I was reading brian Solis blog titled "this is the end of business as usual and the beginning of a new era of relevance.
http://www.briansolis.com/2012/11/this-is-the-end-of-business-as-usual-and-the-beginning-of-a-new-era-of-relevance/
In this blog, he focuses on the consumer world and how social media has required people to adopt 10 Steps Toward New Relevance:
1. Answer why you should engage in social networks and why anyone would want to engage with you
2. Observe what brings them together and define how you can add value to the conversation
3. Identify the influential voices that matter to your world, recognize what’s important to them, and find a way to start a dialogue that can foster a meaningful and mutually beneficial relationship
4. Study the best practices of not just organizations like yours, but also those who are successfully reaching the type of people you’re trying to reach – it’s benchmarking against competitors and benchmarking against undefined opportunities
5. Translate all you’ve learned into a convincing presentation written to demonstrate tangible opportunity to your executive... make the case through numbers, trends, data, insights – understanding they have no idea what’s going on out there and you are both the scout and the navigator (start with a recommended pilot so everyone can learn together)
6. Listen to what they’re saying and develop a process to learn from activity and adapt to interests and steer engagement based on insights
7. Recognize how they use social media and innovate based on what you observe to captivate their attention
8. Align your objectives with their objectives. If you’re unsure of what they’re looking for…ask
9. Invest in the development of content, engagement
10. Build a community, invest in values, spark meaningful dialogue, and offer tangible value…the kind of value they can’t get anywhere else. Take advantage of the medium and the opportunity!
All 10 steps point to one simple fact - there is a major shift in empowering the consumers, companies have to learn to listen, engage and give them what they want!
I wonder how much we can apply these 10 steps when introducing social platform within the workplace, when groups and team come together to get things done (whether to create new solution, serve clients' needs, solve a problem, set the strategy, execute an initiative), but not necessarily working as "equals" (and so the power structure and individual ego kicks in).
In the next blog, I will assess to what extent do these 10 steps are useful to guide the introduction of social platform inside an enterprise.
Let me know what you think by leaving a comment here.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
What is the future of information professionals?
What do information professionals do? What do others think we do? What should we be doing now? What is our future? How should we define it?
Information professionals seem to be undergoing enormous transformation in the past 15 years as internet/mobile technologies and social media open up new ways to communicate, share, seek and use information on personal, community-based and global-level. Personally, I think the major shift is not about technology, it is how we redefine information from "static, objective" information that we can manage as objects to "communicative" information whereby information is a "process of becoming" (the process to inform, to understand, to share common struggles, to look for facts, to look for multiple perspectives etc). Through this "communicative" process, the user who look for information changes, the information being retrieved takes on new meaning in new context, and even the author of the information can increase their own understanding of the information they've shared as they learn and listen to the users. This shift is fundamental, it is still ongoing (accelerated with the rise of social media usage), and it requires a rethink of the role of information professionals in creating value for your companies or stakeholders.
What should information professionals be doing (or should have been doing) if we embrace this alternative approach to define information? Where are the future opportunities?
First of all, let's do not start thinking about us, us, us - the information professionals. Let's switch our attention to understand where the problems are which require our users to engage with information (and with the author of the information).
Based on personal experience working with business executives, middle management, knowledge workers, enterpreneurs, educators and parents, these are problems they face:
1. How do I stay agile in an ever changing external market? There is so much information (facts, opinions, news, advertisment, comments) out there, how do I pay attention to what matters to me/my business to stay ahead of the game and make the best decision?
2. How can I enable my workforce to connect and share information to drive revenue growth and avoid reinventing the wheel or making the same mistakes?
3. How do I get my messages/directives across to my team/workforce (as well as customers) and make them pay attention to it and take action, when they are facing "information/email overload" and ever increasing workload in their day-to-day work?
4. How can I function effectively as a knowledge worker when there is so much relevant information/experts out there which I will never have the time to fully understand (or to connect with the experts)? and at the same time there is so much "junk" information out there that creates noise? How do I stay on top of the game?
5. How do I educate my children/students on the best/worst practices to engage with information (and with other people) on internet/social media sites when I have limited exposure and understanding of these tools myself?
I think these real emminent problems present the opportunities for information professionals to lead and exert positive influence on the world now in the future, starting now. The opportunities are:
1. Be a strategic partner of business leaders - help to resolve real business problems whether it is cost pressure, retaining talents, innovation or improve team collaborate or internal communication.
.
2. Offer new perspectives and practical solutions to enable and facilitate knowledge sharing in the organization in the context of people's day-to-day work - it goes beyond managing document repositories, intranets, library and information center. It requires us to play a role in shaping a company's strategic IT roadmap, business model, communication practices, talent development programme, innovation and more.
3. Be a trsuted advisor in helping senior/middle managers to understand what/how to share information to engage with their team/workforce (and customers) in the networked world? Can we help them to be successful without taking credit away from them?
4. Be a champion of new way of working - Many of the employees do not grow up with training how to seek, use and engage with experts using a range of new technologies, they do not feel comfortable with the change. Can we help every individual to be more effective? more critical when engaging with information? Can we share ways to relieve painpoints and encourage them to empower themselves and continuously learn in the networked world? If we don't do it, who will?
5. Partner with educators to prepare our students for now and in the future - The fact that milleniums and new recruits grow up using internet/social media does not mean that they are reflective of how they use and share information in the public online space. Can we partner with educators to bring the awareness and prepare them from unintended consequences?
I see opportunities everywhere. Our challenges are:
1. Do we have the skills and competence ourselves to become the trusted advisors? Are we ready to lead and have the confidence to partner with business leaders. Can we get a seat at the senior table?
2. We cannot just talk, we need to demonstrate by showing what we can offer, and show the results as a result of our intervention. We need to share examples where it works. We cannot be seen as "idealistic".
Why I still believe information professionals should fill this gap and lead the world into the future? It is because:
1. We understand the history, the past, and how information has evolved. The best people to solve tomorrow's problem is the ones who understand the history and where we are today, and how we get here.
2. Traditional information management is a subset of the future solution, and we understand it very well. Progressive information professionals building on our strength (and awareness of potential weaknesses) when designing innovative information solutions such as social intranet, interactive information centers which seamlessly integrate in user journey, collaboration, social network etc, many of us are already in the frontier.
There is only one thing which hinder us from leading in the new world, i.e. our own confidence and our own committment to help shape the world. Information professionals out there, are you ready? Leave me a comment here.
Information professionals seem to be undergoing enormous transformation in the past 15 years as internet/mobile technologies and social media open up new ways to communicate, share, seek and use information on personal, community-based and global-level. Personally, I think the major shift is not about technology, it is how we redefine information from "static, objective" information that we can manage as objects to "communicative" information whereby information is a "process of becoming" (the process to inform, to understand, to share common struggles, to look for facts, to look for multiple perspectives etc). Through this "communicative" process, the user who look for information changes, the information being retrieved takes on new meaning in new context, and even the author of the information can increase their own understanding of the information they've shared as they learn and listen to the users. This shift is fundamental, it is still ongoing (accelerated with the rise of social media usage), and it requires a rethink of the role of information professionals in creating value for your companies or stakeholders.
What should information professionals be doing (or should have been doing) if we embrace this alternative approach to define information? Where are the future opportunities?
First of all, let's do not start thinking about us, us, us - the information professionals. Let's switch our attention to understand where the problems are which require our users to engage with information (and with the author of the information).
Based on personal experience working with business executives, middle management, knowledge workers, enterpreneurs, educators and parents, these are problems they face:
1. How do I stay agile in an ever changing external market? There is so much information (facts, opinions, news, advertisment, comments) out there, how do I pay attention to what matters to me/my business to stay ahead of the game and make the best decision?
2. How can I enable my workforce to connect and share information to drive revenue growth and avoid reinventing the wheel or making the same mistakes?
3. How do I get my messages/directives across to my team/workforce (as well as customers) and make them pay attention to it and take action, when they are facing "information/email overload" and ever increasing workload in their day-to-day work?
4. How can I function effectively as a knowledge worker when there is so much relevant information/experts out there which I will never have the time to fully understand (or to connect with the experts)? and at the same time there is so much "junk" information out there that creates noise? How do I stay on top of the game?
5. How do I educate my children/students on the best/worst practices to engage with information (and with other people) on internet/social media sites when I have limited exposure and understanding of these tools myself?
I think these real emminent problems present the opportunities for information professionals to lead and exert positive influence on the world now in the future, starting now. The opportunities are:
1. Be a strategic partner of business leaders - help to resolve real business problems whether it is cost pressure, retaining talents, innovation or improve team collaborate or internal communication.
.
2. Offer new perspectives and practical solutions to enable and facilitate knowledge sharing in the organization in the context of people's day-to-day work - it goes beyond managing document repositories, intranets, library and information center. It requires us to play a role in shaping a company's strategic IT roadmap, business model, communication practices, talent development programme, innovation and more.
3. Be a trsuted advisor in helping senior/middle managers to understand what/how to share information to engage with their team/workforce (and customers) in the networked world? Can we help them to be successful without taking credit away from them?
4. Be a champion of new way of working - Many of the employees do not grow up with training how to seek, use and engage with experts using a range of new technologies, they do not feel comfortable with the change. Can we help every individual to be more effective? more critical when engaging with information? Can we share ways to relieve painpoints and encourage them to empower themselves and continuously learn in the networked world? If we don't do it, who will?
5. Partner with educators to prepare our students for now and in the future - The fact that milleniums and new recruits grow up using internet/social media does not mean that they are reflective of how they use and share information in the public online space. Can we partner with educators to bring the awareness and prepare them from unintended consequences?
I see opportunities everywhere. Our challenges are:
1. Do we have the skills and competence ourselves to become the trusted advisors? Are we ready to lead and have the confidence to partner with business leaders. Can we get a seat at the senior table?
2. We cannot just talk, we need to demonstrate by showing what we can offer, and show the results as a result of our intervention. We need to share examples where it works. We cannot be seen as "idealistic".
Why I still believe information professionals should fill this gap and lead the world into the future? It is because:
1. We understand the history, the past, and how information has evolved. The best people to solve tomorrow's problem is the ones who understand the history and where we are today, and how we get here.
2. Traditional information management is a subset of the future solution, and we understand it very well. Progressive information professionals building on our strength (and awareness of potential weaknesses) when designing innovative information solutions such as social intranet, interactive information centers which seamlessly integrate in user journey, collaboration, social network etc, many of us are already in the frontier.
There is only one thing which hinder us from leading in the new world, i.e. our own confidence and our own committment to help shape the world. Information professionals out there, are you ready? Leave me a comment here.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
I don't understand social business...
"I really don't get it" said a colleague. "it does not wow me." "May be I am slow, tell me what value does it add in the work context?" Some confess "I am not using social media in my personal live, I am not sure I can manage it at work..." I know a lot of friends who are interested in the potential power of using social platform in the business setting, however, they have not experienced its power yet and they are not sure where to start. To help to make it real, I look for great videos to explain the concept, read books, mckinsey's research report (unlocking the value of social business) and thought leadership blog (@johnstepper, @euan), collect use cases where it work for companies, and I share those stories. I realise no matter how much I try to say, and try to explain the value that embracing social platform can brings to companies, and how much I try to explain how twitter or LinkedIn or blogging works, the starting position has always been positioning my colleague (who is willing to learn) to look from "outside" in, as if social platform can be learned objectively and experience as an outsider (perhaps even like an objective scientist) trying to understand how it all works. What is missing? Unless one swim in it, you will never get it. Trying to teach people conceptually how twitter or blogsphere work is really pointless. The best training manual wont cut it. To really learn how social media works for you personally, you have to look at it from "inside", ie look inside in. Why? Because social platform is personal. Try look at your friend's or colleague's activity stream or twitter homepage, it makes no sense to you and it is full of noise. Of course, they are not meant for you to consume or interact with. When you start to share your thoughts, and when you receive responses and comments to the area which interest you (personally and/or professionally) and you truly care about, you will get your first aha moment. Until then, you will continue to observe as an outsider and wonder what's in it for me. Do you agree with me? leave me a comment here.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Leadership 2.0 in ACTION: A journey from knowledge management to “Knowledging”
Here is an abstract and link to a full paper which I co-authored with Dr Brenda Dervin.
Cheuk, B. & Dervin, B. (2011). Leadership 2.0 in Action: a Journey from Knowledge Management to "Knowledging“. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), Vol 3, No 2 (2011).
http://kmel-journal.org/ojs/index.php/online-publication/article/view/107/87
Leadership 2.0 is a set of alternative management values and practices driven by a set of coherent assumptions about the nature of human communication. In this paper, the authors argue that Leadership 2.0 is critical to make Web2.0 work. This paper is informed by Dervin’s Sense-Making Methodology (SMM) as an approach to design knowledge sharing platform incorporating Web2.0 features which allow user-generated content and have a stronger emphasis on collaboration and interaction amongst users. SMM is a philosophically derived approach which allows knowledge management (KM) researchers and practitioners to more fully understand and listen to user’s needs so as to inform the design of dialogic KM practices and systems to promote knowledge sharing. This paper presents a “Safety Moment” project to illustrate how SMM has been applied to inform the design of a Web2.0 enabled ‘knowledging’ application in Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the world’s largest all-environmental consulting firm. The project discussed has been implemented since January 2008 as part of ERM’s commitment to improve Health & Safety Performance to ensure all ERM employees, contractors and clients are safe at work. The use of SMM informed Web2.0 application has correlated with increased staff satisfaction, increased company reputation and reduced risks.
If you have the chance to read this paper, I like to invite you to share your comments with me and the blog readers. Do you share my experiences? Do you have different experiences to share? How do what we have shared in this paper connect with your work, your life, your organization?
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Social business in the enterprise: two stories
There has been a lot of interests introducing social platform within enterprise to improve knowledge sharing and business interaction. Putting in place the tools are relatively easy, identifying the opportunity to use interactive 2.0 tools to add value to the business is an art (as it requires good understanding of business needs and organisation culture), ensuring the online interaction/conversation is authentic, meaningful, genuine and deep is the hardest.
Here are two stories to get me/you recognise the challenges in using 2.0 tools to flatten hierarchy:
1. A senior executive is hosting an online discussion with his global team. He invites everyone to ask questions and leave comments relating to a strategic topic. One staff has a question, but instead of posting on the forum, the staff feels more comfortable sending the question to his line manager, asks his line manage to review and edit the question before he posts it up to the forum. What intrigue me is that on one hand the senior executive wants to break down hierarch using the forum, on the other hand, the hierarchical structure continues to reinforce the norm to seek line manager's approval before one can speak, and even so, what he posts up is not his authentic voice. Does the discussion forum achieve the purpose of supporting 2-way dialogue to break down hierarchy?
2. A blogger posts a blog post with a controversial title which gives the impression that he does not agree with a senior executive's judgement. Within 24 hours after the blog post went up, the blogger receives a call from someone working in senior executive office sharing the feedback that blog post may give the wrong impression to other readers and suggests the blogger to edit the blog title. What intrigue me is that many enterprise wants to promote blogging to improve knowledge sharing, but on the other hand are not ready to tolerate diverse views and perspectives. What is the point of blogging when blog posts can only agree with the status quo?
It is a long journey for business to go social within the enterprise (Euan Semple asks us to be patient in his recent blog), because it is not system implementation, it is not even cultural change, it is a fundamental change in how the hierarchy works and how every individual interact with one another and establishing new norms. And when we get there, it is going to be satisfying to look back and realize so much has evolved and everyone has changed.
Here are two stories to get me/you recognise the challenges in using 2.0 tools to flatten hierarchy:
1. A senior executive is hosting an online discussion with his global team. He invites everyone to ask questions and leave comments relating to a strategic topic. One staff has a question, but instead of posting on the forum, the staff feels more comfortable sending the question to his line manager, asks his line manage to review and edit the question before he posts it up to the forum. What intrigue me is that on one hand the senior executive wants to break down hierarch using the forum, on the other hand, the hierarchical structure continues to reinforce the norm to seek line manager's approval before one can speak, and even so, what he posts up is not his authentic voice. Does the discussion forum achieve the purpose of supporting 2-way dialogue to break down hierarchy?
2. A blogger posts a blog post with a controversial title which gives the impression that he does not agree with a senior executive's judgement. Within 24 hours after the blog post went up, the blogger receives a call from someone working in senior executive office sharing the feedback that blog post may give the wrong impression to other readers and suggests the blogger to edit the blog title. What intrigue me is that many enterprise wants to promote blogging to improve knowledge sharing, but on the other hand are not ready to tolerate diverse views and perspectives. What is the point of blogging when blog posts can only agree with the status quo?
It is a long journey for business to go social within the enterprise (Euan Semple asks us to be patient in his recent blog), because it is not system implementation, it is not even cultural change, it is a fundamental change in how the hierarchy works and how every individual interact with one another and establishing new norms. And when we get there, it is going to be satisfying to look back and realize so much has evolved and everyone has changed.
Friday, March 25, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, June 18, 2010
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?"
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?"
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, April 23, 2010
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.
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:
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
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.
Get in touch if you like to discuss ideas. I love to hear your comments and experience, too.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 21, 2009
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
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
Monday, September 14, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
