Social Computing | Bertrand Duperrin's Notepad

Are contents social by nature or by need ?

August 18, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

Web 2.0, aka “social web” and its corporate avatar known as enterprise 2.0 were built upon the following assumption : within a given groupe, information should be shared and discussions should be public because no one knows who may improve the work of another person, to bring a solution. So it’s more effieient letting people take a stand where and when they find they may bring some added value rather than pushing information to many people, flooding those who are not concerned and often forgetting those who may help. Moreover, pushing informations means that the right person is a part of our contacts, someone we know. An assumption that is often wrong.

The concept of “group” or “perimeter” is very important : it’s not about sharing every information with everybody, but within a defined area, depending on the situation. For example, one can publish on a blog (public), a group of friends on facebook, a business community on linkedin….and it should be the same with corporate tools : team members, everybody, department members…

We are forced to admit that not everybody is comfortable with this approach. First, because many of us have been taught to retain information for years and consider colleagues and information sharing as a threat and not as an opportunity. Second because it’s humain to fear the others’ look one one’s work, above all when it’s still in progress. That brings a strange paradox because that’s when we need the most other people’s opinion and help (work in progress, need to solve a problem) that we dare to share our concerns and work the less.

This may be partly solved on an organizational side. It can be decides that such kind of information has to be shared, it’s in the workflow and that’s the way everybody has to do. Of course, it would start with non-sensitive infomations that’s not hard to share for anyone, and the scope of the shared information will be widened step by step as people realize that’s not that hard or armful. Even if not everything is possible with a carrot and stick policy, it may help to start the initial move.

But that does not solve everything : a part of the problem is linked to individual (and collective) beliefs that can’t be changed just because one decided. Waiting for the Gen Y wave to come with its ultraconnectivity and its inborn knowledge of sharing best practices, we have to deal with the old habits of all the people that are more than…30 yo.

This is important for many resaons : it impacts both the human side of the change project and the design of the tools that will be used to share information.

Do we have to think we must align with a logic that implies that nearly everything is supposed to be shared out by nature ? Or with a logic that implies that everything has to be seen from an individual point of view (all I do is for me, for my own purpose), with the ability, when one feels the need, to make a private information become public, within a defined group of people, what is surely more reassuring for many people ? If, at the end, the result should be the same, the logic that leads to it is quite different.

In brief, is it simpler to start with an individual approach and make people slowly push the walls of their walled garden or to start by throwing them in a world where everything is shared by nature. Obvioulsy neither change management nor the design of the tools will be the same in each case.

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, information, intranet 2.0, sharing, social computing, social media

10 things I believe about the ROI of Enterprise 2.0

July 28, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN 1 Comment

The “ROI” question is still very discussed even if it irritates many people and is used as a pretext for many things. Here are 10 things I believe (right now, at the moment I’m writing…) on the subject. These are only personal beliefs and are subject to change once I find more relevant ones..

1°) This is not a trival point. When a company is asked to invest money, it’s logical they want to have at least as much money as they spent in a direct or indirect return. “Invest time and money..you want to know what you’ll get in return ?…. But we don’t care, it doesn’t matter” is a discourse that enterprises can’t hear. If you don’t agree with me, I suggest you to send me 1000 euros (I accept cheques and paypal), knowing I won’t explain you what I’ll do in return (and if I’ll do something in return). If I’m a milionaire at the end of the week, maybe I’ll change my mind.

2°) ROI may have new forms. The ROI as a predictable mathematic profitability model is not the only way to measure things anymore. R is not a function of I but also depends on peripherical elements (sense, alignment, management…)

3°) Agreeging to the previous point forces us to find new ways to trace created value.

4°) We have to admit that the “ROI question” is an easy way for many people not to do what they don’t want or do not have the courage to do. But it doesn’t mean than those who raise it necessarily want to lay a project aside.

5°) ROI has not to be measured in tools but in people’s and organizational performance. Measuring the ROI of a tool through its content is hazardous. Measuring how individual and collective performance is improved since a tool is used is more concrete. Measuring how a tool is used (contribs, comments…) is value less. Value is in the use of the contents for business purposes, outside of the tool.

6°) Measuring what is lost because of “not doing” is also interesting. In a transactions economy, measuring the cost of current transactions and the cost of missed opportunities due to transaction that can’t happen brings a new perspective.

7°) ROI is a systemic measue : tools + org modes, at an individual and collective level.

8°) Repeat that “no one cares about the ROI of electricity” makes no sens. More, all companies are trying to lower their electricity costs and improve their “energy performance”.

9°) If the value chain is protected from the E2.0 project, there are few chances any return will happen.

10°) If some businesses are successful with their E2.0 implementation and keep on thar way, that’s not for the pleasure of spending money and time. Using their case not only in order to know that “it’s possible” but as a laboratory to invent new ways to trace value would be worth.

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: enterprise 2.0 ROI, social computing, social media, transaction costs, value, value chain

Web 2.0 is not people-centric. It splits people up

July 24, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN 6 Comments

A few words about a founding principle of web 2.0 that appears to be a big mistake. This won’t be without impacts on future usages, on the werb as inside companies because we are reaching the limits of the central component of any collective dynamic : the user.

Founding principle : contrary to the original web, web 2.0 is “people centric”. That means that internauts are not passive receivers anymore but stakeholders, active players, who can take the lead on existing medias and even build their own.

So people should structure the web and its flows, building a network which nodes would be the internauts. It seems logical : in a people-centric system, people are at the center and the rest is supposed to be turn around them.

We are forced to acknowledge that web users, and above all power users, feel more and more like not being at the center of anything but like being split up.

Too much governance leads to ungovernance

July 17, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN Leave a Comment

IT governance is all the more strategic since it applies to the backbone of the business. As a matter of fact, it’s hard to be effective when the strategic line is unknown, when what’s allowed and what’s not is not well defined. Effective companies need well defined rules.

With the emergence of web 2.0, governance took a new dimension with tools that are more people and usages oriented, which needs even more concertation before implementation. That’s how IT departments become center of services instead of center of costs. Notice that it does not only apply to web 2.0 projects.

Anyway, such projects have to comply with the current governance. That’s why things often go wrong. Two situations can be faced :

• Ensure that new tools comply with the actual governance what is like trying to put squares into circles. Low customization by users, restricted rights depending on people, hierarchical validation needed etc… It can’t work.

• Improve the current governance according to these new tools. But if this governancre is built upon principles like “limit user’s autonomy”, “users are a threat to the system”, “autonomy depends on position” etc… which are those who led to the current governance, there are many chances the new one will look loke the the old one.

You can’t govern what you don’t understand. Lack of understanding causes fear which leads to strict rules. It’s interesting to see that the best “2.0 compliant” governances were edicted by people who immersed themselves into a new paradigm in order to understand it. On the contrary, those who try to regulate everything are often those who did not try to understand them. They mistake “regulation” and “protection against”.

At first sight this may not be harmful. Everyone is free to miss opportunities because of excessive certainties. This can even be better than letting things go, thinking some questions can wait. But the danger is more insidious : there are many examples of employees who opened workspaces or used general public services for business collaboration. Since everything is made under the radar, governance can’t be enforced. Now every employee, every team, can create and manage his own IT.

In short, an irrelevant governance often leads to ungovernance.

Governing is anticipating. But anticipating is understanding. So, in order to govern wisely, IT depts must take the time to understand.

A last point : exploring the general public web in order to understand can be a good start. But businesses have also to think that what they’ll see on the web is not what will happen inside the firewall, that usages have to be professionalized. Maybe, in the context of a well conceived governance, this call for professionnalization may be the job of an expert team which will be the garantee that the governance will be enforced, explained, and will be perceived as a strategic pattern, not as a coercitive one.

Those who want to read more about governance should read this post by Ross Dawson.

Entreprise 2.0, gouvernance, Social computing, social-software, usages, web-2.0

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Software & Tools, Web & Usages Tagged With: Enterprise 2.0, governance, social computing, social-software, usages, web-2.0

Real time web is not a cure-all (and twitter won’t kill blogs)

July 10, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN 2 Comments

We can hear that microblogging is killing blogging and that, globally speaking, the future of web is real time. An hasty discourse I don’t subscribe to. It does not seem to me that a trend is replacing another but that they are complementary.

This applies to the general public web but also to the corporate web.

This complementary nature can be explained by postionning a given message according to two axis : consistency and temporality.

Consistency

No long demonstration is needed to explain that it’s hard to deliver a message and a consistent information in 140 characters. If all the information had to comply with the 140 chars rule, we would be informed of many thing without really knowing anything. In the other hand it’s hard to fill out a blog post when the message is short, terse. In this case, the title is often meaningfull alone and the body of the message brings nothing new. That’s what made a part of the blogosphere switch to the twittosphere. Not beacause one is better than the other but because its format fits more with the needs of most of people (remember that pure “creators” on social medias are only a few per cent).

Temporality

Some messages are here to stay and make their place in the worldwide informational inheritance. Some others only have an instant value and won’t deliver it if they don’t spread quickly. When one writes blog post, he aims at his regular audience, but indexation by search engines gives the post a kind of permanence. Then the long tail makes its job. Even of the indexation of the messages on twitter improves, its archives only have a few interest. If a message is missed, there are many chances it won’t be of any interest one day later : either the information will become valueless or it will become available for everydoby through more conventional channels. In the worst case, if something has a real value, it will keep on resonating (being retwitted) long enough in order it will still be able to be caught a few days later.

So a two speed web is emerging. Consistent messages that have to remain and deliver a complex message, and short and instant messages on a faster track.

It’s easy to realize how real time can reach its limits while traditionnal blogging does not have the needed reactivity in some circumstances. The complementarity between both allows to cover the full range of needs.

Some may say some messages meet both conditions. That’s why many people use twitter to mention blog posts. What reminds us the need for articulating both.

Filed Under: Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: blogging, blogs, Communication, consistency, information, internet, microblogging, real time, real time web, social computing, Social Networking, temporality, twitter, web

The social vs process debate makes no sense

June 9, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN 1 Comment

It started with a remark from a friend, a few weeks ago :

There’s nothing social in this project. Only good old processes

I clearly understood what he meant but, in some ways, I was not comfortable with that. There was something like a mistake in the underlying assumptions.

In the first times, “social” within companies (social computing, networking etc…) whis caricaturally and simply opposed to processes, the ladt symbolizing the formal and structured side of the enterprise versus the informal and unstructured activities which are the field of social sotware and the related practices.

So “social” would preclude process and vice-versa. I don’t subscribe to this manichean point of view that causes many misunderstandings and doesn’t help to do anything constructive. As a matter of fact, social does not only enrich processes but it’s also a kind a process by itself.

As I said a few time ago, formal and structured production, which used to have have the role of the whipping boy in the “things 2.0 vs old practices” debate, is and will remain the heart of any organization.Central but not sufficient. In an economy that relies more and more on the use of intangible, on service customization and on the complex articulation of multiple expertises, taking into account the need for being able to overcome any process failure is mandatory. This will need adhoc teams and operating models in ordrer to get to a result….that will be used to execute a process. Something like a still… and like every good ongoing improvement process. Social and processes are complementary, the first enriching the second.

In the other and, adopting social practices and softwares doesn’t mean that people will be rushing about in all directions all day long. If we have a closer look, people in a social mode follow a kind of collective process.

- Sending out signals : document, report, tell, share

- use what the others sent : search, appeal

- enrich what the others sent.

The whole as an ongoing loop.

As a conclusion, we have to be aware of not mistaking working with unstructured datas and working in an unstructured way.

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: Enterprise 2.0, process, production, social computing, social media, social-software

When does the value of a “social object” have to be measured ?

June 2, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN 1 Comment

Let’s be clear, I’m talking about value, not about ROI (although the one is a part of the other) and about “social objects” in the large sense of the word : everything that can exist on a social platform, when using social software. It may be a content, an information specially generated, an information shared from elsewhere, a mark given to any contribution, the contribution to a collaborative work…but also the time taken to do so, the attention mobilized while the person may have had something else to do at this time etc…

Behind the everlasting discussions about ROI stands, before all, the question of the value. Does what is done have value, and what value ? In which ways an information and the time needed to publish it can have any value ? You’ll notice that it turns the ROI question not into something about tools and contents but into something wider made of tools, contents, resources and …the context in which the information is used.

That is a point that is often forgotten : it’s the context that determines values, it’s its limiting factor, more than the intrinsic value of the information itself. An insignificant information may be very valuable at a given moment for a given person even though thousands people will have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, a capital information have no value if nobody uses it. It takes us back to a reflection I’ve had a long time ago about strategy maps : intangibles have no intrinsic value but their value depends on how it’s used.

Talking about an enterprise context, let’s make it clear that “value” means the ability to turn information into money.

So the point, not that trivial, is to know when value has to be measured.

Social Software : size as an alternative to predictability

May 19, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN 1 Comment

It’s a recurring discussion about the success of social media within organizations : does success depend on the number of users ? There are many examples that show us that the answer is obviously yes. And as many that shows us the opposite. According to me there’s no absolute answer.

In the beginning, my idea was that is was depending on the kind of tool. It’s easy to understand that a 5 people team is enough to demonstrate the value of a wiki and that a social network, on the other hand, needs a critical mass of users. With hindsight I’s rather say that it depends on activities.

As a matter of fact, a team that needs a wiki will use it without any problem. And, if they’re not provided with such a tool, they will get it by themselves. If they don’t need a wiki…they won’t use it, whatever can be done. On the other side of the spectrum, social networks, being more flexibility-oriented and aiming at mobilizing expertises inside adhoc groups, need to be used by a lot of people to make sure the relevant ressources (people and information) will be there when they’ll be needed.

If we try to generalize, a small team is enough if there’s an identified purpose and that a larger populaton is needed if the tool’s purpose is rather to make things possible while these “things” are not predictable.

That’s why wikis is often mentioned as the example of a tool that was easily adopter : defined human and fuctional scopes, defined goal. A contrario, tools which have a larger spectrum, more protean uses, such as blogs or social networks, need a deeper work to be a part of people’s day to day job.

To come back on the “size question”, it appears that :

• Size is not critical when a clear need exists about what people have to deliver so that people immediately understand what benefits they will get from using such or such tools. Here, the goal, what has to be delivered, who has to participate are known from the beginning. Use is led by work organization.

• Size may critical when social software is to overcome dysfunctions in the way the work is organized. Here the goal is defined, but the people who have to participate and the functional spectrum can’t be anticipated, nor when the software will be used. Use is led by circumstances.

• Size is critical when social software is expected to help people to deliver their full potential. Which, said in other words, mean to allow their to use all their skills to make things the company may have never thought about. It’s typically the case in “innovation” projects, where it’s impossible to know who wll have ideas, who’ll be interested in joining the discussion to improve things….and what the idea will be used for. Use is lead by the will to participate.

So it seems that the more certainties we have on what has to be delivered, who have to work on that, and the more mandatory the goal is, the less size is critical.

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: adoption, Enterprise 2.0, social computing, social-software

Why communication managers don’t have to fear enterprise 2.0

March 31, 2009 By Bertrand DUPERRIN 1 Comment

Among the many misunderstandings that may slow adoption of new practices and tools, there is the fear communication managers may have of what is often presented as a new freedom of speech for employees.

Nothinb but logical : the role of a communication department is to spread the corporate message and avoid any kind of interference. The fact employees could speak spontaneously is something that is neither expected nor conceivable and that is the incarnation of the worse kind of interference.

Being interviewed about this issue a few weeks ago, I tried to dispel what is, according to me, a pure misunderstanding.

I think that a mistake is being made on both the notion of communication and the context of the so-called freedom of speech.

Subscribe to this bog

Tag cloud

Happy to work at…

Favorite books

Copyright