Untitled

Teach your kids to be soulless hype machines  

– Sent from my Palm Pre

Ian Shapira [Washington Post] — How Gawker Ripped Off My Newspaper Story

via <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073102476.html?referrer%3Demailarticle%26sid%3Dhttp://www.washingthttp://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register”>washingtonpost.com

Reminds me of how we had to cite our sources for academic papers; we had to provide much more than just a link. We basically had a meta-data model that we had to follow. It was a formal practice and there were severe penalties for not citing appropriately.

Why not use a similar model in this case? Something that’s transferable with the link or the original article? Wikipedia does this with it’s ‘references’ section.

Seems to me the type of blogger described in this story needs the traditional journalist archetype to survive. If not, the blogger’s job becomes much harder.

One more time…you can do it Posterous

Tweaking multiple email account options.

FCC Opens Inquiry of Apple’s Ban of Google Voice

via online.wsj.com

Very interesting move by the FCC. I personally don’t like what Apple is doing with the App store and Google Voice, but they can do what they want. If it turns out to be a bad move the market will let them know.

Build for the long term

My thinking is definitely a product of what I read and experience.  Right now, I’m reading Life, Inc., going through some harrowing politics at work,  just read this fantastic Malcolm Gladwell article in the New Yorker today, and we’re all trying to figure out the Zappos.com sale to Amazon.com.

When I put those pieces together, here’s what I get:  in today’s corporate environment, decisions get made for the wrong reasons.  Value systems have shifted.  Focus is on the short term.  Monetize.  Squeeze every penny out of what we can right now.  The end of the quarter is right around the corner.  We’ve been trained to value everything by how much money it’s worth.  And in the board room, we’ve gotten to the point where executive hubris (which is bad enough on its own) might be at the root of the financial crisis (read the Gladwell article before you call me crazy).

But, I think there is hope.  If you buy into Rushkoff’s notion that we’ve been indoctrinated to live our life according to the rules of corporations, then I think we can look to companies like Amazon and Zappos for change.  Their focus on the customer and long-term approach rehumanize the individual.  The Jeff Bezos video was great to watch in that respect; I especially like when he talks about pursuing initiatives that might not have a pay-off for five to seven years.  Refreshing.

Next post I’d like to tie in the Gladwell article & how enterprise2.0 efforts can bring transparency to decision making.

More on dynamic signals

In the past week there have been three very smart posts on dynamic signal: one from David Armano , one from Skillful Minds, and one from Mark Fidelman.  The dynamic signal is one of the key elements (archetypes, as Dachis Corp calls them) of developing a successful social business (internally, externally, or preferably both); it is an enabling capablitiy whose fate will be decided by an organization’s culture and its employees’ willingness to create a dynamic signal and embrace its potential.

Back in January, I posted on this topic of pushing information to the edge of organizations.  The theory is actually based on the military’s traditional methods of Command and Control and how they are attempting to evolve information flow, much like we’re trying to do with a social business.  Below, given the recent discussion of dynamic signals, is an appropriate excerpt of that post.  If you wish to read the entire post, it is here (actually written around an event incited by David Armano).

Command and control (C2) was the traditional method (and is still widely used today) for organizing military forces.  As a soldier (on the edge) you got your orders only once, from the top (the core).  You followed them, no deviation.  One of the main reasons for this approach was lack of bandwidth.  Chances were, once you got into the field, should an unforseen situation arise there was almost no opportunity to communicate back to the top.  You had no choice but to proceed as planned.  And speaking of unforseen situations, C2 assumed that there wouldn’t be any.  We knew who our enemy was and how they operated (think Cold War); not so true in today’s world (think 9/11).  Resulting from this C2 approach was a very strong/smart ‘core’ and a very weak/uninformed/dumb ‘edge.’  That just won’t work today.

Power to the Edge urges the military to change its approach, to empower, educate & sharpen the edge.  Things do happen in the field and the the front lines need the ability & freedom to operate and overcome those obstacles.  Technology & bandwidth have made information flow to the edge possible; the edge can be smarter and more effective than ever before.  However, there is a foundation that must be in place for Power to the Edge to occur :

• Clear and consistent understanding of command intent;

• High quality information and shared situational awareness;

• Competence at all levels of the force; and

• Trust in the information, subordinates, superiors, peers, and equipment.

So, I think the bullet points above represent key requirements for companies looking to generate a dynamic signal (each bullet probably deserves its own post).  While a dynamic signal could be a great asset to an organization looking to be more effective/efficient/innovative, you don’t just order one from Amazon (or HP).  You have to build it, and it’s not a tool – the tool amplifies the signal, but the tool does not create the signal.  Employees, given the right culture create the signal.  Once you’ve got that, a tool can tap into the signal and distribute it very efficiently.  But, even after you achieve distribution of your dynamic signal, does your company have the culture (or design) to act on it?  To benefit from it?  Are your employees ready for this?  Are those who hold the power in your organization ready for more informed employees?

Got the tools, but now what?

Going back over a post by Todd Defren , I was reminded of a post I put out earlier this year.  Why?  Because I think they both speak to the same fundamental shift that e2.0 brings about: a flatter organization with more empowered employees.  As social media tools (presumptively) break down hierarchies and barriers to information, individual employees will be presented with more decision making power (and more decisions).  How will they react?  Are employees ready to make decisions normally left for or deferred to their supervisors?

Let me offer a real-world example (scrubbed, of course, so as not to give away the secret recipe ).

Here’s the setup:  You’re part of an organization that is tasked to choose between two software tools that would accomplish Capability X (could be a portal product, could be a document management system, could be a project management suite, etc…).  Now, let’s say one of the tools (A) gets piloted across your organization, maybe has a few thousand users and a lot (a lot) of political support.  The other tool (B) has less fan fare, but hits more of your requirements, has strong support from your core business, is cheaper and is, architecturally, a better fit for your company.

You are a member of the team responsible for evaluating Tool B.  As part of your evaluation efforts (competitive intelligence, really), you create a survey of Tool A pilot users.  Results to follow.

As time goes on, the pilot of Tool A continues to gain users and acceptance at high levels of the organization.  However, the more you explore Tool A and Tool B side-by-side, the more you’re convinced that Tool B is the right choice.  No matter, though.  Tool A, after a few months of piloting and mounting political support, is given the nod as the ‘winner’ and is slated for implementation.

Before you go to production the results of your survey come in and they are demonstrative; the pilot users of Tool A not only find it clunky and confusing, but they fail to see the value in a full implementation of this particular tool.  Through their comments they recommend the organization look at other options, wasn’t another tool being evaluated internally?

You’re impressed with the results of the survey and think that they need to be seen.  Your company has blog and wiki capabilities and it would be easy for you to share the results of the survey across the company.  You think it’s the right thing to do, but then you remember all of the political support Tool A has.  Would posting the results put your job at risk? your reputation? what about those of your supervisor(s)?

————————————————

If you go back to Todd’s post, 3rd to last paragraph, all of his questions are valid, we’re not quite sure where we’re going to end up but we seem to have a pretty good idea of the different paths ahead of us (although, I would hazard a guess that many companies implementing e2.0 technologies don’t have a full understanding of the deep cultural impacts these tools have the potential to achieve).   The impact these tools have on our corporate culture will result from the decisions employees make in the situations similar to what is described above.  And those decisions will be impacted by your current corporate culture.  Don’t make the mistake of thinking that these tools will change the culture…they won’t, they will only reflect it.

Untapped demand for social tools can lead to bad decisions

So you’ve been tasked with bringing social media tools into your company and transforming the way it does business.  That’s a big task; but the boss thinks it’s time…he thinks it might be good for business and anyway all the new hires are demanding it.   So you start socializing the idea and you begin to realize it’s not just the new hires.  HR, Finance, Biz Dev, Engineering, IT, oh my.  Everyone is talking about it.  Innovation, collaboration, expertise location; we’re on our way now.  And you’re the one who’s going to give the masses what they want.  You’re the man!   You do a little research, make a few calls to vendors, maybe even a consultant.  What?  They want to take you out to dinner?  That was easy.  And they’re going to let you pilot their software?  They’re flying down tomorrow!?  You start thinking you’re pretty hot shit.  Well, slow down, because you could wind up in way over your head if you don’t know what you’re doing.

Things can move pretty fast if you’re not ready.  That proof-of-concept (that you were only going to let 25 users in on) becomes a pilot (we’ll keep it to 500) becomes production (how many licenses do we have to buy?!)  in the blink of an eye.  And you might not even realize it.  Employees are dying for their company gives them ‘Facebook for the enterprise.’  You give them something, ANYTHING, that resembles a status update and I dare you to tell them, ‘that was only a proof-of-concept, it didn’t meet our requirements.  We have to go back to the drawing board.’

Good luck with that.

My advice to you is do your homework.  Know the vendor space, know your architecture, know your security model, know your requirements.  Most importantly: know your business and how this new tool set will help you solve your BUSINESS problems.  (And, by the way, only you know what your business problems are).  Do all of this before even approaching a vendor.  Get a sponsor from your BUSINESS.  HR is not OK.  Comms, eh, you’re getting warmer.  IT…COLD.  Get at the heart of what your company does and find out who does it.  Once you find them, they will tell you everything they need.  If you can make them happy and solve their problems you greatly increase your odds of success.

If you’re reading this post, time to market for your social initiatives is the least of your problems.  Don’t be pressured into making a move before you’re ready.  This (r)evolution is going to bring about a major shift in the way companies work and it is not a fad.  You are not going to miss out on the benefits  if you decide to take an extra month or two or three to get it right.  Measure twice, cut once.

Apologies and Grex

First let me apologize for the random status updates and pictures that have appeared in the main content column of the blog here. I’ve been testing out my new Ping.fm account and I’m still working out the kinks.

Second, it’s been a while since I’ve posted.  I’ve been head’s down at work eating, drinking and breathing our social software implementation.  It hasn’t left me much time or energy to come for air and put my thoughts down.  I will say this: it is going extremely well.  I’m lucky enough to be doing what I’m passionate about.  As an added bonus, I’m surrounded by extremely smart & talented individuals who share the same passion.  Our small little company has received high praise for the homework we’ve done in terms of understanding our problem space.  Because of the work we’ve put into our effort we are better equipped to select the right tool for the job and, more importantly, address the required culture shift.  As someone at work told me today, ‘Dave, you’re changing the world.’  It’s not just me, it’s the entire team.

So, as I am  promoting , socializing and espousing the benefits of social media on a daily basis, I’m always looking to put new twists on how being more social at work is a good thing and show the doubters yet another reason we need these capabilities.  To that end, I’m constantly adding links to this blog that provide examples of business cases & ROI.  Lately, I have been studying the psychology behind being social and understanding WHY we spend so much time engaging in ’social’ activities (on-line and off).

To that end, I recently came across a new facet in looking at the benefits of being social .  Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Black Swan is at least a confounding read for fans of the the normal distribution (in fact, Chapter 15 is titled, The Bell Curve, That Great Intellectual Fraud).  The premise of the book is that little, predictable events don’t matter that much; history is shaped by BIG events that are unforeseen.  Think WWII or 9/11 (another way to think of a Black Swan is to imagine the life of a Thanksgiving turkey).

In one of his earlier chapters, Taleb sets out to describe how Black Swans exist in different types of occupations and that they’re not just ‘events.’  A scientist or researcher is basically living out the life of a Black Swan event, he is a Black Swan hunter, if you will.  He may spend years and years going into a lab and getting no significant results.  It’s the same thing, day after day, month after month, year after year.  His friends mock him, there is no financial reward, he only goes on because of hope.  But then, one day, he cures cancer.  Bam – Black Swan.

Taleb then goes on to describe the benefit such a Black-Swan hunter may receive due to being part of a group (the quoted passage below).   In many ways, what he is describing in this passage is the process of innovation and how it can be helped by social elements.   I think it has sometihng to say about what I’m trying to do at work:

It may be a banality that we need others for many things, but we need them far more than we realize, particularly for dignity and respect.  Indeed, we have very few historical records of people who have achieved anything extraordinary without such peer validation – but we have the freedom to choose our peers.  If we look at the history of ideas, we see schools of thought occasionally forming, producing unusual work unpopular outside the school.  You hear about the Stoics, the Academic Skeptics, the Cynics, the Pyrrhonian Skeptics, the Essenes, the Surrealists, the Dadaists, the anarchists, the hippies, the fundamentalists.  A school allows someone with unusual ideas with the remote possibility of a payoff to find company and create a microcosm insulated from others.  The members of the group can be ostracized together – which is better than being ostracized alone.  If you engage in Black Swan-dependent activity, it is better to be part of a group.

taking the rest of the day to plan our upcoming London/Paris trip. Using Xmind http://bit.ly/15ZHS to help make sure we don’t miss a thing