I Love Hubcaps

What Do I Get?

Posted by dave in Social Networking, rants on January 14th, 2010

Strange week last week – I noticed a recurring theme that is pretty irritating. A “How does networking benefit me?” attitude that really seems to miss the point of building a network.
I asked a few people if they were attending a luncheon for people interested in learning more about business. “I went last year and didn’t really get anything out of it.” Maybe the other people there got something out of the experience you shared? Or did you just sit by yourself, wondering why no one was talking to you?

I don’t know who said it first, but I’ve heard a few times “There are people who get stuff done and people who hang around people who get stuff done.” I don’t care which way I’m perceived by people who like to say that, but I *know* I get stuff done. And I’m happy to have people talk with me about what I do. Not everyone is always “getting stuff done.” But the fact that they’re hanging around means they’re eager to. Why not help them figure out how?

Hey, look at me! I'm king of networking!

Hey, look at me! I'm king of networking!

“I have too many friends.” “I know too many people.” Sounds preposterous. But people talk about thinning their social networks – to only be connected to people that they can do them a favor. But how do you know who those people are? Case in point, I was looking for a specific skill set a few weeks ago, and thought of someone that I thought might fit the bill. I tried to reach him through Twitter direct message, but he had “thinned his network” – meaning, I could no longer reach him directly. If he had been perfect for the job, I wouldn’t have given up. But since he was only a *potential* candidate, I didn’t bother trying to reach him other ways. Could he have gotten something valuable out of me? Maybe. Will he ever know? No.

On the other hand, I held a networking event this week and met some new people that I’m planning on talking to more. In fact, I’m meeting someone this evening to talk about her profession and how she can find a place to use her talents. What do I get? I don’t know. Maybe nothing.

In fact, I don’t know that I’ve ever gotten anything tangible from my network. Mostly, it’s me connecting other people to jobs. And a little knowledge sharing here and there. But what it has enabled me to do is improve my own competencies. By being in social/professional settings often, talking about what I do and relating it to what other people do, I think about it more often. I process and refine my work internally as I find new ways to describe it to different people. Yes, I can mea$ure how much that’s been worth.

Maybe a refresher on the definition of Network is in order. It’s a system of interconnected supports and conduits. Some people are getting it confused with a pedestal.

Measuring the Narrowgoals

Posted by dave in e2.0 on October 21st, 2009

Metrics, metrics, why must you be so complicated?

I’ve always thought that measuring stuff was pretty easy. If you’re just starting out trying to “implement some metrics” – it’s super easy to start. Measure whatever you can measure. Don’t start with “what you think you want to measure, if only you knew how to collect that data.” Start with what’s easy to measure. What can you learn from it? Learn how to use data for insight.

And as you learn how to measure, you start to get a sense not just of what to measure, but to what degree of depth those measurements are useful. So the “if we only knew how to collect that data” excuse starts to fade.

Mechanics aside, I always thought that metrics were pretty straightforward – even as your organization matures and your measures become more complex, you’ve grown along with that complexity, and built measure upon measure. It’s still straightforward.

But every truth has a counterpoint.

For support, rather than illumination.

For support, rather than illumination.

You can use metrics to validate (i.e. prove you are right) and you can use them to learn. And if you are using metrics to learn, that inherently implies that you need to change what you measure continually. Look at it this way: You can learn what times people normally eat lunch by standing in a restaurant and counting the people buying lunch. But you have to track specific individuals to determine how likely people are to be repeat customers. Because wouldn’t you operate the business differently knowing that your busiest spike was at noon, but also knowing that all of your repeat customers typically show up at 12:30? (Yes, you would.)

Where you are -vs- where you want to be
I had epiphany today about some of our operational metrics. Yes, we are measuring the right objectives. Are we delivering what we say we’re going to deliver, on time, on budget, of appropriate grade and quality? Fine. But we’re measuring what we think we’re capable of. We set a target and expect to achieve it. How are we doing?

Well, it’s certainly valid to measure what we hope to achieve. But what about where we hope to improve? Obviously, we can pick something that we think we need to improve and start measuring the heck out of it until it has higher numbers and everything is fantastic. But that’s just validation. What about illumination? We also need to measure what we’ve never considered measuring – what can we learn from it? Not to say we should just start measuring everything that moves (or doesn’t.) But return to that infancy principle of “measure what you can.” What do we not see? What data looks like nothing? Because “nothing” may just indicate really, really poor performance.

Find another beach to comb, dude. So is measurement for improvement straightforward? Simple!

But measurement for discovery requires that you find new territory to search.

metrics measurement improvement process operations discovery validation

Why be a social media douchebag?

Posted by dave in Social Networking, rants on September 29th, 2009

: Image via Wikipedia

.. because you can!

There’s been a lot of turmoil this week on the Columbus social media scene. And it’s not even important what the original arguments were about, as they’ve tended to give way to meta arguments over the ‘proper’ use of social media. And as I write this, I’m realizing that I’ve seen this happen with every virtual community/ message board that I’ve been on since 1998. It starts out as a close community, new people show up, some of them “don’t get it” (read: offer a new perspective), someone throws a punch, people take sides, Abraham Lincoln tries to preserve the union.

It’s a little tiring to watch – not just because it happens to every community and every community somehow thinks it’s unique – but because the arguments always end the same way, with some peace-making platitude that shuts down the argument, yet resolves nothing. Something like this:

Social media is about getting your hands dirty. And if someone is an asshole, that’s the price of admission.

.. Ok, but if one person gets to be an asshole, remember that everyone else gets to be one also. So instead of a community of people with a common vision, we have a community of assholes. And maybe that’s a natural progression of a community and then it segments itself.

Well, that’s one way to do it. Not that we shouldn’t challenge each other, but it can be done civily. Does a challenge need to start with a glove slap?

OK – now go ahead and call me one. But I can at least claim that it’s not my intention to be.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Open Mouth, Insert Nose, Spite Face

Posted by dave in Social Networking on September 29th, 2009

A perspective I’m not understanding these last .. oh I guess it’s about 16 now .. years – are people who vote against their own self interests.

Now, I hear that phrase “against yer own self interests” associated with people who have very little – voting for a candidate who isn’t protecting their economic interest. Well, as perplexing as that phenomenon may be, it’s not outrageous that someone without means will not base their vote on economics. That is, if money were their highest priority when selecting a candidate, they might choose differently. (Here’s a really great talk on that subject: TED: Jonathan Haidt on the Moral Mind)

But, no – those are not the people I’m talking about, “voting against their own self interests.”

During the last campaign, I saw TV ads and blog posts of this ilk:
“To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.
…
Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don’t pay enough.
…
So where am I going with all this?

It’s quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child’s future. Frankly, it isn’t my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. ….”

Oh – really? Do you realize that the taxes being talked about are personal income taxes? And they’re marginal? (look it up.) So the ‘extra’ tax is only on income you make over a certain threshold – which means you’re doing quite well. And you would prefer to stop making any income rather than pay tax on the upper bracketed income you make? You would really close down your source of income so you don’t have to pay taxes? (um, Did you know that if you went to work for someone else and made the same amount, you’d still have to pay them? Closing down your company isn’t going to change that.) You think you could give up what you have in this country and do better in another country? Because if you can, you should do it. It’s just good business.

OR This–

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

You have a better option? Take it! But something needs to be done about the level of care in the U.S. Do I want to government to run it? I don’t care. I want someone to run it. Step up if you think you can do it.

Now I must admit than in previous elections, I have jokingly threatened to leave the country if the election turned out a certain way. But I’d be hard-pressed to find a better deal somewhere else.

So here’s what I’m saying – if you’re joking or making idle threats about making a change and doing it just to show your frustration – well, fine.

But if you really think the best option is to close up shop and head for the hills – well, get going.

Add new tag, heathcare 2.0

$3

Posted by dave in rants on July 9th, 2009

I went to a concert recently where the advertised ticket price was $15. I started to buy a ticket online, but when I checked out, Ticketmaster had added a service charge AND a convenience charge to my order, making the $15 ticket $25. Well, I’m no fan of Ticketmaster and those charges are excessive, but “whatever the public will pay”, right? I canceled the order. I won’t pay the $10. But this isn’t about Ticketmaster.

The day of the show, I walked up to the box office and said I would like to get in.
“$18″ said the sales clerk.
I said, “No, the price is $15.”
“Plus a $3 service fee.”
I said, “A fee for what?”
“Ticketmaster”
“I don’t want a ticket, I just want admission.”
“That’s $18,” she repeated.
“No – it’s $15.”

I knew it was a losing battle and not even the right person to be battling with, but I thought it was useful to give her a hard time anyway. Maybe it will transmit up to her manager.

As a pre-sale condition of ticketing, I get it. Charge all the fees you can get away with. But when I walk up to the gate, I should be able to get in for the advertised price. I do not need a physical ticket – it serves no purpose. That’s product tying, the way I see it. And it’s a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act, if I want to get all fake-lawyery. If I can’t buy product A (admission to concert) without also purchasing product B (worthless piece of paper), you are violating the law.

A salesman said to me once, “Pigs get fed, but hogs get slaughtered.”

Adding up the $15 and two overpriced beers, $3 is a drop in the bucket. But it’s not inconsequential. A relatively small amount can cause massive dissatisfaction to a customer. Charge me $3 today, lose me on a $50 sale next week.

antitrust, Box office, Clayton Act, concert, lc pavillion, Ticketmaster

so funny it’s dumb | bmud s’ti ynnuf os

Posted by dave in Social Networking on June 1st, 2009

I didn’t know people still forwarded email jokes – I guess it’s the kind of thing you get when your social network branches out to people you “used to know.” See previous posts about high school reunions, lowest common denominators and the collision of social circles on the internet.

As dumb as this joke is, and as idiotic as the line is that introduces it, I shall take the last bit of fun from it…

“I’ll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep “THE CHANGE”.

A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in California when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.

The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, “If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?”

Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, “Sure, Why not?”

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg , Germany ….

Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer, turns to the cowboy and says, “You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.”

“That’s right.. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,” says Bud.

He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the Bud says to the young man, “Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?”

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, “Okay, why not?”

“You’re a Congressman for the U.S. Government”, says Bud.

“Wow! That’s correct,” says the yuppie, “but how did you guess that?”

Im folksy, I gamble AND I vote!

I'm folksy, I gamble AND I vote!

“No guessing required.” answered the cowboy. “You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don’t know a thing about how working people make a living – or about cows, for that matter. This is a herd of sheep. ……….

Now give me back my dog.
—————————

HA! ROFL, right?

#1 – Hey ‘Bud’ – why did you take the bet if “you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked”?
#2 – Hey ‘Bud’ – why did you take a bet that had no upside?
#3 – Hey ‘Bud’ – if you have a sheep farm, why did you concede the bet? The correct answer would have been zero, not 1,586.

No offense meant to any of you hard working citizens out there and no inherent defense offered to any representatives out there, but is there really supposed to be an insult in that joke? Congressman, driving expensive car & expensive suit and yet still managed to get elected… gosh, what an idiot!

…and the intro for this joke: “I’ll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep “THE CHANGE”. Change is bad. Very bad. See you at the witch trials!

idiot, neo-conservative, specious

Moving from Followers to Subjects

Posted by dave in credible search on May 8th, 2009

This is not a new subject, but just like everything on the hype curve, I’ve recently noticed more people asking “Can Twitter last and what’s next?”

The answer: Yes and no . And what’s next is whatever people decide to hype, but what’s logically next may be pretty cool.

Short format
Twitter has been a great leap forward in public adoption of short message format. This shift in attitude toward short messages will be valuable in the long run, as parsing content into small and discrete ideas means that content can be reassembled in various contexts that provide meaning to the consumers. (Eventually this small content will have enough patterns to map its relevancy to other content. Depending upon what you’re looking for and what we already know about you, we can predict what you really want and find the most current and relevant content. Semantic Web in a nutshell. )

How does Twitter fit into this? Whether it’s Twitter or any other SMS application, content is still contributed 140 characters at a time. It may be links to full articles. It may be ideas or it may be inane lifestreaming. (In this model, I predict that lifestreaming as a pastime goes away, as internet personas become less important.)

The idea of following people or watching a tweetstream of random messages becomes a diversion of the totally geeked or the truly bored.

Immediacy. In most cases, immediate information is not important. In a catastrophe, immediate information can be useful to someone who is engaged in the event. But to the common voyeur, the appeal of immediate communication is the ability to report/retweet the news first; not to provide help in any way.

Satisfaction. Short messages are easy to create and easy to digest – but in quick succession and without something to tie them together, fragmented ideas rely on the consumer to file mentally and to reassemble cognitively… hopefully before another set of message fragments steal attention and divert the brain to a new subject.

Following tweets from your tweeps is listening to a police scanner. You monitor everything and stop when you see something interesting. That model won’t last.

The union of traditional search for knowledge with the scale and speed of the internet

The future is more like a newspaper, an encyclopedia or the town crier, personalized and on demand.
Dynamic. Content should not only be relevant for the user, but updated and dynamic – Depending on the user’s changing perspective, the world’s changing information and the context for which a user is seeking knowledge, content should adjust. SMS allows the content to be broken up in to small enough pieces to be dynamic. Semantic data relationships are in charge of assembling it.
Trustworthy. Content needs to be trustworthy .. sometimes. Generally, people want accurate information, but there’s a difference between factoids for party conversation and real research. The capacity to assemble content from authoritative sources in addition to user-generated sources will continue to need balance.
Contextual. Data and short messages can have semantic relationships, but there also needs to be a contextual interpretation. Why does data X relate to data Z? Peanut butter is food. Spaghetti is food. So what? I have peanut butter, spaghetti and rat poison in my cupboard, and I’m hungry. “Stuff in my cupboard” returns related data, but it’s out of context and, in this case, not helpful.

Subjects, not people
Rather than following other people, we will begin to follow subjects and be able to refine relevancy.
None of this is new. Technology doesn’t change culture. Culture uses technology in ways that hasten change.

Following interest in subjects is not a new idea. The technology to assemble related content exists, although it lacks widespread adoption. Putting all of these things together hopefully will be a return to a society that values knowledge and wisdom over superficial fame and self indulgence. I hope that means that American Idol is canceled.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

future, Semantic Web, Short message service, Social network, subject, Town crier, twitter, World Wide Web

Riddle of the day …

Posted by dave in Social Networking on April 1st, 2009

… or month or year or however long it takes to figure this out. And I offer a nice meal (more than a bowl of soup) to anyone who can solve or inspire me to solve this problem.

I attended a great presentation today at TechColumbus with Rich Hoeg of Honeywell. The topic was “Successful utilization of Web 2.0 and Social Networking Tools Within the Corporate Environment” and though the subject is anyway of general interest to me, I specifically went to see if I could find an answer to something that has been a pain point.

How do you transition collaborative work into a controlled work product?

Now, I know that web2.0/ enterprise2.0 is all about being organic, collaborative and less rigid. (Sometimes I think I should write a book on it, in fact – because I haven’t seen a resource yet that really addresses the intersection of enterprise2.0 with regulations or standards.) And I’m totally on board with agile processes and embracing change in the middle of a project. But plain and simple, there does need to be a controlled version of this “thing” you’re creating – unless you’re creating a bowl of jello.

So here’s the problem in the most tangible terms I can muster:
Say we’re using a wiki within a project team to collaborate on the requirements for a new product. The wiki does version control each change, and each contribution is, in effect, a review record – so we have a controlled document and a review – easy, quick, organic (and compliant.) And at some point in the collaborative process, we get to a point where we all more or less agree that we’re on the same page about the requirements (or product definition, or design, or whatever the deliverable is..) Once we have reached that place of agreement, ideas continue to flow. And they may or may not be incorporated into the product.

Like this:

So at those points of consensus, we need to be able to point to this ever-changing collaborative ‘document’ and say, “This is what we agreed to” (for now.) And as collaboration continues and new points of consensus are reached, we adjust our plans and say, “Now this is what we’re doing.” .. and that change process can be formal or informal

So to summarize the question:
Within the tool itself (in my case, MediaWiki) how do you guide a consumer of that information to the version of the wiki page that represents the ideas that have formal agreement? As more ideas are contributed on a wiki page, and some of those ideas may not gain acceptance, we want to direct users to a previous version of the page that we agreed was our end product. (until the time comes that we agree that a later version is our end product.)

Without using cut & paste or saving a snapshot to another medium, how can this be done? Lunch or dinner awaits…

.. erm, that is – how can this be done easily by the end user, without a lot of clicking and BS? Wiki extensions would be great, as long as the process to the end user is as simple as a page edit – with a simple tag, perhaps.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Earlier posts on Enterprise2.0

collaboration, document control, enterprise 2.0, iso, Project management, Revision control, tcbus, tech columbus, Web 2.0, wiki

There’s no “It” in Social Networking …..

Posted by dave in Social Networking on February 19th, 2009

Are you social networking? Man, if you’re not, you’re missing the boat.
Now let’s try substituting words for social networking.
Are you telephoning? Man, if you’re not telephoning, you’re missing the boat.
Are you wearing a nametag? Man, if you’re not wearing a nametag, you’re missing the boat.
Are you using words when you talk? Man, …

Social Networking isn’t a “thing” that you do. Networking is a part of living, part of developing personal and professional connections. Online social networking is one particular avenue for developing networks.

I’m connecting to a lot of noobs lately. And good for them, to be connecting and trying out “this social media thing.” Excitement and enthusiasm are great – but social networking is not a “thing”.

I look forward to when the hype dies and online social networking is just another tool, just another modern convenience – used organically to connect with people regularly, easily. Comparing movie taste with Shane from high school or discovering that you and Monica from your old job have a similar outlook on “The perfect Friday night” is only going to go so far (I give it two more years) before it becomes the next VH-1 retrospective.

And I almost feel sorry already for people whose lives will have an enormous void when Twitter finds its business model is a for-fee usage and 90% of the users drop out. What will they do?!?! How will they communicate and, more importantly, what will they teach to new users?

I don’t want or expect online social networking to go away – because I value it more than the hula hoop, the Lindy hop, the Rubik’s cube. But I fear that its fate will be affected by its length on the hype continuum.

If your business is promoting the use of social networking tools, do us all a solid and quell the hype.

Facebook, hype, social netowrking, technology, twitter

Ready for what’s next …. …(?)

Posted by dave in Social Networking on February 4th, 2009

My friend Sharon called Facebook, “An inane diversion of the bourgeoise. I expect Fellini to show up any minute to expose its ridiculousness.” (That’s not a direct quote, but that’s how I remember it.)

As more and more people join Facebook (and, oh god, twitter) worlds collide – and I find myself having to make difficult choices between my professional persona and my personas among close friends, former classmates, acquaintances, neighbors, church people, relatives, … And not only do I have to watch what I say, I have to watch what other people say and post about me and to me. (So no more friend suggestions!)

This form of social networking was fun for me when it was new – fewer people to keep track of, more discussions about the possibilities of its use. Now everyone’s either a self-proclaimed social networking expert or a wide-eyed newbie who loves the way they can dig up old friends…. But then what? Can it last? Not that there’s anything wrong with the world catching on and being better connected; but like anything else, when it goes from being a cult fascination to being the new dance craze, its usefulness diminishes because the pool of participation gets diluted. This is not a new phenomenon. In my lifetime, it’s been CB radios, the internet (before the WWW), chat rooms, message boards, and now “Web2.0”. And as Stu Weibel pointed out, “Social Networking isn’t new; it is what we do as social beings.”

Yes, modern is just old-hat, chromed. (-R. Kidney)

By the way, that quote from Sharon was over a year ago, before the massive adoption by middle class adults.

So as I eagerly await the next technology Wild West, I can’t help but think that it won’t be technology at all. We can connect with people all around the world, and some of us do. But we can also connect locally, and that can be much more satisfying. The pessimism that accompanied the last eight years of U.S. administration fueled the need to think big, connect and seek validation from the safety of our homes. If the world changes in the way I hope it will, people will come back to the public square, roll up their sleeves and make great things happen – together and in person. Ironic that the president that mobilized his campaign through social networking might be the change that renders it “an inane diversion” of the past.

I don’t think electronic social networking will go away, nor should it. But I hope that we’re all able to wake up from the pleasant valley sundaze soon and return our focus to meaningful connections. (… and Facebook, Twitter, et al have certainly enabled those connections to develop.)

In the meantime, I may find myself reading more books and fewer feeds, at home less and in the public square more. Maybe I’ll see you there.

bourgiose, connections, Facebook, inane, public, public square, real life, relationships, Social Networking, twitter

Social Networking and Why I’m not Going to a High School Reunion

Posted by dave in Social Networking on January 15th, 2009

I have recently reconnected with some of my former classmates after 25 years, and it’s been truly a pleasure. Some of the people were friends in school that I’d lost touch with. Some have been people that I, sure, always liked – but didn’t know well. And I really enjoyed catching up with all of those people and hope to continue to see random glimpses into their lives via the ubiquitous status update. Such is the power of electronic social networking; connecting, reconnecting and learning fascinating things about people, old and new. We are connecting as a society like we never have in history, and I am wildly optimistic about how this is/has/will affect our culture.

….but then someone mentioned the class reunion.

At first, I was sort of interested in the idea. Then I remembered, “I hated high school.” Okay, that’s not really true. High school was fine, although I’d never do it again. And as I thought through it, I made up my own statistics:

Less than 5% of people think they were popular or well-liked in school. (Those were the arrogant pricks and still are. haha.) 7% think they were not well-liked (and probably were not well-liked) and the remaining 87% don’t know how other people perceived them, but tend to perceive themselves as less popular than they really were. So 94% of people have some level of self-consciousness about how they were perceived in high school, but only 7% of those people are justified in having those perceptions. (+/- 1% margin of error. Hint about making up believable statistics: use prime numbers and include a margin of error)

So my own popularity perceptions rendered unimportant by fake statistics, the reason I’m going to pass on a high school reunion has to do with Eleanor Roosevelt and a bumper sticker. Eleanor said, “Great minds discuss ideas. Mediocre minds discuss things. Small minds discuss people.” The bumper sticker said, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in a large group.” Not that the people in my high school were stupid, but you get any group of people together that has only a home town in common and the group’s IQ drops to that of the least common denominator. So while I would absolutely LOVE to have dinner and brilliant conversation with any six random people from my high school (or just random people off the street) to talk about ideas, no value will come from 300 people gathering in a room to talk about people and things. The conversation will never get to ideas. And I choose my company these days based on capacity to discuss ideas. (Plus, the geek who wants to talk about ideas at the class reunion is bound to be they guy trapping you in the corner, preventing you from getting another cup of punch and giving a high-five to Schmitty – so you’re welcome.)

Thanks to Facebook (and to a better-marketing-model, worse-business-model extent, Classmates.com) I can have an online high school reunion the way I want a reunion to be – small, interpersonal and frequent.

Does social networking eliminate the need for in-person meetings? No – I still prefer to talk with someone in person. Does social networking eliminate the need for a large gathering of people reminiscing about high school? Dude – there was never a need for that.

Facebook’s Effect on My 20th High School Reunion

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Bumper sticker, Class reunion, Classmates.com, Eleanor Roosevelt, Facebook, High school, Social Networking

Favorite Tools – 2008

Posted by dave in Social Networking on January 7th, 2009

There’s always something new & fun to play with.. here are my favorite free tools from this year:

OuTwit - Integrates Outlook and Twitter. I like this app because I can receive tweets in the same console as I receive email (from all of those dinosaurs who still use email!). I can also set up rules, filters, folders and flags for incoming tweets. I wouldn’t use it to manage all messages, but it’s great for managing messages from selected contacts. http://www.techhit.com/OutTwit

Xobni - Xobni is an Outlook plugin that allows me to search and organize by contact. Big woop?! Well, the search is far superior to Outlook’s, plus it aggregates all of the files exchanged with specific contacts. Where was that .PPT that George sent me? I can look at a list of files rather than opening individual emails until I find the right one. (And it indexes by individual contact, even if you send to a big distribution list.) It also integrates with LinkedIn profiles. Check it out: http://www.xobni.com

Picasa - This isn’t really new, but I always assumed that you needed a picasa account, and I’m a diehard flickr user. This aint no photoshop, but I can easily find photos on my hard drive and batch process them. I’m never quite satisfied with the contrast level that my camera gives me. I can adjust all of my recent photos at once with this tool. It’s lightweight, but its charm is its ability to do quick & simple edits. http://picasa.google.com

Billeo - I’m still learning about this one. I know I can use it to pay bills or store a credit card for online shopping. I’m not yet convinced that it’s the best tool for the job; the paypal widget and my own bank’s online banking services are easier – but this also has a password manager. And the hook for me is that I can manage passwords among my three or four computers and store them on the cloud. Integrate that with online bill payment and it might be worth the switch. http://billeo.com

Pingie - this may be the simplest of my favorite apps. It takes an RSS feed and sends text messages to my mobile. I use this sparingly, but if you can construct, filter and pipe feeds for your most critical and relevant information, this is a great way to get them ASAP. http://pingie.com

+twine - Twine is relatively new – it was in closed beta most of the year and only recently emerged to public beta. I think of it as a mashup of social bookmarking, blogging and message boards.

It’s a way to aggregate and tag content, but the content can range from a simple link, to a full text post, to a discussion. So it’s more than an aggregator; it’s a place to create and organize content as well. Anyway, my favorite tool isn’t necessarily Twine.com – it’s the advanced widget for saving bookmarks. The widget is smart enought to fill in most of the pertinent data – quickly tag it, categorize, add a picture, etc – and get back to what you were doing.

Find me using these tools here:

http://www.twine.com/user/dave225
http://flickr.com/photos/ungard/
http://twitter.com/dave225

Enterprise 2.0

Posted by dave in e2.0 on November 25th, 2008

The xxx 2.0 moniker is getting stale, but it’s become synonymous with collaboration, contribution and participation on the web. As many organizations still struggle with “do WE exist2.0 or don’t we?” when it comes to engaging their customers, there seems to be an even more difficult justification to employ those tools internally.

What does it mean to bring youtube into an office? Now we can share embarassing videos from the office Christmas party? Does adding a message board mean that we can totally insulate ourselves from ever having to have a face to face discussion again? How do effectively use these tools within an enterprise? Where do they add value? Where will they be quickly adopted? And, most importantly, how much do we spend on something that may be a fad?

These tools have had rapid adoption in the social arena. Taking movie quizzes and knowing on a Saturday morning that Angie the Product Manager is “Making nutmeg pancakes -yum!” is fascinating, but what do we get from E2.0 tools that we didn’t have yesterday?

Connections

Posted by dave in e2.0 on November 25th, 2008

In the days before email (remember?), we talked to each other. On the phone or in person, almost everything was handled with a conversation. We got to know each others’ personalities, facial expressions, likes & dislikes, plans with the family, etc. Much of that interaction was lost when email allowed us to “dispatch and forget” – to pass work or decisions on to our colleagues in a lengthy note .. an note that may or may not have been read, understood, interpreted as intended or responded to.

Social tools begin to bring some of that connection back by combining work and personal life. People crave that; they must. Just look at the adoption rate of facebook among adults.

Not only do we connect on a personal level again with our colleagues, but we can connect with colleagues who are in a different location. When your staff is geographically dispersed, creating connections is more important and more difficult .

Case in Point: Working on webjunction.org, a virtual community for library professionals, our business team was located in Seattle, while our technical team was in Ohio. Not only was there a physical separation, but also a noticeable division between the teams – styles, objectives, personalities. Face to face visits went a very long way in team building, but visits could be few and far between, costly, impractical and very difficult to justify travel for every team member.

Before Facebook allowed open registration outside of .edu’s, we adopted Twitter. More “what’s this and what can you do with it?” than having any real strategy in mind. But we quickly found that daily, even hourly interactions were enormous – not just “what are you doing?” which is helpful in project status updates, but more importantly “what are you thinking?” which telegraphs to “How are you thinking?” So we not only bonded as a team, but we found we were more often than not on the same plane in terms of business strategy and rollout strategy.

Also, by virtue of being short messages, the fluff was cut out – communication had more impact when it got directly to the point.

Collaboration

Posted by dave in e2.0 on November 25th, 2008

Collaboration is easy to defend – but how is E2.0 collaboration adding value to the type of collaboration that already existed?

In-person collaboration is great when a high-performance team gets together. Awe-inspiring, even. But it doesn’t need to stand alone! In a collaborative session, no matter how democratic you try to be, some people naturally dominate the discussion. Some people do their best thinking after they’ve had time to digest, process and create. Some people are more creative in the morning, or in the evening.

Combining in-person collaboration with web-based tools like message boards or wikis extends the collaboration past the time constraints of the face to face meeting.

Case in Point: In the current program I manage, we meet regularly to brainstorm ideas and impact analyses. As we meet, we document the meeting in a wiki while projecting it on the wall. Everyone can see what we’re agreeing to (or not) and that exact record can be updated later by any participant (or absent team member) to include additional thoughts.

So how is that any different from a good ol’ document? It’s in the name: wiki. Wiki doesn’t mean ‘collaborate’ or ’social’- it means ‘quick’. The value of the wiki is that we can quickly author documents and quickly make updates and revisions without the cumbersome checkout/checkin process. *

Result: Documentation is up to date. We find that documents are much more often accurate because the tool doesn’t get in the way of the process.

*There does exist some debate about document control with a tool that allows for easy change. While a wiki does save history, it doesn’t easily permit an “official” version of the document to be the document of record. Collaboration is easy on a wiki – but putting a stake in the ground is not so simple. Our solution to this at the moment is to take a snapshot of the wiki when it is at the state of being ‘complete’ or ‘agreed-to terms’- and we upload it to a controlled repository. It isn’t a perfect solution, but it isn’t that unwieldy and the extra steps are worth the added value of using the wiki.

collaboration, documentation, wiki

Participation

Posted by dave in e2.0 on November 25th, 2008

Have you ever written a document that no one read? Even if the first paragraph conveys “what’s in it for me?” it’s still a tough sell to get people to see what’s in it for them. Document walkthroughs and formal reviews can help twist people’s arms so they read a document, but you generally get limited attention and superficial involvement.

By getting people involved early in contributing content, they will be much more compelled and invested in the development process – even if it’s only to see where their ideas made an impact. Access to the process is the selling point in stoking interest.

access, collaboration, contribution, document, participation

Streamlined Syndication of Information

Posted by dave in e2.0 on November 25th, 2008

CTRL-C & CTRL-V – It doesn’t take too much effort to cut and paste information. But 2.0 tools allow syndication of information from a single source that can automatically update in multiple channels and from multiple channels.

Case in Point: I adopted the use of a blog to write about project status. Team members can see a detailed daily/weekly status of what’s happening on the project – decisions, issues, business considerations, philosophy – the blog gives the team a little more insight into the heads of the leadership. But depending on how we tag certain blog posts, those posts may be rolled up to a higher-level sponsor’s report or combined with other projects to present an overall portfolio status. Using tags, we can target the content to specific audiences, but only write it once.

status, syndication, tags

Dogfood

Posted by dave in e2.0 on November 25th, 2008

If your business involves direct contact with customers or if you’re wondering if it should leverage web2.0 tools to support the business, doesn’t it make sense that your internal staff would understand the application of those tools?

Investment

Posted by dave in e2.0 on November 25th, 2008

It’s hard to put a value on the return provided by these tools. Cost is a little more quantifiable and naturally the first question – What’s this going to cost me?

Well the costs are anywhere from almost nothing to way too much. Start by answering these questions:

1.- Where do we need to improve our processes? Or, where could we benefit by improving our processes and being more innovative?

2.-Where are people likely to adopt new methods and tools?

A large, fits-all solution is very likely to have integrated components, common user experience and good support. It’s also likely to have a bunch of features that you’ll never use, weak usability, and high support costs.

Individual components generally play well together and provide a level of flexibility that all-in-one systems do not. It also enables obsolete components to be replaced more easily. (Avoid customization!)

And you WILL want to replace components! The selection of tools should be organic – open up the process to multiple solutions. Let the users decide which tools work best. (Participation, remember?) Management needs to be there to support the vetting process, ensure that the tools & processes align with strategies, methodologies, quality management system, policies, etc. Imposing a tool almost always ends in misuse or nonuse. Even with careful research, you’ll be wrong! Be a leader and a champion.

cost, ROI, selection

Tools are Just Tools

Posted by dave in e2.0 on November 25th, 2008

While some tools help a team to perform better or remove obstacles, I always bring the discussion back to this:

Don’t let the tools take the place of real interactions and good processes.

Tools are there to support the organization. Documents, online collaboration, frequent blog postings – can all be great to reinforce your message, to work through issues or to provide a baseline from which to work. Online connections can foster team building where it was not naturally occurring. But none of these tools are a complete solution and none of them can be dropped into place.

Experiment. Learn the possibilities. Invoke solutions that provide value and rapid acceptance.

adoption, support, tools

SetTextSize SetPageWidth