Dave Ungar

In Enterprise Agile – Chase Value, Not Rules

dave — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 02:01:57 +0000

Epiphany week for enterprise agile …

I have been trying to socialize the idea (for MONTHS now) that a high-level design .. and I mean, HIGH level – is needed early from the scrum teams in order to have infrastructure in place to support the application they are creating.

Seems to be a miss here with agile training … every development lead is quick to respond with, “that flies in the face of true agile! We don’t have a design until we’ve coded. It’s difficult to design anything upfront because we need to stay flexible with what we deliver.”

hmmmm .. head scratching.. what’s my comeback to that going to be?

So far it has been variations of these arguments:

“YOUR team is agile, but the enterprise is bigger than you are. The infrastructure team needs more lead time than you’re giving them.”
“I agree with that philosophically, but the ‘agile’ response to that is that the infrastructure team should be a part of the development team. If that were case (and it’s not), the design could possibly come later in the cycle.”
“Oh, come on – I’m just looking for a high level inventory of where the system is likely to change, if you were to implement the next stories in the backlog – knowing what you know right now, subject to change, of course.”

All of those seem pretty reasonable to me .. but still seem like there’s an “agile gap” there, where the methodology doesn’t really address how to plan for infrastructure in a large, global enterprise with multiple data centers around the world. ”We’ll tell you what we’re making and how, when we’re done.” .. doesn’t seem to cut it.

So I’ve resorted to the logic above … and some arm-twisting. Works for me, but doesn’t seem convincing enough. There needs to be a more textbook answer that fits the agile manifesto.

And here it is. (maybe):

Enterprise agile is still agile. But the sprint is longer than that of a scrum team. We don’t plan the *entire* infrastructure upfront. But we do plan it to address what’s in the next release. We’re not building the perfect system architecture for end-times – we’re building a good-enough architecture to support the next release. We’re doing it in 4 weeks, instead of 6 months.
The reality is, it takes that long to build the infrastructure. By getting a high level design upfront, we can have it ready in time for deployment right after acceptance, instead of 4 weeks later.
Agile isn’t about sticking to the rules. It’s about reliable delivery of business value and reducing wasteful process. Sometimes you have to roll with what works best for the overall delivery picture, rather than what sustains for your team’s ideals.

I’ll say that last one again… VALUE, NOT RULES.

Tell us! Tell us both of them!

I’ve been evangelizing and leading agile teams for ten years now. It’s great to see its adoption in the mainstream. But it is becoming a religious cult where “getting it” means reciting rote chants about “how we do it” instead of seeing the big picture and delivering the goods.

Soapbox kicked aside, I’m very interested in other points of view here. The conclusions in this post are only 7 hours old!

Stretched too thin ….

dave — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:50:10 +0000

Are you stretched thin?

Do you wear it like a badge of honor? Does it make you feel important? Are you awesome at multitasking?

I had a role once where I was stretched thin. (sure, I still am at times. keep reading.) If anything needed to get done, people had to run it through me first. Shit aint gonna happen right unless I’m there, pulling all the strings together. I’m the project manager, after all.

So what happens when I can’t be in two places at once? Three? Four? I pick the most important place to be. I slice my time. I make it to everyone eventually. I’m kicking ass, gettin it done. But really, nothing is getting done as it should. And not only are things not getting the attention they need (oh – I may be able to check it off the list as “done” – but the quality may suffer) but everyone else who is depending on that work is either waiting, aimless, or ultimately pissed off that they don’t have what they need when they need it.

If you haven’t read the voluminous studies on the fallacy of multitasking, look it up. (Wait until you’re finished with this post first.) But my point for today isn’t about that – it’s about how you’re letting other people down. You aren’t coming through for your colleagues. Especially if you are in a management position.

This may be a case of prioritization or a case of saying no. But if you’re a manager, chances are good that this is a case of letting go. Learn to manage at a higher level – pay attention to the big rocks, understand the true goals and make sure your team understands them too. Ensure that those goals are covered and assigned to someone (someone who has the bandwidth to do them.) Set clear expectations with them and specific and realistic targets. Get status periodically. And get out of the details, get out of the way.

If you like the feeling of being stretched too thin, good for you – overextend yourself on your hobbies. But when you’re a steward for someone else’s money and resources, focus and deliver.

The Role of the Project Manager in an Agile Environment

dave — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:01:13 +0000

I wrote this article for Team Dynamix last week. Sort of includes material from previous posts here – repackaged for general consumption.

Crisis = unexpected lack of focus

dave — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:26:57 +0000

When in crisis, it’s important to stick to process.

Calm down now, junior. People feel the need to react quickly to crisis. That’s good, and it makes sense – as long as you have a measured and appropriate reaction.

Crisis is just an unexpected event that requires immediate attention. The caution is, don’t abandon your process and don’t lose sight of your goal reacting to a crisis.

Think of a crisis as a change in short term objectives. Where your original near-term task may have been to complete a *thing* by a certain date, now your task is getting long-term objectives back on track. Put another way still: The long term objectives are still there – you may just be taking a different route to reach them now – don’t overreact to fix the crisis itself, for it was never your objective.

When I tell people, “don’t abandon process”, I’m always ready for the response of, “we don’t have time for process now – we have a crisis!” Again, the crisis was never your objective – don’t let it own you. Adhering to a good process is the only way you know if you are successfully recovering from the crisis. And by “Process”, I don’t mean long, codified, indexed and collated binders of rules. I mean good, lightweight process that tells you whether or not you are progressing toward goals and what you still need to do to meet them. I mean effective communication and shared expectations.

So there are two (three) main parts to managing crisis once it has occurred:

Triage – Control damage and MOVE ON*.
Recovery – Map new route to objectives.
(retrospective & lessons learned.)

* The MOVE ON part is difficult to do. There is a natural tendency to “make sure this never happens again.” And that’s a good tendency, a good practice. Do that by adjusting process, by the way. But what you want to avoid doing, is putting too much focus on wrapping up the damage control into a neat package with full closure. When the bleeding has stopped, validate the plan to reach the original, long term objectives. Not to say that checking the wound every 2 weeks shouldn’t be part of that plan to mitigate further risk – but only do it if it is genuinely a risk. For example:

You’re building a treehouse. The platform is up in the tree, but a windstorm comes along and snaps off one of four branches that was holding it up. First, make you sure the platform isn’t going to fall. Then, you clear away the debris. You discover that you can continue building with some slight modifications to the plan and decide that’s what you’re going to do. It would be ridiculous to keep checking the old designs every day to ponder how you could make the loss of that branch inconsequential, should it snap off again. It would also be ridiculous to keep building with the same design, or worse, keep building with NO design and no cooperation.

But that’s what we do with software all the time. When something goes wrong, we stop communicating normally. We stop planning. We stop doing it right in favor of just getting it done.

Bad process is bad process – whether in a crisis or not. So look at your processes now, while things are running well – would they hold up under stress? Because that’s when you need it the most. Process is your safety net. If you can’t use it to prevent, identify, measure and react to problems, then it’s holding you back – you’ve implemented a process that doesn’t tolerate risk. Which means either you’re not taking enough risks, or things fall apart in a crisis.

So treat crisis as nothing more than a change in the current work plan and keep focus on the original goal.

Why People Don’t Like Change

dave — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:47:07 +0000

.. or, ”Why. .. People don’t like change?”

Adding to the nearly satiated knowledge base on change management articles, I want to offer a perspective on the axiom that people dislike change:

“No they don’t.”

People dislike change? Inherently? Seconds continue to tick by, seasons change, people move from one location to another, they can look up or down, they read a new f(*&^cking blog post every day! They don’t dislike change. If anything, people inherently dislike stagnancy and repetition.

So what’s with the axiom? (besides the fact that it’s actually a sophism.) People dislike something .. it’s just not change that they dislike…

People dislike uncertainty.

We could also argue that people dislike upheaval, inconvenience, loss of control, etc… i.e. all of the things that every other article on this subject espouse as the real problem with change. True enough, but all of those issues are rooted in the same thing: uncertainty.

“How is this going to affect me?”

Granted, when the answer to “how is this going to affect me” is, “you’re going to become homeless and lose your left leg”, people may not be too keen on that particular change. But still at the heart of it, the question is, “How am I going to cope with having one leg and no home? What will that be like?” Because eventually, you learn to live with whatever circumstances you’re forced to accept.

It’s only change for a finite period of time; then it becomes normal. (See upcoming post on crisis management.)

So how do we manage change if uncertainty is the real issue?

Clarity, of course. No surprise there. But how do we ensure clarity? Purpose.

In my last post, I linked to a video about asking “Why”. ”People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.”

If people understand and, more importantly, embrace purpose (i.e. WHY), then it’s easier to explain a change. If people believe in what they are doing (i.e. they embrace why they are doing it), then a change is just a matter of HOW or WHAT. (Unless the change is to WHY – and in that case, you are not changing. You are ceasing and starting something else. But the internal WHY has not ceased, the conduit for manifesting it has just disappeared.)

So – if everything you’re doing is rooted in WHY you’re doing it, then change is incidental. Leadership is about the WHY vision, and sometimes a little HOW.

e.g. We WERE heading toward OUTCOME-A (and we all know why), now we’re heading toward OUTCOME-B:
…… beCAUSE ______________ .

If people embraced WHY in the first place, and they understand the reason for a change, clarity exists. There may still be some uncertainty though. That’s your problem! That is, there’s uncertainty because the people affected don’t know that the HOW and the WHAT are up to them. (And if the HOW and the WHAT are not up to them, then they are just innocent (and probably pissed off) bystanders. Return to step 1: embrace WHY.)

So – how do you make change easy to accept?

Agree on and embrace the original purpose
Be clear about the original outcome
Explain how the new outcome better accomplishes the purpose
Let the people it affects decide what it looks like and how to produce it

Embrace purpose first. Embrace change in a second.

You’re smart. Too smart to need to see this. But you want to because smart people like smart ideas..

dave — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:22:14 +0000

I’ve been sharing this video with everyone lately. It’s really nothing new – but it’s interesting and it’s explained in a way that really resonates with me. It’s changed the way I approach my work and the way I approach solving problems.

I already blogged once about asking WHY … But watch this video .. everything I have queued to write, hinges on this premise.

Of course, don’t watch it because I told you to. Watch it because you’re a knowledge seeker.

were number one.

dave — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 13:39:23 +0000

I had a discussion yesterday about the United States’ (if you want to call it) decline in the world standings in science and math. I’m not going to look up statistics – we’ve seen them, we believe them to be mostly true – good enough for this premise. We were talking about an advanced engineering program and how 29 of the 30 students were foreign-born students. Yadda yadda yadda, long story short, the question arose, “Why does it seem as though America doesn’t value education like it once did?”

Lots of reasons.. And certainly not every individual American fails to place a value on education. In fact, most probably DO place a value on education that corresponds with their environment for valuing it. So it’s unfair to blame the individual in most cases.

It’s a cultural problem. We’re resting on the laurels of our past excellence. Not much sense in going deep into that argument.. Read Thomas Friedman or something.

My point, long-winded as it is, is that the country’s cultural issue can be traced directly to sports fanaticism. ”We’re Number One!” It’s very exciting when the local team wins … “in you face, visitors!” ”It’s a victory for US! Wooo!” US? Maybe we’re taking too much pride in someone else’s accomplishment.

Congratulations, winners.

Agile Project Management – settled.

dave — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:01:32 +0000

A couple related articles I read recently (linked below) got me to thinkin about the role of a Project Manager in an agile environment. Again.

Not that I think about it often. The role seems clear to me, yet the discussion keeps arising. “Is a PM now a scrum master?” “Is there even a need for a PM anymore?” No/maybe and yes/maybe. So I wasn’t really thinking about what is the answer to the question, “what is the PM’s role?” – more that I was thinking about how to articulate the answer I already knew.

Here’s my take on it… Agile or not, there are different levels of project managers. There are organizational leaders, carrying out business objectives, and there are schedule administrators, ensuring that tasks are accounted for. Both roles are important. But in the *new* profession of software project management, the role of project manager needs to choose a side. Let it be organizational leader. And let the schedule administrators be replaced by scrum masters.

Perhaps that’s the career progression of a project manager under any methodology: Start by guiding the detailed work, mature into business leader. And perhaps only a handful of project managers possess or develop the qualities to become business leaders. Perhaps the majority remain detail-oriented task managers. Again, both roles are necessary. But in an agile world, the latter is called “scrum master” – and the skill set and methods are different than that of a project administrator. So if that’s your preference, update your business cards and start learning how to be ingrained in an agile team. (It’s exciting work, don’t get me wrong!)

For those of you intent on keeping your Project Manager title, keep reading!!

I’ll assume you’ve learned by now what makes a good leader. And that manager does not equal leader. And that anyone can be a leader at any level. (If you haven’t heard this before, get studyin’!) In the context of project management & specifically in software development organizations, what are the important leadership qualities of a project manager? Well, the generic leadership qualities still apply: communication, vision, teambuilding, etc…

But you are a project manager of today! The new wave. What leadership qualities set you apart from a scrum master?

You understand the business. What its vision and mission are. What its short and long term strategies are. What drives business and what reduces cost. How to build influence at all levels.
You care about what you’re doing. You care about the business you represent and what it does. You care about your profession and how to perform in it. You’re approachable, and you set a good example by always having a positive attitude.
You help others to understand and care about what they’re doing too. Connect #1 and #2 and spread it around.

Now, where can you be useful?

It’s true that a software development project *can* benefit from a project manager, depending on the size of the effort. But don’t waste good PM resources on the details. Agile methods are superb methods of software development that push decision making and planning down to lower levels. That’s a great thing! The development team is empowered – don’t get in the way of that.

The project manager can and should spend time on higher purposes. Facilitate communication and understanding of the business objectives. Define a project scope that focuses on those objectives.

Sidebar: Agilists love to say that time and resources are fixed, scope is variable. Boo! There are no absolutes! You are the project manager. You are the chief negotiator between the development team and the business. Maybe scope will change as a result of discovering new information – if that happens to be the best option.

But when time and resources are unmovable, the default position doesn’t have to be a scope change. More likely, a grade change will be in order.

That’s where the Project Manager as a business leader is an important role. Because it’s that understanding of the business objectives that influences what flexes in order to deliver what the business really needs. Understanding that relationship between breadth of product features (how many things it can do) and depth of each feature (how well it does them) contributes significantly into the project scope definition, the prioritization of features and the focus of the team. e.g. what “done” looks like.. Sure, the definition of “done” can be written on the back of a story card by the product owner, but does it align with the higher level organizational objectives? What’s the right *amount* of “done”?

Who interprets the business goals, defines a project scope and success criteria? Who makes sure it aligns with the business strategy? You do, project manager. Step up.

Other things a project manager should be looking at, instead of what each developer did yesterday: Is the customer going to be ready for implementation? Is the infrastructure in place? How will the product be supported after it’s rolled out? How will post-release customer feedback be incorporated into the product? Contract negotiations, training, budget, performance metrics. Keep thinking – it’s all those things you’d do if you had the time. Well, now you do – your team is empowered!

And if a project only entails development, and none of those other things are in scope (…really?) – don’t put a PM on it. Save PMs for bigger projects that need leadership.

There. It’s settled.

The role of a project manager in an agile environment

What Killed Waterfall Could Kill Agile.

The Agile Project Manager

“Doing” vs “Being” Agile

dave — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:15:59 +0000

Seems like every person I talk to about “Agile” (a word that’s been uttered so many times, I fear it’s lost its meaning) immediately wants to talk about product backlogs, sprints, standups, burndowns, …. i.e. Methods. They all want to talk about “doing agile.” But I’ve yet to find anyone with any interest in being agile… i.e. Approach.

: Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

In my talk, What the Business Expects from Agile, I used the example of building a bridge to illustrate this. Upon further rumination, I think it’s a great metaphor for why doing Scrum isn’t being agile.

Do the simplest thing possible.

That’s agile.

So here’s my bridge example:

Our project goal is to hold a circus.

We’re going to hold the circus on a patch of land. (Take it as a given – a government regulation.) To get to that land, we need to get across a gully that’s deep and wide.

So – discarding a bunch of requirements for the moment about circuses, the current objective is to get us over to that patch of land. We’ve surveyed the area and decided that a bridge over the gully is the best way to get there.

Let’s build a bridge.

Do the simplest thing possible.

Get me across that gully so I can see the patch of land. Where are we going to put the tent? Where will we put concessions? I don’t know until I can see the landscape. Let me stand on it. Build me a simple bridge. Architecturally stable – I don’t want it to collapse under my feet. The weight requirement is that it needs to hold an adult human.

That’s when someone says, “Are you going to have elephants in this circus? You’re going to want a more sturdy bridge.”

“Going to.” I say. (because I’m agile.) Right now, I just want to get myself across.

“That’s a waste – you know you’re going to need a bigger bridge later, so why are you wasting everyone’s time building a small one now?”

Two reasons:
1. I don’t want to wait for the elephants to arrive to start laying out where the circus tent goes. I want to get over there now.
2. I may decide not to have elephants. Or to helicopter them in. Or to hold the circus somewhere else. Or not at all.

So now who’s being wasteful? We build a superstructure when we know we need one and know how we’re going to use it.

—

I know it’s hyperbole to say that Scrum isn’t agile. Scrum fits in very well with Agile. But Scrum does not equal Agile. You can build a ginormous bridge incrementally, using scrum-like tools … but you may be building the wrong thing and may have difficulty changing course.

Because agile isn’t about building the thing, it’s about getting from here to there.

What Do I Get?

dave — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:27:03 +0000

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.” Well, 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!

“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 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

dave — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:58:36 +0000

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.

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.

So is measurement for improvement straightforward? Simple!

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

Why be a social media douchebag?

dave — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:25:20 +0000

: 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.

Open Mouth, Insert Nose, Spite Face

dave — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:40:09 +0000

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.

$3

dave — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:55:15 +0000

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.

I wouldn’t know a Twitter from a tweeter, but apparently it’s very important

dave — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:55:58 +0000

“I wouldn’t know a Twitter from a tweeter, but apparently it’s very important” – Hillary Clinton said that this week. As you can imagine, the twitterverse had a field day with that. “Oh, my – she doesn’t know what Twitter is!”

Can her critics answer simple questions relevant to the Secretary of State? …the name of the US Ambassador to Iran? Do they even know the names of the Iranian Presidential candidates?

I thank Mrs Clinton for knowing foreign relations and government. And she’s smart enough to know that widespread use of a specific communications technology is significant as the election protests occur.

Focusing her attention on enormous diplomatic problems does not make her a luddite.

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

dave — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:02:31 +0000

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?”

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!

Moving from Followers to Subjects

dave — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:31:07 +0000

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.

Riddle of the day …

dave — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:31:16 +0000

… 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.

Earlier posts on Enterprise2.0

Twitter’s Choice

dave — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:06:14 +0000

I remembered yesterday about an analogy that I made when teaching social networking concepts a few years ago. (Course redux here).

When talking about the point of Twitter and Facebook status updates, I referred to making connections with people through mundane posts – and even if your posts were not individually important, together they establish a persona – and people will folllow that engaging persona #1 because they’re pathetic (haha -kidding, sort of…) and #2 because the time investment is small. And if that persona eventually has something useful to say, people will be listening.

Well, that reminded me of these ads (which I swear were from the 80s and not the 90s, but I’ve already proven I’m old just by remembering them – dwelling on what year it was is one step closer to high-waisted pants.)

A lot of us absolutely hated these ads. But there was genius in them, or I wouldn’t still be talking about them 20 years later. Thirty seconds. Stupid, but continuous storyline. People either loved them or hated them, but talked about them nevertheless.

That’s one way to establish brand recognition. Guess it depends on how low of a price you’re willing to take …

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

dave — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:15:26 +0000

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.

… as I’ve been saying….

dave — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:46:28 +0000

read my last posts an my other blog too.

Ready for what’s next …. …(?)

dave — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:06:07 +0000

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.

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

dave — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:08:05 +0000

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

Favorite Tools – 2008

dave — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:42:04 +0000

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

Unconference

dave — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:48:45 +0000

co\elaborate\08

learning, ideas, innovation

The Theme: Tech Innovation in Columbus

Share and learn in an collaborative environment. co/elaborate/08 is an all-day unconference. An unconference does not have a predetermined agenda. YOU participate in setting the agenda at the outset of the event. Together, people of diverse experiences and perspectives collaborate on the most compellingideas of the day. The goal is that we leave at the end of the day having learned, having contributed and having made real progress on what matters most to us. The co/elaborate/08 conference coordinators will be sure to seed the event with a few individuals who have the ability to lead amazing web 2.0 innovative sessions.

When: December 18, 2008.

Where: Columbus Metropolitan Library. (map)

Cost: We are asking $5 per participant to cover costs of materials to be used in the sessions.

Enterprise 2.0

dave — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:20:16 +0000

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

dave — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:15:17 +0000

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

dave — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:11:46 +0000

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.

Participation

dave — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:10:37 +0000

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.

Streamlined Syndication of Information

dave — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:05:24 +0000

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.

Dogfood

dave — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:00:14 +0000

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

dave — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:50:02 +0000

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.

Tools are Just Tools

dave — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:45:49 +0000

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.

Tagging – What is This?

dave — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:31:47 +0000

Go to this URL and input every word you can think of that describes what this object is:

COQAA.org/Tags http://tagcrowd.com

http://tagcloud.oclc.org/tagcloud/TagCloudDemo

http://www.coqaa.org/cgi-bin/tags.cgi

Everything is Miscellaneous….

dave — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:30:31 +0000

From the tag cloud, we can see that an object can mean different things to different people.

…. the days of physical location are over.

Tagging – Questions

dave — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:29:42 +0000

Look at the tag cloud – if you had a general store, where would you put this thing? It can be shelved in electronics, phones, office supplies, cameras, ….

So how do you find it in a store?

How do you find it online?

How can we apply this idea to libraries?

Impact

dave — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:28:32 +0000

I have identified four areas where social tools have impact on information and knowledge…

•Reach
•Depth
•Economics
•Sharing

There may be others. As we look at these tools, try to think about which of these are impacted or if there are other major areas of impact.

Discovery

dave — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:27:11 +0000

How do you find information?

Where does Dewey say you’ll find a book on the style of home you live in?

What if that book also contains recipes from the era and style represented by the architecture? How do you classify it?

So – when you know what you want, a physical location is helpful. But when you’re searching, physical location can cause a problem.

LOC & Flickr

dave — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:26:13 +0000

The Library of Congress Flickr site – an experiment in how people use tagging and discussion boards to learn and to contribute.

Fixing incorrect info, making history more accessible, saves the LOC time in identifying, labeling, categorizing the photos.

NPR Story on LOC/Flickr

Democratized Content

dave — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:25:59 +0000

Thinking beyond the physical media …

How can a wide range of viewpoints contribute to sharing information?

•What was the cause of the American Civil War?
•Is offshoring manufacturing a good thing or a bad thing for our country?

… So there are many perspectives on major events (and minor events too) – and if someone learns new information or assembles old information in a new way, maybe we’ll learn that the Civil War was caused by aliens…

Which brings us to Wikipedia ….