really isn't truly "collaboration" yet... It's discovery.

2. The Mass Collaborators

Mass collaboration has proven effective in tasks that are "parallelizable". The analogy Nick uses in discussing Linux bug fixes is an Easter egg hunt in which if you have 2 kids trying to find a 100 eggs, it will take a lot longer than have 200 kids trying to find a 100 eggs. Parallelism is achievable in "narrowly defined or routine tasks.". Massively parallel activity can provide rapid advancement but tends to lack refinement since refinement often requires high levels of coordination and larger masses actually slow down the process or simply fail.

3. The Governors & Coordinators

Having found the right concepts or ideas, and accelerated the incremental advancement of the ideas or concepts, the final piece is about refining it. Specialists in an area, dedicated experts, can mold that idea into a finished deliverable. Linux for example is considered an extremely stable, high quality system versus Wikipedia, which acknowledges discrepancies within it's articles. A core difference is that Linux is still centrally governed whereas Wikipedia is loosely governed.

The challenge to the governance and coordination is knowing at what point to bring this group in. Too early, and this group will slow down the process as they try to refine something that could have been done by a much larger parallel group. Too late, and this group will be challenged with higher quality issues that could have been avoided. Nupedia is an example of governance too soon and Wikipedia is an example of governance coming in late to try and improve the quality.

I think Nick sums it up very nicely...

"So if you’re looking to bolster your company’s creativity, you should by all means look for opportunities to harness the power of the crowd. Just don’t expect the masses to take the place of the lone wizard or the band of mages. The greatest breakthroughs will always begin, to quote Eric Raymond once more, with “one good idea in one person’s head,” and the greatest products will always reach perfection through the concerted efforts of a highly skilled team."

6 suggestions on how to ask the right questions to harness mass collaboration.

The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) is running a 'contest' allowing the general public to submit and vote for what they believe to be the "Great Canadian Wish". The intent is that the CBC will then do a TV broadcast focussing on this topic for Canada Day celebrations on July 1st.

What are #1 & #2 "wishes" so far?

#1: Abolish Abortion in Canada.
#2: I Wish Canada would remain Pro-Choice.

At first glance, it seems that CBC's attempt to focus on Canada has been hijacked by lobbyists. This has tones of familiarity from the Chevy Tahoe incident. I suspect the authors of the question were expecting something a little less controversial and perhaps a bit more unifying.

The CBC has responded with "There's no such thing as "hijacking" with this project. Who ever can best organize their wish, and get the most people to support it... will come out on top. I guess the whole point is to BE good at lobbying for your wish."

No doubt, that in the case of television, all publicity is good publicity, as it will draw a large viewership. Would the CBC actually only review one side of an argument? We could argue that it's not the CBC but the voice of the people. More accurate however, is that it's the voice of the majority of participants.

My interests, aren't really with the CBC and how this will unfold (albeit I am interested in seeing the outcome.). But that it serves as a good reminder to Enterprise 2.0 practitioners. Are you prepared to deal with the responses you get?

As corporations begin leveraging social computing applications they MUST thoroughly consider the QUESTIONS they are asking. A story relayed to me recently involves a university attempting to improve it's rankings in a popular magazine. The university asked it's student body "How do we improve our university?"...

This seemingly simple question yielded answers that the university was not prepared to deal with such as "Have free daycare for everyone... Reduce number of exams... Increase Breaks...". In this situation, not only are they asking a very broad question that will generate very broad answers BUT they were asking the wrong people. If they did their research, they would have realized that the rankings in the magazine were not completely based on the students but really based on the companies that hired the students.

So they made a mistake... No harm done right? WRONG! The impact of asking the wrong question is that you have now raised expectations of the participants and then deflated them when you are not prepared to address their responses. They basically have wasted their time. Ultimately this relates back to trust and confidence and erosion of a collaborative culture. The exact opposite of what should have been accomplished.

So how do you get the right question and the right audience

We can take lessons from "social computing 1.0" which would include the manual surveys we are all familiar with. Perhaps a little less interactive, but definitely an attempt to draw upon the intelligence of the masses. Here are 6 techniques to consider

1. Root Cause Analysis - Fishbone Diagrams - 7 Why's
This allow us to make sure we are asking the right root question and not solving a simply symptom of a more complicated question.

2. Process Mapping - Swim lane Diagrams
Allow you to also identify the "WHO" piece if you are attempting to solve a problem. This doesn't mean you must ask only those that are the obvious experts, but depending on the situation it may be most appropriate.

3. Brainstorm the realm of possible answers and your response.
Mock databases, or mack answers can provide a means to look at potential scenarios and how the corporation would look to address these. Ask yourself 'how would I deal with this'?

4. Pilot the question.
Test it out in a random sample of participants to get a sense of the input you would receive.

5. Be Clear.
Provide very specific guidelines of what type of answers are suitable. Also provide clear definition of the question and the context from which it is being asked.

6. Consider ulterior motives & timing
When you ask a question, people will respond based on their perspectives. Perspectives are influenced by the current events of the day. This may or may not be the right setting for your specific question. Consider an example in which a response would benefit the inidivdual at the expense of the corporation or of another group of individuals. People may not be always thinking of the pure best interest of the entire company.

So here's my question to you....

What other suggestions would you offer corporations looking to tap into the collective intelligence of their employee base?

Mesh07: Digital Blinders - Are We an Inch Wide and a Mile Deep?

Today I attended the Mesh 07 Conference and for me the most interesting (philosophically intense) session was the one titled "Digital Blinders - Are We an Inch Wide and a Mile Deep?" with a panel consisting of Mark Schneider, Nora Young and Mark Federman.

To be honest, I had no clue what this would be about. As I sat down I noticed a cartoon backdrop depicting 3 teenagers slouched on a couch surfing the web and commenting on sensational pictures of Britney Spears. The tag line said "The Death of the Newspapers"

We were quickly informed that this session was to discuss whether the abundance of information has caused us to be passive, lazy consumers of mass content lacking depth of understanding? It was kicked off by an excerpt from Al Gore's recent book, "Assault on Reason" in which Gore expresses anger over the media's single focus on salacious topics such as Paris Hilton, OJ Simpson, Laci Peterson, etc... while the US quietly made catastrophic errors in judgment about the environment, and the war on Iraq.

Of the many points discussed, the one concept that made me really think was whether the allowance of self-organized social communities actually drove collaboration further apart? The reasoning is that people are more apt to look for websites, communities, articles that support their disposition on certain topics rather than counter arguments to their pre-conceived ideas.

As communities of like minded people form, it reinforces their positions and causes an "us versus them" divide. Mark Federman, pointed to our Western education system that reinforces the zero-sum assumption in the way they teach children then you are either "right" or that you are "wrong". You can not have two right answers.

After the session, I chatted with some peers and discussed the implications to a company. Here are a four concepts from that discussion.

1. Focus on creating integrated forums that offer multi-perspectives instead of separate forums dedicated to specific interests.

2. Provide access to multi-source of information for multiple perspectives.

3. Focus on improving critical thinking and the ability to process multiple arguments and identify strength of arguments.

4. Accept the concept of emergent understanding and that it is ok to NOT have an immediate position.

Looking forward to tomorrow's session.

A Code for Enterprise 2.0 Practioners?

1. VALUE AT ALL COSTS THE PERSONAL IMPACT OF SOCIAL COMPUTING

2. PEOPLE AS NOT RESOURCES TO BE EXPLOITED

3. REALIZE THAT THE CROWD IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT



Those would be my first three statements in a code for the new Enterprise 2.0 practitioner. Why do we need a code? Because the implications of social computing go far beyond a piece of technology. The personal nature of social computing means we have a moral responsibility.

Being at the beginning of Enterprise 2.0 means that we will undoubtedly see several failures in addition to the triumphs. A Code (built through collaboration of course) will help the advancement of Enterprise 2.0 as a discipline.

I was reminded of the awesomeness of the impact we can have during a discussion over coffee with Jevon MacDonald of firestoker.com. Jevon and I shared stories of our experiences in social computing as practitioners and lessons learned. Both of us had experiences which started with an ambitious objectives in the earlier years that produced results very different than what we were hoping to achieve.

The BIG lesson though wasn't about "being overly ambitious / progressive goals with social computing", or even "how to be successful in an Enterprise 2.0 implementation". The BIG lesson was that the beliefs, thoughts, ideas of individuals was more than just data and information. It was a representation of themselves personally. Depending on the topic at hand, the implications are that 'heated comments, critics, rants, and worse' bcome personal attacks. These could have long lasting and severe implications.

I am however, more than ever, a huge proponent of the positive aspects of Enterprise 2.0 having witnessed amazing results in both a cultural sense and a business value perspective. My point isn't to scare people away, it's to remind all of us practitioners that we're dealing with more than just some interesting technology. We're dealing with people. That's just background on the first statement, I'll talk to the other two statements in future blogs but I really would love to hear your thoughts.

Are you a practitioner?

What do you think of such a code?

What lessons have you learned?

What other 'rules' would you add?