My Reflection on the Asia Pacific Online Information Conference 2011

I had the opportunity to attend and present in the first Asia Pacific Online Information Conference 2011. After 2 intensive days, I finally got a chance to sit back and reflect on what I have learnt from this event. However, I have to admit that I have procrastinated in publishing this post until today.

1. Robert Hillbard talked about information-driven business. Diane Cmor talked about information literacy as a practice and mindset to effective seek and use information. What strike me is that information is generally recognized as a strategic asset, to turn this recognition into action, information professionals working in different settings can play a strategic role to (a) help identify what information is critical to deliver preferred business/organization outcomes; (b) evaluate how accesible is this critical information; and (c) present/visualize the value of making the critical information available. If one can grab senior executives' attention to invest in making the critical information flow, and result in investment in appropriate programs to make it happen, we can truly show the value information professionals can add to business, society or institutions.

2. In my own keynote presentation, I emphazied that to make Enterprise 2.0 work, we need Leadership 2.0. Preparing this talk makes me thinking deeper about Leadership 2.0, which I have been advocating for a number of years that it requires leaders to open up the communication space, to value diverse views and ready to be surprised. In my view, they are important but they are not enough to take E2.0 to the next level. Open up the space does not necessarily lead to good conversation. Good conversation has to be well facilitated to allow diverse voice to emerge, allow the participants to connect with one another's ideas as well as to self reflect. Good conversation goes beyond spontaneous dialogue. This is easier said than done online for 3 reasons: (1) most people think 2.0 is easy and intuitive, having faciltiated or structured online dialogue does not seem to align with the idea that 2.0 conversation is easy; (2) designing and facilitating good online conversation requires preparation and investment (which 2.0 team may not have considered nor budgeted for); and (3) good conversation can be intense and result in deep learning and change in awareness, it is valuable but the learning experience for the participants can be demanding.

Overall, I really enjoy meeting old friends from Singapore and meeting information professionals in hong kong and get to spend time with other keynote speakers to exchange ideas. What we all share is a passion that information is a strategic asset for organisations, and that we can play a part to bring this asset to the forefront.

Social media challenges for leaders

My experience working with many senior executives leading government departments, professional consultancies and banks tell me that as more and more communciation channels / social media emerge, the leaders face challenges on multilevel. First, they need to develop an awareness of what's new and figure out what it is. Then, they need to think strategically about the potential to introduce new communication channels in the organization context to add real value and achieve top line and bottom line outcomes. And once a decision is made to embrace these new channels, the implementation can be a challenge too for early adopters as you don't have examples to follow. New technologies open up new possibitilies and very often challenge existing leadership model, current business processes and resulting in greater organization change than one anticipate. Turning a concept from napkin paper to reality requires putting the righ team, having the strategic focus and persistence to get there. I know of many companies who are struggling to figure out how to use twitter-like or facebook-like applications within the enterprise setting. It is this part of innovation that excites me personally.
 
The leaders also face a number of dilemna when introducing new communication channels. Typical questions include: Should I open up more channels and encourage more conversation from all staff members versus should I focus on facilitating quality and purposeful conversation? Should I promote nice conversation to create a happy-clappy team cultue versus should I ritualize dissent, surface diverse voice, promote debate so that difficult and controversal ideas and topics emerge and can be dealt with earlier? How much can I (or should I) control and moderate the conversation? Bottomline, these new technologies are asking leaders to go back to the basic, and think deeper about what it means to have two-way genuine dialogue with your staff and with your clients.
 

Information Literacy in the Workplace Context

A friend who is passionate about "information literacy" in the education context recently asked me "Do you have any view on the impact of information literacy or is being addressed in the corporate/business world?"

My interest in information literacy started in mid-1990s when I was exploring my PhD research topic, eventually I specialize in knowledge management (or I prefer to call it knowledge sharing) and focus on helping workers within companies to share and use information effectively . His question made me think more about information literacy in the workplace context.

My response is yes, information literacy is very important and has high impact in the corporate/business world. Knowledge workers interact with information all the time. Information is exchange in business conversation as well. Information literacy can improve knowledge workers' work productivity. On a more strategic level, management team which invest in building a company's capability to share, organize and disseminate information drive innovation, expedite learning, avoid repeating mistakes can result in competitive advantage and reap tangible benefits.

However, the phrase "information literacy" which library and information professionals tend to use is disguised under many different names (e.g. understanding of information use policies/legal and compliance guidelines, awareness of information resources, research and information organizing skills, writing reports, visualizing data/findings, knowledge management, collaboration, marketing and business intelligence scanning, communication and presenation skills, and more recently social media awareness and understanding the implication of its use). I can add more to this list.... but you get what I mean. Some of these information literacy skills are required more in certain role than the others, but no matter what you do, they are required at different times.

How "information literacy" is being addressed in the workplace, I have not heard of any "information literacy" curriculum that companies run for staff , and I don't think it is the right approach either. Information literacy is so embedded in our day to day work that it cannot be separated as something different. The challenge for educators is: how can you prepare students with information literacy skills/mindset so that they can be effective in the workplace context (and in their day-to-day lives). Information literacy education really need to be embedded seamlessly in the whole education curriculum.

I wonder what do you think? I love to hear your views to refine my thinking.

Breaking through Social Media Barriers: What and How?

I am speaking at this year's online information conference and really look forward to reconnecting with colleagues and friends. I feel bad that I have not update my blog for a while and I have a good excuse. It has been a very busy few months since I change job, and I have been going through a steep learning curve and I have had some great experience so far. The beauty of changing job from a learning perspective is that it throws me into a totally different and unfamiliar context, and makes me challenge my own thinking and practice. Luckily I have colleagues who are patience and tolerance of me asking silly questions and are willing to bring me up to speed and help me to understand the business.

I have to say I am amazed and delighted that businesses increasingly see the opportunity to use social media to help employees work smarter, to efficiently share knowledge to meet customers' needs, to spot opportunities and threats to shape business strategy and ultimately to drive top line and bottom line business results. Social media implementation increasingly becomes main stream projects.

On Nov 30, I plan to talk about "what" the barriers in introducing social media in the business context are and "how" we can overcome them. I will refer to some real world examples which challenge these grand statements:
1. We must align with the business strategy
2. It's about cultural change, it's about people, it's not about technology
3. Build it and they won't come, so we must drive user adoption and get to the tipping point

And I will conclude with two fatal barriers to implement social media in the business context, and stress the importance of Leadership 2.0 and "Knowledging" if we want to take social media implementation to the next level.

If you happen to read this blog post before the event, do let me know if there is anything specific you like me to cover by leaving me a comment or drop me a email.

If you have come to my session, I welcome the opportunity to connect with you and further the dialogue on this blog. Tell me how my presentation connects to your work? How did it help? Which part of the presentation did you struggle with or disagree with? I hope to learn from you.

Using LANES principles to introduce Web2.0 tools in the workplace

McAfee introduced the term Enterprise 2.0 as shorthand for the use of Web2.0 by businesses and especially on organizations’ intranets and extranets in pursuit of their goals.

For me, since 2006, I have been introducing Web2.0 in the workplace using the LANES principles (See reference below). A colleague recently asked me what LANES stand for, so I share with you all here:
· Lateral Communication, i.e. supports top-down, bottom-up and lateral communications
· All staff can participate if they want to, i.e. no specialized IT skills are required
· Networking, i.e. building of business and social networking across teams and geographies
· Expertise visualization, i.e. visualize the expertise that staff do not know exist
· Selfishness yet helping others, i.e. focusing on satisfying the ‘selfish’ immediate needs of a user and the by-product by highlighting the collective intelligence which creates more value to all staff

I think they are useful principles and reminders to guide the design of Enterprise2.0. What I think is implicit and should be made much more explicit is "Emergence" - i.e. acknowledging that the designer does not know what outcomes will emerge as a result of opening up the interaction/communication space. This introduces uncertainty (which can be scarry) and at the same time allows the designer, the management team and all employees to "see trends/topics we don't normally see or pay attention to". Do you agree with me? I wonder what you think.

Reference:
In case you are interested, the LANES principles have been published in this book chapter:
Cheuk, W.Y.B & Dervin, B. (2009). Leadership 2.0 and Web2.0 at ERM: A Journey from Knowledge Management to "Knowledging". In Chu S., Ritter W. and Hawamdeh S. (Ed.), Series on Innovation and Knowledge Management - Vol. 8 Managing Knowledge for Global and Collaborative Innovations (pp. 233-254), Singapore: World Scientific.

Phone, E-mail, Enterprise2.0 Tools

I heard so many managers or even staff asking "Why should we let our staff waste time using social computing tools (or Enterprise2.0 tools)?" I wonder how would I respond to this question. Here is my attempt and I like to hear your thoughts. (Note: My inspiration comes from David Snowden's keynote at KMUK2010 and Euan Semple's blog.)

Social computing/Enterprise2.0 tools allow staff to be connected in new ways which are not possible in the past. Think about it, before we have phones, we need messager boys (or pigeons) passing on messages; before we have e-mails, we send paper memos around the office and use "real" carbon paper to produce duplicate copies; before we have social computing tools, we find out who's doing what out there through grapevine (if you do not work directly on that project/product) or by subscribing to multiple email alerts and suffering from email overload.

The new tools (phones, emails, social computing tools) - at different historical period - open up new ways of communication which are not possible in the past. They are just tools. (You can always waste time using all kind of tools.) How people could use these tools to increase work effectiveness and productivity is perhaps a more meaningful question.

I am sure that when phones and emails were introduced to the work setting, these questions have been asked:

1. How is my staff going to use the phone at work? Will they waste time talking to friends and doing personal stuff? Will they use the phone inappropriately?

2. How is my staff going to use E-mail at work? Will they send email only to the appropriate colleagues/clients? Will they use work email for personal purpose?

And not surprisingly, we are asking these questions today:

3. How is my staff going to use social computing tools at work? Will they waste their time chatting online/microblogging? Will they forget about work? Will they use them inappropriately?

They may or they may not waste their time. It depends on how work gets done current in your organization, and how work could be done in new/different ways as you embrace these tools.

Perhaps when someone asks "Why should we let our staff waste time using social computing tools (or Enterprise2.0 tools)?" I should say "They are just new tools - like phone or email when they first get introduced" and then ask "Do you see opportunities to create more value, move ahead of competitors and serve your customers better by allowing staff to more easily discover/scan what other talented colleagues in my company are doing, and allow new connections to emerge?"

Farewell to my company, Environmental Resources Management (ERM)

After 4 years with ERM, I have decided it is time to move on at the end of June. It has been a really tough decision because ERM is serious about knowledge sharing and collaboration. I have got the CEO and senior executives buy-in and trust. I have built up a great team who are passionate and committed to making knowledge sharing real and delivering tangible benefits everyday. The company has built up a network of 200+ champions around the world. For me, it is like a dream come true. What else can I ask for? I feel like I have completed another PhD with ERM.

Other than updating my blog reader on my move, there is one point I like to make.

I am aware that some companies conduct exit interviews to "transfer knowledge" from the leaver to the successor, I am pleased to know within ERM, I do not need to "transfer knowledge" at the last minute just before I move on. The knowledge that I have brought to ERM is utilized every moment during the time I am with ERM - i.e. the company has given me flexibility and room to try out new ideas, develop my team and introduce new ways of working. Not only I have brought my knowledge to ERM, I have co-created new ideas with ERM. ERM has enriched my experience and horizon. The knowledge I have brought to (and enriched) by ERM is now embedded in every team member's workplan, the established processes in how the team operate, how the knowledge sharing platform is being managed, the team's culture in listening to and be responsive to the users' needs etc.

Personally, I like to utilize the knowledge and experience I have gained to take the Knowledge Sharing/Knowledge Management field - which is going to be even more multi-disciplinary in nature - to another level in this highly connected Web2.0 and Enterprise2.0 world.

Covergence of knowledge management, internal & external communications, staff engagement, marketing function?

It is definitely a very exciting time to see the potential for the knowledge management function blending seamlessly with internal communications, external communications and marketing to create new business value. I know I am scratching the surface here. I know this post can be controversial, and I would love to hear your views on this.

Knowledge management field traditionally starts with this question "what is the most critical knowledge that must flow internally (amongst employees) in order to best serve our clients and to win more contracts?" Different businesses may have different answers, e.g. professional service firms tend to say "proposals, project experience, consultant's skills and CVs, methodologies, tools, and propriety software". Knowledge base and intranets have been built to allow these types of knowledge to flow across silos. On a non-technical side, approaches such as after action review, communities of practices, practitioner's newsletter come into the picture to get people to learn from one another. These approaches can well be applied to share knowledge with clients.

Some knowledge management professionals (like me) start to digress and also ask this question "what is the most critical knowledge that must be shared externally with our clients to build our brand?". This touches on the PR and external communications field. Typical critical knowledge include "information about a company, media tool kit, annual reports, company news, CSR report, case studies, client compliments, good stories about a company etc." To facilitate the knowledge flow with clients, these type of knowledge get published in printed brochures, e-newsletters and on company website. This is the point where external communicators and KM professionals share similiar interest in the use of communication tools/channels to communicate with their target audience. (Note: With the rise of social media tools, there is recognition from both fields that sharing this kind of one-way corporate-speak polished knowledge is not good enough to impress clients. Both KM and communications fields are learning to embed social media to transform their service offerings to allow two-way dialogue.)

And to push it even further, one can ask "what is the most critical knowledge that must be shared amongst our clients in order to deliver most value for them?" This touches on the new marketing and external communications approach which look at adding value to clients by creating customer-networking platform (I mean, both face-to-face event and online networking forum). Within the KM field, we have been building communities of practice (COP) for ages, and the COP toolkit can be well applied to faciliate client communities. I think Richard McDermont will back me up on this point.

From the marketing professionals' perspective, one of their required critical knowledge is "knowledge about customers and markets". This is typically translated into market research activities, including conducting interviews and focus groups with clients to gain insights from them. Increasingly, and defintiely in the KM field, there is recognition that the employees who deal with clients day-in day-out have most clients/market insights and should be tapped into. Some marketing professionals agree. (Note: With the rise of social media tools, and the abundance of information on the internet, there is also recognition that traditional market research needs to be supplemented by insights gain from online conversation and near real-time information published on the internet).

From the internal communicators’, HR or staff engagement professionals' perspective, critical knowledge is defined as "a set of core values or messages about company direction and leaders' vision" which should be shared with all staff. This group tend to be interested in using what they call internal communications channels (e.g. intranet, newsletter, town hall meetings, flyers, souvenirs) to distribute the core messages and to interact (or what they call “engage”) with staff so the core messages sink in. If you read between the lines, you will notice that internal communicators and KM professionals share similar interest in the choice of channels and communication approaches.

I think there is a lot the knowledge management field has to offer by working closely with (or blend in seamlessly) with the internal communications, staff engagement, external communications and marketing functions, as we share common channels, communication approaches to get our work done. We all struggle to move from one-way communciation to two-way communciation. We all want to break down silos. We all face similiar challenges to figure out ways to fully exploit social media tools to facilitate meaaningful dialogue and to create new business value.

So this leaves us with a question: what does this knowledge management function really look like? Will it take on internal and external communications and/or the marketing function? Will it be absorbed into internal and external communications and/or the marketing function?

Perhaps these are meaningless questions. To me, a KM function which adds business value look something like this:

1. Able to spot what critical knowledge must be shared in order to add value to the business (and able to get senior executive buy-in to do something about it).
2. Able to partner with the business functions - whether it is internal or external communications, marketing, HR (which generate the knowledge or need the critical knowledge to function) and do something to make the critical knowledge flow.
3. Able to offer innovative approaches, processes, two-way communication practices, online tools, channels, systems to facilitate the flow of critical knowledge (both face-to-face and online). This is where the KM landscape changes quickly over time as we move from 1st generation, 2nd generation to 3rd generation KM from data mining, database design, information management, story telling, facilitation techniques, after action review, communities of practice, intranet design to Web2.0, Enterprise 2.0, social media.
4. Able to switch from partnering with one business function to another based on evolving business needs (i.e. don’t get complacent and too comfortable, keep moving with the changing business needs). Therefore, you may swiftly move from partnering with marketing, to strategy development team, to HR, to internal communications/staff engagement team over a short period of time. (Isn’t this exciting?)
   

Now, you should see why it is so difficult to scope out the knowledge management function for a company before you get to know the company and understand what knowledge is critical to deliver its business goals. This is why every knowledge management function is unique to each company.

The convergence of Knowledge Management and Internal Communications?

I presented at a Melcrum event titled "Fresh ideas for internal communicators" yesterday and shared with over 150 internal communicators how I have used a range of Web2.0 tools to engage with staff and use their collective insights to co-create ERM's new strategy. I talked about my experience acting as a DJ and hosted a CEO Jam for my company and resulted in lots of questions (and make many new friends). I stayed till the end of the day, and listened to a range of presentations. I have to say some presentations are much more cutting edge than the others.

Coming from the knowledge management field, what strike me is that internal communications and knowledge management professsionals have very common interests. We may use different jargon, but we talk about the same thing. For example, both fields talk about using story telling approach to transfer knowledge (or internal communications people will say "to communicate key messages"); both fields talk about how to build successful intranets to break down silos.

To me, the line between knowledge management/sharing and internal communications seems to be very blur. The reason being effective knowledge sharing has to be built on good two-way communication practices. Knowledge Sharing is good two-way communication in action (or what I call "Knowledging").

If you are interested to dig deeper, check out this paper: http://ocs.cite.hku.hk/index.php/ickm2009/ickm2009/paper/view/336

Overall, it was great to know more vendors in the space, and met up with some ex-colleagues and old friends, and delighted to meet new ones who are interested in both communications and knowledge sharing.

Andrew McFee's new book on Enterprise 2.0

I finish this new book written by Andrew McFee within 2 days Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges. It represents the culmination of research he has been doing since the spring of 2006, when he first coined the phrase “Enterprise 2.0″ in a Sloan Management Review article and started a blog. The book is about the business use and business impact of emergent social software platforms (ESSPs). These technologies, which include wikis, blogs, prediction markets, Facebook, and Twitter, have given rise to Web 2.0. Enterprise 2.0 relates how ESSPs are now being used within and between organizations, and are delivering novel capabilities and powerful results.

This is an easy book to read. I am familiar with E2.0 and read review that "there is nothing new for people who are in this area". I still find it enjoyable because it has given me new ideas how to introduce E2.0 to senior managers. As you know, if you start talking E2.0 or Web2.0 to senior executives, many of them find it a 'foreign language' and therefore I never use this phrase internally within my company, but I practice it by introducing it as new ways/tools to help our leaders address specific business needs.

I love the four case studies in this book, but I feel I want to read even more case studies. I especially like the chapter talking about the challenges for any enterprise to adopt E2.0 and they are related to leadership - which reinforce my own experience "to make Web2.0 work, we need Leadership 2.0".

He also talks about how difficult it is to get users to generate content regularly within an enterprise, because on the internet, there are many many more users, and even so, the active participants is a very small proportion of all the internet citizens.

My experience is telling me that aligning with business process/work process is key in terms of driving user-content contribution. Within an enterprise, I try to align the use of E2.0 with specific programs/campaigns which are time-bound. The leaders have to set a clear direction what kind of insight they want the staff to share, how they are going to use them, recognize contributors (not necessarily in monetary terms), and make the contribution part of the business process to deliver the program.

In other cases when voluntary contribution is called for, I noted that staff are busy, with a workforce of 3300 people, only 50 – 100 staff will actively contribute on a voluntary basis (and this rate has gone up from 10 – 30 people 3 years ago). This book has sparkled me to think of a couple of new ideas how to turn this situation around. I am going to experiment it. I do think more work needs to be done to allow emergence to happen.

Applying KM approaches and Intranet2.0 to develop a new strategy

In a recent cover story titled "Innovation Co-creation", I share how Environmental Resources Management (ERM) has been applying KM techniques and tools to develop its future strategy development. Rather than steaming ahead with decisions that would have an impact on its staff some time down the line, ERM leaders have actively encouraged them to become involved in the process. The knowledge management aspect here has been the provision of a multitude of communication channels within which staff can share their ideas and insights – and speak directly to senior level management. And more importantly, that information is then considered during the strategic decision-making phase. I talk about the entire process in detail in the cover feature on page 14 of Inside Knowledge Magazine Vol 13 Issue 5. If you are subscriber of the magazine, go to: http://www.ikmagazine.com/

Get in touch if you like to discuss ideas. I love to hear your comments and experience, too.

Questions regarding Minerva permission setting and site architecture

A colleague wrote to me today and asked for ideas to set permission for Minerva (ERM's knowledge sharing platform run on Sharepoint 2007). One of the things she was interested in learning more about was how the hierarchies are structured. I like to share the questions and my answers here.

The two questions are:

1. How do you assign user permissions, do you categorise users into groups and then assign blanket permissions and then individual permissions to those users who have more privileges?

My response is that you can do both. You can assign users to Active Directory group and then apply group blanket permission. Or you can allow users to join each site as individual member. You can give additional people additional rights to do more with the site. You have to think through the governance process and what you really need to make a decision on permission. In ERM, we started using Active Directory (AD) Group, but later move on to managing members individually, because our site managers want to have the flexibility to add/delete members themselves. Using AD will need to involve IT team and reduce the flexibility.

The core team defines the right a site manager has. Then, within that boundary, each site permission is managed by the site manager. We try to avoid giving out multiple levels of permission, because this will make the management of permission too complex – and you will soon forget who gets what right quickly. In the spirit of knowledge sharing, in most cases, we give 2 levels of permission, higher permission for site manager and another permission level for all site members.

2. Are the hierarchical structures of Minerva driven from a source system? Have you lifted these structures from this source and applied the directly to SharePoint?

My response is that we do not do this by default within ERM, especially how you structure your business does not necessarily mean how your users/employees look for information. The overall information architecture of the intranet is driven by a combination of 3 factors: current business priorities; user needs (based on indepth user studies) and business hierarchical structure. The art is to find a balance with the users' information needs in mind.

Using Web2.0 tools together with good communication practices to support ERM's strategy development process

I like to share with you a few paragraphs from a book chapter which showcase ERM's recent use of Web2.0 tools to engage all staff to shape our company's future strategy. The title of the book is
Delivering business-critical knowledge management.

"At Environmental Resources Management (ERM), we don’t start with Knowledge Manageemnt (KM), we start with business issues and then look at ways in which the KM team can resolve them. Knowledge sharing requires very good two-way communications and it has to be carefully designed rather than leave it to chance,” Bonnie adds. “You may unintentionally bring ineffective face-to-face communication practice online, and as a result, the loudest voice may dominate the discussion, the ‘shy’ people do not have their voice heard, and the senior leaders may broadcast rather than listen. ERM continues to find ways to allow genuine dialogue by paying attention to these issues.”

“I have been asked to partner with the senior leadership and strategy development team to help them leverage the company’s collective knowledge, insight and ideas to help shape the future strategy of the company,” Bonnie explains.

The aim of the project is to enable leaders to gain insight from the company to inform the strategic plan – some staff input may confirm existing thinking, while other insights might challenge leadership assumptions. “It will help them to focus on the issues that are being raised by our staff worldwide,” says Bonnie. “There may be an area that they haven’t paid close attention or even considered.”

The discovery phase of the strategy development process, which has just closed, ran from mid-September to mid-November 2009 – a period in which Bonnie was responsible for collecting masses of employee ideas from multiple channels. “We have used as many Web 2.0 tools as possible – for example, a range of blogs and discussion forums; a confidential e-mail box; a tweet site, called ‘strategy tweet’, so people can Blackberry tweet in very short ideas of 140 characters; a hotline, where people can call in and record their ideas; as well as a narrative database in which people can tell stories based around our prompting questions.”

Bonnie and her team also organised another CEO Jam, this time round comes with an audio component, where Bonnie acted as ‘DJ’ facilitating a ‘live radio show’ allowing senior leaders to share what they have learn from staff (4 weeks after the consultation began) and to invite staff to call in and share further insights directly with the leadership team. This “CEO Jam” was broadcasted live on ERM knowledge sharing platform (Minerva) and for the staff who missed the event they can listen to the replay after the event.

While senior leadership will make the final decision over the strategic plan, collecting firm-wide insights and ideas is considered vital to the process as it is the staff who are out meeting clients every day and who have the practical insights to help inform business strategy. Allowing staff to contribute to the process will also help ERM gain the buy-in of employees to the final strategic plan.

I am happy to discuss if you want to find out more about this project.

Best wishes,
Bonnie

More on the secret recipe to success for Enterprise 2.0

Since I came back from my summer vacation, a number of EHS managers/directors (by the way, EHS stands for Environmental, Health & Safety) have got in touch and asked for ideas to improve internal communication and staff engagement with regard to Safety issues. I am not an EHS expert, they came to me because they heard about the Intranet 2.0 tools we have experimented in ERM, and wanted to know how they can use them to re-energize their company's Safety program which is getting dull overtime.

In my mind, while Intranet 2.0, Enterprise 2.0 and Web 2.0 all these tools sound very exciting, I believe one thing has not changed.

If you are in charge of internal communication and want to use 'some kind of tools' to engage with all staff on Safety issues (or any other issues), you need to start with a genuine willingness to promote two-way communication. With that attitude, you can fully exploit the new Enterprise 2.0 tools to listen, to invite dissent voice, to debate, to reflect and to use the ideas shared to help staff to better understand an issue, and also to help you (the communicator/the leader/EHS Director) to understand the issue and your staff. Everyone who takes part learn something through the ideas exchange process. Great ideas are taken on board to inform decisions. It is much more than 'informing' staff and expect them to listen to you and act as you tell them to.

But be careful, with all good intentions and even with a willingness to listen to what staff have to say, the Enterprise 2.0 tools can result in merely more conversation (or perhaps 'noise') but not necessarily productive conversation. I think Enterprise 2.0 has to be carefully designed to facilitate great dialogue, otherwise it will result in online conversation dominated by the loudest voice, by the people-in-power, by the tech-savvy staff. How can we help all staff to have their voice heard, and help them to listen to and learn from one another? Should we leave this to chance?

It is very easy to unintentionally bring the bad face-to-face meeting design online. Think about the last time you attended a face-to-face meeting when a group of enthusiastic participants took turns to voice their comments (but not really listening to one another), and another group of staff were silent and too shy to voice their thoughts. Without good meeting design, communication and facilitation procedures, none of the participants felt they personally connect with the issues discussed, as a result leaving the 'talking-shop' meeting unsatisfied or feeling it was a total waste of time.

How can we avoid replicating this kind of experience online? It is down to the Enterprise 2.0 design. It has to be carefully thought out. If it is done nicely, the employees will have a great experience. I wonder how many of the Enterprise2.0 designers out there seriously think about facilitating great online conversation (beyond aiming at getting more people to contribute)?

Could the answer be the secret recipe to success for Enterprise 2.0?

Intranet 2.0: increasing global dialogue and engagement at ERM

I will be speaking at the 8th Annual Strategic Communication Summit 2009 in Oct this year in London
http://www.melcrum.com/scmsummit/index.html

In this 50-min presentation titled 'Intranet 2.0: increasing global dialogue and engagement at ERM', I will share with other communication professionals ERM's recent experience in engaging with all staff during tough economic times.

Here is the abstract:

Progressive intranets can improve an organisation’s global internal communication, develop a shared vision for business strategy and allow employees to work collaboratively. While Intranet 2.0 can allow more user-generated content, it may lead to too much talking, too little listening and the prevention of genuine dialogue. Environmental Resources Management (ERM), a leading environmental consulting service firm, has recently built an award winning Intranet 2.0 named “Minerva” [1].

Informed by Dervin’s Sense-Making Methodology (SMM), this session will explore ERM’s approach to:
• Providing a space for global dialogue and, as a result, breakingdown corporate hierarchy and increasing employee engagement
• Leveraging its collective expertise to respond faster to customer needs, increase peer-to-peer learning and subsequently, increase sales.

[1] Top 10 Best Intranet Award 2009, Neilsen Group

I look forward to catching up, learning from and exchange ideas with the participants.

Invitation to join 22 or 23 Jul Webinar: Using Web2.0 technologies to stimulate Safety discussions

If you are interested to learn more about how ERM use Intranet2.0 to stimulate safety discussions, this free international webinar could be of interest to you. Since ERM won Neilsen's World's Top 10 Best Intranet Award 2009, many colleagues have approached me for more information. I have decided to run two webinars in July. If you are interested, please register and 'see' you there. This is especially relevant to Environmental, Health & Safety (EHS) professionals who want to learn how to use new web technologies such as blog, online forum, podcast etc to engage and excite staff to discuss Safety issues. If Safety is not your focus area, you will learn how ERM deploy Web2.0 in practice. If you think your colleagues may be interested, invite them to come along. Remember they also need to register.

This is a short description of the event and registration information which can be found on http://www.erm.com/ website: http://www.erm.com/News-Events/Event-Registration/Using-Intranet-technologies-to-stimulate-Safety-discussions/

"In these cost constrained times where budgets for expensive and elaborate safety change programs are being cut back it is important to focus on what you can do to maintain and improve safety performance on a reduced budget. Over the past two years ERM has developed an award winning and truly innovative intranet site called ‘Minerva’ which has played an instrumental part in transforming the safety performance of ERM across the globe. This on-line workshop will demonstrate specifically how the design, implementation and everyday use of the intranet has helped to communicate, engage and excite ERM’s staff about safety issues and drive improvements in safety performance at ERM. If you are keen to find out how you can upgrade your HSE intranet site so that it is a positive force for change then this event will be perfect for you."

There are two options available both 60-min long with lots of time to allow interaction with the participants. Please RSVP to get the joining instruction.

Date: Wednesday 22 July 2009
Time: 8am - 9am UK time
Click here for local time listings

Date: Thursday 23 July 2009
Time: 4pm - 5pm UK time
Click here for local time listings

Having trouble registering? Don't hesistate to contact the event facilitator: philippa.weaver@erm.com

KCUK2009: How ERM uses Intranet 2.0 to address the economic recession?

In the recent KCUK2009 conference, I prepared 2 examples on how ERM used Intranet 2.0 (simply speaking, 2 online discussion forums + a CEO blog) to faciliate global dialogue to address the economic recession. From the tweets I read, I know that my audience remember this tag line: To make Intranet 2.0 work, we need Leadership 2.0.

So how did ERM do it? What did our leaders do? I have shared 2 examples. The first one is about supporting the business goal of growing sales. The second one is about supporting the goal of keeping staff informed and maintaining staff morales during tough times.

In the first case, ERM leaders use an online discussion forum to gather clients intelligence from any client-facing staff worldwide (who share their ideas, insights, client intelligence gained after face-to-face meetings). The insights shared on the forum are reviewed on a monthly basis to inform decision making (e.g. refine existing services, roll out new services etc.). What ERM clients like is that our consultants bring with them these global insights and discuss with them during their face-to-face meetings. Our clients find them extremely valuable to help them to see a broader picture (such as how other companies are struggling as well and how other companies overcome tough issues) and they love the value that ERM has added as a truly connected global company.

In the second case, ERM leaders (Global CEO, regional CEOs) conducted two global 60-min online dialogue (similar to IBM Jam) with all staff using an online discussion forum on our intranet's homepage on 15 May. The Global CEO first initiated the conversation 6 weeks ago on his CEO blog, posters were circulated to all offices to raise awareness and invited all staff to join one of the 2 sessions. If any staff wanted to submit anonymous questions, they can send the questions to the facilitator (i.e. me) or submit online (and by doing so, their names are attached to the questions). Our leaders welcome our staff to pose tough questions, and as a facilitated, I posted the unedited question online for the senior leaders to answer. Our senior leaders made the time available, but have not prepared any 'corporate speech', they sat in front of the computer terminal, digested the questions and typed very quickly and provided 'uncanned' candid answers on the fly. Feedback from staff have been positive as they have gained a broader understanding of the businss situation and learn how they can play a part to overcome the economic recession. The leaders have learnt from the staff as well, some questions being raised were not the questions on their radar, and they seriously took them on board to inform future thnking.

Back to the tagline: To make Intranet 2.0 work, we need Leadership 2.0. What kind of Leadership2.0 does ERM leaders demonstrate? In short:

1. Willingness to solicit input from any staff worldwide (regardless of ranks, years with the company, anyone, anywhere)
2. Willingness to listen to things which can be hard to hear and ready to be surprised
3. Willingness to learn from the staff and make adjustment in decision or refine future direction based on what staff have shared
4. Willingness to try new online communication tools to engage, going beyond their comfort zone

To me, the willingness of ERM staff and leaders to learn and grow together is amazing. Have we made mistakes, could we have done it better? Yes, definitely. I feel there are ways to faciliate the dialogue better, to have deeper conversation, to design the tools/interface better etc.

Have the staff got all the answers they need? Our leaders managed to answer 95% of the questions submitted. Are the answers what the staff want to hear? Some answers are tough (because the economic reality is tough, e.g. cost cutting is a reality that staff need to understand). The conversation is not designed to help the leaders to give answers that staff like to hear; nor for staff to ask 'happy' questions that leaders like to hear/answer.

I believe a good dialogue is that when we all come out from the dialogue, both sides develop better understanding of one another's viewpoints and even though we don't agree (or like) an answer, knowing how we come to our viewpoints help build understanding within the company, espcially when times are tough. A number of staff have got in touch with me and asked 'could we do this in good times as well?'

How can you take your intranet onto the centre stage to support your business?

Here is some food for thought if you are planning to come to my session titled 'Supporting the business: Redesigning and improving your intranet' at KCUK2009 (Day 2). I am going to share two examples on how ERM has recently utilised our intranet to address two critical business challenges.

Have a think about these questions if you are committed to take your intranet forward:

1. What situation is your company facing?
2. What are the stay awake questions and confusion your senior executives, board members and/or employees have?
3. How can you take your intranet onto the centre stage?
4. How can you help your company not only to use your intranet to reduce costs but also to lead the business into the future?

Feel free to leave questions that you want me to address here, and please feel free to come look for me during the event to discuss your ideas. I look forward to learning from you all.

Intranet usage: what really needs to be tracked?

A colleagues asked me what I would consider to be the most important factors of intranet usage to track, considering both the need to demonstrate the effectiveness and ROI of the intranet, and also to use tracking results to drive future intranet development.

My short answer is:

1. To demonstrate so called 'ROI', it is always useful to show overall usage (e.g. no of hits, no of contributions). Coming from a library and information science background, information and lbrary professionals know that usage/hits does not mean 'users getting the help they need', however, many senior executive/board members do like to read the numbers, so give it to them.
   
2. I find the tracking of search query useful, as I look at the search queries every month and ask myself 'if users are looking for something using these search queries, does our intranet give them what they want?'
3. To drive continuous improve, I think intranet team need to really understand what users find useful (or not) as part of their day-to-day work. Look through the users' eyes (not the intranet designer's eyes). Ask users to talk about their work and how they got help (and see if the intranet is even mentioned!). Don't ask them a direct question such as 'how does the intranet help?' The intranet should come out naturally if it does help them to solve problems, get ideas, access information.

In ERM, myself and my team have been collecting stories from users on a regularly basis. They all going into a narrative database (thanks to David Snowden and Steve Bealing who help to set it up, having said that, a good excel file works as well). Listening and analysing the patterns from these stories tell us where we are lagging behind. I use these stories to inform our quarterly planning exercise, to identify areas of improvement and to challenge my own assumptions.

So here is my suggestion, give the quantitative figures to decision makers, and listen carefully to your users' voices if you want to drive continuous improvement beyond looking at usage figures.

New change management approach: emergent meaning or prescription?

David Snowden has posted a blog titled 'Emergent meaning or prescription?'. I reflect on my own experience, and have to say I can't agree with it more.

From my experience, change management consultancy typically starts with the leaders wanting to change the staff. Communication is about telling staff what to do (even if some user research is included in the scope of work). This new approach starts the change management program by changing the leaders/experts' mindset, ie the consultants have to be changed, and the senior leaders have to be changed. This is the tough part, as not all the leaders who commission the consultancy work expect this. I also think really good consultants (not driven by consulting recipe) who are regarded as trusted advisors, who can bring controversial ideas to the table to add value has a higher chance of making this happen.