via the99percent.com

The book looks fantastic and includes insights from voices I've learned much from. The excerpts in the post alone are inspiring. Have you read this?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In years past, by day two, the ice breaker "so, do you see a theme this year?" would pop up. I wasn't asked once at the Enterprise 2.0 Conference last week. I'm hoping it's a signal to the idea that we're moving past the need for low value sound bites, though I look at Twitter and lose that hopeful thought right quick. Despite the apparent lack of need for such ice breakers, I did note a theme. I'll get to that. 

On my flight home I sat next to a thirty year tech veteran who grilled me as best he could on the value of the work I was doing. Not sure he was open to seeing a bottom line impact as much as he was interested finding a way to prove that I was foolish for not coming to his conclusions. He spent a telling amount of time grading me on my ".60 words" and attempting to diminish my contribution to the debate by verbally patting me on the head and asserting I'd "held my own" in the discussion. The debate was the 101 stuff by the way. Sharing what you're doing has no value, everyone can see, security is so much more important than work, yadda, yadda. Don't let me give the wrong impression, there were many smiles and this was an extremely personable debate. I smiled a bit at the universe's sense of humor in ending my conference this way. 

What it all boiled down to for me is this. It's great to want to change the world to be a better place, for work to be less frustrating, limiting, focused on spending cycles and budget on inane processes. It's great to want more productivity, fewer mistakes, and an innovative, self-healing environment. We've simply got to spend more cycles practicing the pragmatism we preach. That 101 process we've all discovered for selling the business case? That's the process we use to change minds and build adoption. The idea that changing the minds of humans who have no desire to change should be a strong focus is a poor investment and yields even poorer ROI. Remember, don't feed the trolls. Change is about creating an environment of irrefutable value where the majority join in to collect their own perceived gains. In our case, one where business value, more clearly, a positive impact to the bottom line, organizational or personal, is demonstrated. Your ability to achieve such at an enterprise level, right off the bat, is slim. Your chance of doing that by consciously supporting a growing network through an organizationally self aware plan, real-time analysis and iteration, and through creating a network of supportive advocates by offering real value to their bottom line is how it happens.... I know, I know, that's a mouthful. It's tough to force fit authenticity into a org chart or a quarterly numbers sheet. The process is still navigable if we can put down our baggage and get to navigating towards something specific.. mind you, that also means specifically leaving room for the unplanned and the unspecific, where the really good innovative stuff comes from.  

Heightened pragmatism, even around the more assumedly estrogen laden topics of community management, HR, learning, etc, is bobbing up with direct paths to business value and impact to the bottom line. Who knew... estrogen has brains too (yep, it's snark, you're soaking in it). That pragmatism is an element of this work I've clung to for sanity over the years. Finding solid, actionable information on the merger of systems, humans, and process is as simple as collecting water with a tennis racket. Thankfully, many of the few people who deeply get the full scope of the effort are reliably present at #e2conf. 

Some observations to underscore my point of an improved sense of pragmatism: 

• We swam in solid *use case stories. Refreshingly, both successful and unsuccessful. TEVA, Harvard, NASA, Vanguard, Merc, Eli Lily, EA, ArcSight, YUM, etc... all with business driven, culturally thoughtful strategies. All with an eye on iteration and room for innovation. 
• We heard from more sr. middle managers than I ever remember. The use case presenters were primarily not the senior sponsors or senior project managers who don't frankly use the systems for in-the-flow work. They were intimately aware of the challenges and the gains, and were open to share their tricks more than their sound bites. 
• Even the so called "soft" topics included a theme of pragmatic business process. I was absolutely wowed with the Rachel Happe's presentation Online Communities - A Strategic Imperative. Rachel brings unparalleled clarity to the value of professional community management. It was down right satisfying to see her skillfully distill the story into an hour. I often think we'd be moving much faster if the folks who were claiming ownership of these tools/initiatives had to demonstrate a) proficient use of the tools to meet a specific business need b) acted as community manager for one year. The strategy a community manager uses is the same as the strategy needed to support the whole of a healthy social initiative. I see that little tidbit as an ah-ha few have reached yet. Full disclosure, Rachel is a good friend and I am a member of the Community Roundtable, not to mention a heavily biased community manager. 

This year was also my first attending as a vendor. A big shift after many years as a practitioner. It meant that I needed to spend more time away from sessions than I'm used to. I missed the ability to attend and fully engage in the workshops, but thankfully, twitter kept me hip to what was going on in other sessions. Having too much work to do is a wonderful problem to have. I was thrilled to connect with many of my colleagues I rarely get to see in person. Moxie had a great showing and I'm proud to be part of the team there. It was exciting to see our clients sharing their need-to-hear stories. TEVA's supply chain story is unique and so strongly aligned to this sense of heightened pragmatism I'm talking about. 

All in all I wouldn't miss #e2conf for the world. Despite my snarky posts. :) The beauty of #e2conf is the opportunity for us to get past our social tool prosthetics and engage face-to-face where we can separate the wheat from the chaff. I loved the new space, the abundant power and the reliable wifi, though after becoming accustomed to the tighter quarters at the WBW, I did ask Steve Wylie for a Segway to get around. I didn't feel like I could run back to my room without missing something. I loved the variety of tracks and the clear response to feedback. The fact that there's a people and culture track comes directly from feedback, that community management is a foregone conclusion, that we're now talking about CRM in a meaningful way, that we've enjoyed the presence of psychologists and HR specialists as well as an increase in use case stories. All from feedback. I still believe that if you are engaged in the work of bringing social software to your organization there is no better opportunity to learn about the full scope of the story. If you're doing social or thinking about it, you need to be here. 

Phew.. that was a long one. Thanks to Oliver Marks for including me in the People & Culture track with Apprio's Steve Elmore and Saba's Ingrid Stabb. Steve's got some thoughts on the session on his blog.  Thanks to Steve Wylie & the crew at UBM for all the hard work. Don't forget the Santa Clara call for papers is already open.  It's a great chance to share your success, as well as your failures.. lord knows we learn more from those. Also, a final plug for the Community BackChannel. We had an amazing launch meet up at #e2conf. We're a vetted, but open community of those who want to engage others around the practice of leveraging social tools and community building methodologies for business. All are welcome to this no-sales zone where you need only declare your purpose for joining and want to bring/get value from the experience. 

That's it. See you all in Santa Clara. 

* I use the term use case stories intentionally as a case study doesn't hold much validity for me when those who deliver are assessing their own work. Studies should be performed by someone outside the process being evaluated. Nitpicking I know. But I've seen way too many "successes" touted as such with great omissions of challenging data.

** Big ups to @jimworth for his tireless curation. I wouldn't have links without him. http://jimworth.pbworks.com/w/page/41561709/Enterprise-20-Boston-Social-Web-Coverage-June-20-2011 All presentations (attendee credentials required) and related #e2conf information here. 

*** Image Credit Enterprise 2.0 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/e2conf/5857616440/sizes/m/in/photostream/ 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

By now you may have heard of the Community BackChannel. Launched just a few weeks ago, the #cmtybc is private community of community, collaboration and social business practitioners, analysts, consultants, vendors, and media. While vetted to gauge interest and real desire to contribute to the community, the #cmtybc is absolutely free and open to folks from all walks of the E2.0/social business spectrum. 

The #cmtybc calls The BrainYard home through a generous donation of space from the folks at UBM. The #cmtybc is not however owned or guided by UBM or its affiliates in anyway. We're just super grateful for the support and the space! 

We've been sharing resources, talking about our individual case studies, swapping ideas for incentives and building new relationships with Community Managers we've not been able to connect with beyond Twitter. We're a small and growing group who are passionate in our belief that community stewardship is a vital component of success across our social business networks. If this sounds like your thing take a look at the public site and consider joining us. 

A number of us will be headed to the Enterprise 2.0 Conference in Boston from June 20 - 23. What would a f2f opportunity like this be without a meet up? Social is as social does after all.

So here's the ask. Join us! Come find out what we're all about, have a drink, maybe a nosh, and most certainly some good conversation with social business community advocates from across the spectrum. 

Be sure to sign up. Space is limited and we'd love to see you there.
http://cmtybcboston2011.eventbrite.com/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I've heard some interesting perspectives about community building this week. And more than once the "it's all about... " popped up. It just about always makes my shoulders creep up around my ears.

It's not all or nothing. It's not emergence or business goals, open or closed, Kumbaya or command and control. Change happens when balance shifts. We're not moving from one side of the meter to another. We're learning to balance what's now out of balance. Those engaged and conscious around why things need to change, and what improvement looks like will have a better chance of achieving their goals. They also recognize the business value of emergence and skillfully create not only spaces for it, but an environment where it is encouraged and rewarded in a meaningful and authentic way.

It's easy to run with dogma or tool and tout it as the "it's all about the..." of the day. At the core of our efforts is a change to business, to work, to the improvement of products, the client experience and relationship, the productivity, satisfaction and well being of our colleagues. All with an end game of better outcomes for all involved. That could be increased revenue, more customers, lower attrition, more frequent innovation, more meaningful collaboration, etc, etc. 

Get specific about what you're after as an organization and balance that with room for, and support of emergence. It should reflect across your social tools as well as in your hallways.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

#e2conf is just a couple of weeks away. I'm here to offer some sizzling predictions and probing questions for the conference to come.

I see in our future:

• a wild launch of marketing zazz and thinly veiled insults regarding who and who does not, in fact, get 'it'. whatever 'it' may be
• a stinging blog post about how wrong we all are, how vendors are barking up the wrong tree, how consultants and analysts are missing the boat, how this daffy work we're doing has already been done under another moniker. we'll all rubberneck, RT, and talk about it for days
• a sustained cry that the vendor voice is too loud, that we're all reconsidering whether we'll come to the next conference
• a boutique consultancy/vendor/analyst will change the name of a common viewpoint, resource, service, product pronounce it a brand new epiphany, one that will clearly change the world in a way it couldn't with another name. we will all believe it
• a stunned crop of first timers who aren't used to seeing people hug at conferences will be stunned
• people first! now lets talk about seats and integration. you know, just to get it out of the way
• some sassy late night tweeting that may disappear from the stream by morning. be sure to get them while they're hot hot hot
• a flow of snarky conference blog posts... some may in fact appear before the conference... you may in fact be reading one this very moment 

And finally, I'm dying to know: 

• who will be the first vendor/analyst/consultant(s) to take the heat from the Statler & Waldorf that is Twitter?
• who's demo will fail spectacularly? 
• which party will be the most off the hookest? 
• will the wifi work? 
• will there be enough power for all of @elsua's gear? 
• will I sleep at all that week?
• why can't I write a blog post that isn't a list? 

Despite my tone, I'm stoked. E2 is my best chance to get more than 140's depth, catch up face to face with folks who're steeped in this work, and find out what I don't know. 

I hope to see you there.  

*for those who may not know my sense of humor, this is indeed humor. roll with it. 

Image credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carnac.jpg

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I saw a post from RWW over the holiday weekend. It irked me in the way uninformed infographics and Fox News irk me. Promoting a salacious little sliver of a larger story in an already highly confused environment does little to help anyone. It tends to promote a bunch of rubbernecking that keep us distracted from real issues. I do get that these polls are usually more about increasing page views than scientific research. In the end, it does offer illustration to a long neglected point. 

The post came in response to a marketing gimmick Huddle is touting. The story we get? Huddle is guaranteeing adoption! Should all vendors do that? 
The story we don't get? Adoption is defined as well as many enterprises are defining it. Here's what the Huddle site has to offer in defining adoption: 

http://www.huddle.com/this-is-huddle/adoption-guarantee/

Let me change the language a little bit to clarify. An active user is one who has "performed at least one auditable action" over the course of the 90 day period. I'm guessing that means it's an action you can find record of in the db. Not sure what that set looks like in Huddle's reporting. It could be logged in, perhaps a page view, updated a profile, performed a search..... 

Once. One time. That means a user has adopted. Does that sound like meaningful adoption to you? Worth the money? With numbers like that we've all adopted Google Wave, Path, and other screaming tool successes. Right? What do you think user sentiment is for a site visited once in 90 days? 

The reality is that it's time we woke up around our responsibilities in successful adoption. We are doing more than buying IT, deploying it, and posting a mission accomplished banner in the office. Adoption, meaningful impact-yielding adoption, demands true engagement, a cycle of member feedback that is acted upon, relevance, and trust in our relationship to the tools as well as those engaged in the network. None of which happens in 90 days, and certainly not in an environment where adoption is consciously defined as one log in = success. 

We're smarter than this folks. Know what you're solving. Listen to your members. Fix an actual work problem. Engage your employees in a meaningful, authentic way. Define adoption up front, as you should the terms collaboration and engagement. Know what these terms mean to your organization. Steer clear of gimmicks. As much as we all may want one, there is no magic pill. We're being challenged to steward a change to a better work experience. The deft weilding of thoughtful tools to facilitate that can speed things up dramatically. The opposite, well, you know the rest. 

OK. Soapbox, dismount. How about a poll where we see how enterprises are defining adoption? Does anyone have links to real research there?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

 
•    I know what everyone needs to know
•    My email isn’t my knowledge management system
•    If I need you, I can find you
•    If you need me, you can find me
•    If we need one another we can gather and act rapidly, when and how it works for us
•    If I’m new, I know what to do
•    If I’m an expert, I can share and promote my work/capability/offering/event/idea...
•    If I need talent, or content, I can find it quickly with context and evidence
•    If I need answers they are discoverable when I need them
•    My work is the stuff I’m great at, the stuff that drives me and adds value. Not a maze of frustrating tools & limiting processes

With the posturing and pontificaiting that goes on around social, its important to remember one thing. For the enterprise user, the one who gets to choose whether to adopt or not, this is what “it’s all about”.

It’s work. Make it better.

image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/coldcut/3644583208

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

via blog.getsatisfaction.com

Genius from Get Satisfaction!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

2010 has been quite a year for all of us focused on this whatever-you-call-it-esque (E2/socbiz) shift to a more collaborative and open enterprise. The leaps are higher, and the steps forward are those of pretty tall folk. I finally got to see the McKinsey survey coverage yesterday, and what I see there is amazing. I remember sitting in the front row in Boston in 2007 listening to Andy McAfee implore the audience to collect a cache of case studies. We desperately needed more than a handful of success stories to point to. Though it’s easy to miss in our revolving door bubble of debate, we’re making steady progress. As the potential of collaboration becomes the new black, it’s hard to find an organization that isn’t at least looking to better understand their options. It feels like we’ve finally put aside the evolution/revolution and ROI debates and are focusing on the realities of defining our collaborative worlds. A simple scan of the vendor horizon shows relevant leaps in ubiquity, usability and rapid customization in this year alone. Hearing the McKinsey story point to definitive revenue increases shores up my optimistic perception. We’ve come a long way. 

This year specifically I’ve seen our internal work mature and be firmly woven into the fabric of our organization. It’s been challenging for all of us. Growth usually is. We, like many other organizations who’ve joined us in the past couple of years, are doing the hardest part of the work in self-analysis, integration and action toward the promise of collaboration. I’m not at liberty to publish public detail about Hello, but I can say that its evolution has, and continues to be, amazing to observe. In all of my snark on Twitter, never for a moment think that I don’t know how very lucky I am.

Outside of my work I’m fortunate to be connected to many of the best and brightest in our space. I’ve enjoyed the support and cheerleading of some fantastically smart folks. They are willing to entertain my ideas and my folly equally. Every time I talk with them… with you, I learn something. Every time. I’m so very grateful for that.

I offer a hearty Happy Holidays to all of you.

Now please, take a break already will ya?

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22244945@N00/3278869535/#/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

What we could all really use in our work is a scratch track. In recording it's a running back up, a live reference mark. You use a scratch track to record a rough expected outcome that guides the finish work. If you're lucky, it's a lightening in a bottle. You may find yourself with a spectacular new idea. You press record knowing that there's a much higher (almost expected) rubbish outcome to be achieved on that track, that the focus is the finish work. Doesn't matter. It's muscle memory to do it. It's the process you trust. It's through that process that you make room for the really good stuff. Most creative activities have some version of this.

Social collaborative tools offer a scratch track. Our trail of serendipitous breadcrumbs. A bubbling of an idea that someone, or some group can align with and get excited about. I often wish we realized how creative seemingly rigid corporate roles really are. Especially through times of shift. I believe its part of what we talk about when we cry for innovation in corporate spaces. When we exercise that muscle memory and build a trail of breadcrumbs we see trends, opportunities, and flaws faster. With that intelligence we might not be so married to the oft repeated, not-so best practices and wasteful habits large enterprises tend to assume as operating norm. We also open the door to lightening in a bottle ideas that rigid processes often close.

Image credit:dave.kobrehel

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I often find either big resistance or lip service given to the idea that E2.0/social/collaboration encompasses issues beyond technology and teaching people how to use it. There is a degree of discomfort around the concept of cracking the corporate/industry veneer that we’re taught to cake on. Showing ourselves as vulnerable and fallible isn’t part of the professional equation (for many it’s not part of the personal equation either). Yet vulnerability is a vital component of trust.

For some, simply considering the idea of taking their humanity to work is just as uncomfortable as having “the talk” with a parent or child. We have to discuss the stuff we’re unsure of and figure out what feels like new rules. There’s discomfort we may not be able to pinpoint and process initially.  Assumptions and reactions to stories and studies can send us reeling.  It’s this dialog where we begin to identify steps to real change, understand our norms and craft ourselves a new working world of relationships. 

Many adopt a language formed from years of education and grooming. It’s a language intended to identify others as members, and to bar the uninitiated. If you’ve ever spent time in an acronym, code, or competition heavy environment you know what I’m talking about. Who needs software to create silos when the experts can do it all by themselves? 

You might find that speaking plainly makes people uncomfortable. You might find that human speak invites the perception that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s OK, as long as you do indeed know what you are talking about. This is what I like to think of as high road, long-haul work. You may well have to make it to the second meeting to get to the part where they’ve processed your pitch and are ready to listen, at least a little. Relevant knowledge that comes from a place of authenticity and accountability will yield trust faster than any salacious blog headline or marketing case study.

There’s real importance in using human language. It’s a differentiator. A cue to listen, that the listener is welcome, that they have a part and a stake in the conversation. It invites them to help you work toward an answer. As with any strategy or support, it is absolutely vital that you understand the goals before engaging in this conversation, that you understand your audience before you attempt to shake them out of their silo. Without that investment from you, the change initiator, you won’t have established the trust you need to move forward.

So do a few things before selling your revolutionary ideas. First, do your homework. Understand the culture(s) and the problems you are solving before you go marching in with your blog (wiki/activity stream/tagging structure/ubiquitous mobility solution/social media genius). Speak plainly. Remember that your client may not be the only one at the table with a river of lingo in their pocket (that means you). 

Don’t be afraid to initiate the talk and remember that the talk has more to do with really listening.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/photogaby/2823104541/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

(brilliant. thanks @PeteModi)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Disclaimer: I'll warn my good friends.. you may have heard this one before if we've taked about influence. Wanted to get it in writing once and for all.

Decades ago I was a projectionist dealing with intensely intelligent people, PhD medical researchers in fact.
I'd meet them in a prep room, gather and orient up hundreds of 35mm slides in trays and walk them through the logistics of the most important presentation of their professional lives. Many times these folks were coming to me after ten years of research, preparing to sell their case to a live audience of fifteen hundred colleagues from the most prominent American medical organization, ready to question their findings and theories on life saving therapies or drugs. Needless to say they were often a little nervous, very worried about how they were perceived, and sure something beyond their control would go wrong. 

I'd soothe them and let them know how the system worked. "Just press forward or reverse, don't worry about the focus or the power. I've got that. Above all, don't press the power button. If you do, you'll have five minutes in front of the audience with black screen while the projector comes back online." I won't mention how many times some poor shaking researcher would confidently proclaim, "Let's begin" then press the power button and complain of technical difficulties for the next five minutes. Sorry, I just mentioned it... and that's another story. My point has to do with my projector trick.

So often with these nervous, tender people, I witnessed the best of fear based behaviors. Before the audience would arrive we'd go to the podium to see the slides on the 30ft screen and check out the controls. In most cases this was the first time these images had been seen outside of a microscope or loupe (It was a long, long time ago). Invariably, the researcher would say "Jeeze, this is awfully out of focus. The thing is, as a projectionist, you know your focal length, you have your focus marks, the convergence (yepper, old school three gun thanks) is set. You know what you've got is good. The right answer however is "ya know, you're right, let me take a look at that." At this point, my job was to crawl back upstairs to the mammoth projector, grab the manual focus, throw it 100% out, then return it slowly to the focal mark I'd thoughtfully established with a reference slide at the start of my day. I'd return to the stage, stare at the screen, pace back and forth with hand on chin, and look to the presenter for approval. Nine of ten times I'd hear "perfect!". In the rare one in ten where they didn't agree, I'd grab a colleague with a radio, and go back to the projector to suss it out with the researchers perspective. That's what the meeting was all about after all.

A few take aways I find relevant to my work today:

1. Often, we simply need to be pulled from our perspective in a safe way. One that's meaningful and offers impact to our immediate needs.
2. Opinions can change with the right information. Instead of beating your influencee over the head with your perspective, let them see the spectrum of opportunity. They'll tell you where to go.
3. Get out of your safety zone. Often. You may well ditch a useless fear that's holding you back or remove a barrier you've placed as protection.
4. Listen. You aren't always right. Don't forget that for a second.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rvwithtito/4236716778/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Over the past year and a half I've been a member of the 2.0 Adoption Council. We began as a cohort of likeminded practitioners looking for help, camaraderie, and perhaps an ear when we needed to let fly with the challenges we faced in delivering a new way of work to our organizations. I've contributed content, offered up insights into my organizational case study, helped create workshops, webinars, and presented to a number of audiences on behalf of, and in promotion of the council. I've received the benefits of a great network, friends I'll keep for a long, long time, and insight into this industry that I may not have otherwise received.

It's been decided that my involvement as a practitioner is no longer appropriate based on my day to day contribution levels and advancement within the E2.0 community. The decision has kicked me off of a fence I've been sitting on since April. While I desperately love my network, I'd found that I'm not able to get the depth of information I need anymore. For those of us who've been at this for years vs. months the first year conversations yield less actionable information. Knowing that my network of practitioners are, for the most part, active in the public spaces I'm not worried that I'll lose good friends in this transition.

Things change when they need to. I believe that. I sincerely wish the council well and hope that all of its members enjoy radical success as they teach each other the ropes and initiate their first years. It's tough work. You'll need each other. Stay strong folks, and don't hesitate to reach out if I can help. I'm always here.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

For me the highlights centered around the Community, HR and SCRM tracks. Many know me as a community manager, but may not know that I’m heavily involved in organizational integration efforts as well. In my role, a depth in understanding the scope of potential issues, future vision and pragmatic tactics are what “it’s all about”. I found new perspective into each of the topic tracks that I’m carrying back to the office for action.

In the shout out department we have big ups to my good friend Luis Suarez for his well earned title, Enterprise Evangelist of the Year. Louis and the Blue IQ Team live and breathe collaboration like no other.  Well deserved and long overdue recognition for an exceptional guy. Big congrats as well to my friends at the newly formed Constellation Research for launching this week. What a great collective of folks. They’re certainly poised for a bright future.

On a less than positive note, I’m seeing a decided hardening of attitudes as the E2/SocBiz/Collaboration (pick your religion) space moves on. The vibe is increasingly competitive and less collaborative. Aggressive negative campaigning is common practice for some vendors. My reaction to such is about the same as my reaction to Fox News. Vendor integrity to me is simply providing and standing by a set of solid products and services, having excellent customer relationships, and contributing to the entire community to move things forward. The sometimes nasty debates among idealist and pragmatists touting methodology or perspective superiority come across as added noise that slow us all down while we rubberneck to decide if what’s being said has any impact for us. Additionally I see relatively new consulting entrants coming in with lots of opinions based more on blog research than depth of study or experience. It’s a little scary to think of some poor org buying into it and suffering from the missing pieces in the long run. All part of the game I guess. There’s much less in the camaraderie department than there used to be. And I get it. It’s business. We’ve all got skin in the game. I heard the clichéd “can’t we all just get along” riff more than I’d like this week. Don’t think it’ll change anytime soon. There’s money to be made here.

What’s exciting is that the big picture of our evolution is beginning to come into view for me. How we’ll integrate our efforts, where we’ll permeate our processes, what boulders will need to shift in order for us to make a little bit of progress toward our goals. Not to mention a better understanding of what the goals might really be.

Finally, huge thanks to the UBM TechWeb crew. Steve Wylie and his team run this marathon for us twice a year, and it’s no small feat. The town hall wasn’t over without mention that the Boston call for papers begins next week. Their made bed just got unmade, and I’m looking forward to Boston already.

Image courtesy of Alex Dunne See the rest of the #e2conf set on Flickr.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Headed off to #e2conf  in the morning. Thrilled to get back to the Bay Area as it's one of my favorite places in the world. Also thrilled to reconnect with everyone, and finally get to meet a few folks I've not yet met in the flesh.

I'm looking forward to participating the 2.0 Adoption Council's Black Belt Workshop on Monday. Hope you'll join us if you're there. When we began creating the workshop for June's Boston #e2conf I asked that we created the session I wish I could have attended as a new practitioner in 2007. I think we did that. This time, as I put together my material, I marveled at how much clearer the story is for practitioners. Community Management is maturing inside the enterprise and clarity around different types of community is solidifying. Governance, education and change management are all clearer stories with trucks full of case study and best practice. The fact that HR will have such a prominent voice this year is telling. We're getting it. Slowly, because we're human, but we're getting it.

The tools are still evolving and I believe we're chipping away at how they reflect and respect the depth of human business interaction. I've seen and heard about some fantastic things to come. Many point to a stronger focus on social psychology, user experience and measurable enterprise impact.

We're evolving slowly (it's how it's done after all) and it's exciting to see eyes continue to open. Regardless of where you see yourself across the spectrum, we're further than we were even six months ago. I'm eager to get a fresh pulse check next week.

If you'd like to connect you can find me at my sessions either in the Workshop, or as part of the Community Management track session: Community Managers: Why Do You Need Them and What Do They Do?  with my friend, "Madam Director", Claire Flanagan, and my newest Community Management cohort, Erica Kuhl. You can always hit me up on Twitter @meganmurray if you want to say hello.

There are some great pre-conference write ups out there that will help you plan your experience, be sure to take a look:

Strong Customer Showing at Enterprise 2.0 Conference - Sameer Patel

US Enterprise 2.0 Conference West Coast Edition Next Week - Oliver Marks

A Packed Agenda on HR Collaborative Technologies and SocialCRM at Enterprise 2.0 Conference Santa Clara - Rawn Shah

Finally, welcome to the new blog. If you see anything buggy please let me know!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

CRM takes different forms relative to where and to whom it is applied. Inside an enterprise, the idea of employee as customer can be new or down right counter-culture. I’ve heard voices from any number of organizations speak to a culture that is less centered on establishing relationships when it comes to employees. In 2.0 we’re taking new approaches to our work through evolving collaborative means. These means stand to offer scaling support to the organization-employee relationship. Enterprises have long established help processes, which serve mass efficiency over individuals. We have intentionally deflected connection with employees in an attempt to scale services across IT, HR, Finance, etc. If you reside inside of a large organization, think about what you might have experienced the last time you called your help desk. Did someone take your issue on and make it their own? Did it feel like you were calling the phone company?

Help is one of those thankless, dirty jobs that only the steeliest have the stomach for in its current configuration. I see it as a ripe opportunity to leverage 2.0 as a means to a measurable improvement for all involved. The benefit of change here does not end in happy employees alone. Increased productivity, reduced down time during issues, and reduced load on traditional help systems are possible if a plan is designed with humans in mind. If you are actively pursuing or supporting 2.0 in your organization be sure to consider how help impacts adoption. Few things turn off a user faster than the frustration of not knowing how to do something combined with an inability to get an answer quickly. Am I help desk bashing? Nope. I’m intimately aware of the supporting processes of help systems, their brittle complexities and fragility. They rely on fantastic communication flows, complex integrated systems and teams that don’t often actually integrate. They strain against scale and usually those who suffer most are the employee customers and front line help support (not necessarily in that order).  So, what are the options? How can you build trust, efficiency and success across a jaded help culture? Consider the cliché:  There’s no tier three support for YouTube. No help desk for Foursquare. Yet we use them. A lot. I observed a friend get cross when, after more than a dozen check-ins with no competitors, he was still not the mayor of a particular site on Foursquare. When he vented to his community on Twitter, he quickly got the answer to the problem. Of course you aren’t the mayor. You haven’t added an avatar picture. Duh. The clear response is second nature in online social circles outside the firewall. Not as much inside the firewall.  As 2.0 makes its way inside this is changing. But 2.0 tools and community won’t be the only way to get support. Scale alone makes community as a sole help support mechanism impossible for even the largest companies, but it is a vital element of a living help system. We need to plan our evolution to include community and reliable help information to grow beyond our dependence on a singular service desk. There needs to be a connection to the social intranet with a plan to support goals for real change. This dictates that architects and operators of current help systems look closely at employee opinion. That self-critical analysis, the hardest cultural change for many, needs to become norm. The sheer existence of social systems on the inside will make this easier to initiate, and initially harder for those delivering support. If you work at a large organization, consider the last time you heard someone praise the help desk. Negative messages on the intranet can be tough to take, but you can’t change what you can’t see. So, how can an organization build a bridge to better help? What about the existing investment in help systems? We’re not going to throw out what’s been deemed a working solution (though I tend to think working is a kind description). Simply adding a wiki to a help system isn't enough. There's a broader story to tell. I see a way forward in a concept I call the Help Stack, a framework for integrating social elements into existing help and community management systems. Where traditional help meets social, community, and SME help inside the firewall.

I’ve talked generally about the Help Stack in presentations in the past. I’ve spoken to the idea of layering these elements to build that bridge. Over the next few posts I’ll be fleshing out specifics around each element of the Help Stack. I'll be talking about potential challenges, the tools that support it, and roles needed to get the job done. So stick around. More on this soon.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I finally got to catch Sameer Patel’s talk from the E20 Summit in Milan (only mostly jealous). I thought he did a fantastic job of wrapping up the story of organizational social competency (he usually does). It’s that story I wish I could simply plug into the C-Suites of the world… “I know kung fu” style. Were it only that easy. Listening to Sameer’s talk I had a moment of alignment. I’ve been telling the competency story to a different audience from a different perspective for a while now. I’ve been teaching employees and community managers how to answer very real questions about true operational change on the inside. About how tools should work to support the needs of the users before the needs of those supporting/delivering them, and how leaders and teams can truly work in open spaces. These are evolving organizational social competencies. The how-to story is becoming clearer. As social competencies evolve, transparency shows us that not everyone has command of a set that works for them.  We’re all still trying to figure out how much of ourselves we give to the open spaces and in what context, especially considering the shifting nature of our relationships with services and the privacy controls they offer (cough: Facebook). The need to mature the organizational competency is no different. Sameer spoke of honestly looking at processes and operations, each little detail, to discover which  elements should be embraced and which should evolve. I completely agree that this investigation is vital to making sense of all things social. It’s how we must evolve as self aware organizations. A pragmatic assessment is vital  yet can be so easily overlooked or paid lip service to. A willingness to lift up the rocks and see what’s crawling around beneath is needed if there is any hope of sustained success. I see a focus on competencies as a major step in bringing understanding to the uninitiated and the resistant. A way to peel away the misnomers and assumptions that have bubbled up with each negative Facebook story or joke about blogging hipsters. There are many layers of detail that could, and should be added based on individual organizations and cultures. I’m beginning with a 50k ft view to keep things clear.  Internal to an organization I see it broken out by role and focus:

• Organizational Competencies, or the identified proficiencies the organization agrees to demonstrate to employees, customers, community and market
• CXO Competencies, or the identified proficiencies executive leaders agree to demonstrate to employees, customers, community and market
• Employee Competencies, or the identified proficiencies employees agree to demonstrate to colleagues, leaders, customers, community and market

Identified competencies are usually reflective of the business model or mission, and include a basic set of core values; the prescriptive description of a company culture (not to be confused with the actual network of cultures that exist in large orgs). In many environments those values are used as the baseline measure for employee review. They usually include subjective elements such as collaboration, communication, or respect. Employees may be lucky enough to get a few specific examples of what these elements really mean as they plan career path within an organization. The thing is, these measures in their current states almost perfectly support a transition to an open social space. Social basically already exists there. It’s correlation and clarity that seem to be missing in the haze of social buzz. The confusion seems similar to that of the behavioral norms of participation. “How do I get people to contribute?”, “What if someone posts bad/non-compliant information?”, “What should my answer look like if a junior employee challenges me?”, “ What if I/they/we do something wrong?” My first answer to any of these questions is usually: How would you handle it in the hallway? We have the answers we need to sort it out. We simply have to unearth the rocks, draw lines, and make sense of it in a way that honors culture while educating and stewarding forward motion. We have to intervene when the reaction becomes emotional and help our orgs build specific competency sets we can use to identify a way forward in education, in tool evolution, and in our innovative use of the medium. So if we have all of this information in front of us what does it look like? Here’s a starter stab at it.

Social use competencies from the tool perspective

Linking - are links proliferated? are conversations linked to relevant documents and resources? Leveraging the connections the tools afford – are connections (friending/colleaguing(?), linking conversations to documents, participating and contributing to communities, etc. Tagging – are contributions tagged? will the contributor add tags to content that “does not belong to” them? Ranking/feedback – does contributor offer input regarding the content or tools? Generally, understanding how contribution and use impact discovery. Using the best tools for the job – does contributor understand the different strengths of social tools? (we know the difference between a phone call and an email, why would understanding the difference between a discussion forum and a blog be different if the org has provided the education?) Protecting content that actually needs protection – does the contributor understand and abide by the security needs of the organization as their education and orientation offered? Do contributors understand basic copyright, attribution, technology export, worker union, or other applicable compliance laws? Finding information using the tools available – does a data gatherer spam email groups with questions before searching or crowd sourcing an answer through a social mechanism, or by leveraging search for answers?

Social interaction competencies from the behavioral perspective

Participant or Lurker – are valuable contributions being made (value can be defined in spectrum: as simple as a complete profile to proficient tagger or bookmarker, or prolific documenter) Lurkers do have and get value from social systems, however due to volume differences from www to org, you really should educate and encourage as few lurkers as possible. You cannot force, but you can educate to get the best contribution possible. Communication – are responses made in a way that leaves space for conversation, is the contributor welcoming of other opinions, do they know well enough to not be a troll, or how to ask for information needed, do they know when to shut up and stop talking about themselves? Are they able to respect colleagues online as they would in the hallways? Can they demonstrate respect in their use of the medium? ( btw, any of these items should have been taught with the telephone, meeting room, water cooler, parking lot… I think you get my drift.. in short, if it’s being measured as an interaction skill now, online application should be used as example.. think of how many represent themselves with a very different voice online.) If an organization is willing to define a set of measurable values, social should be a clearly represented and therefore easily measured. The measure can offer insights into the social make up and maturity of the culture. Let’s go a little deeper and revisit competencies from a role perspective.

From the organization layer, it’s time to understand what’s really working and what’s really not. Sameer’s point about the work we’ve done to deflect our customers through automation, and generally supporting the org vs. the customers, and perhaps employees, struck a chord with me. Not because I’m toiling in a quarry somewhere…  I know corporate dwellers across many organizations who feel that they don't have a trusted relationship with their employer (I am not one of them). I don’t think I’m unearthing any new concepts there. Shouldn’t trust be something we aspire to, or better yet, expect to participate in? Mutual respect and a general sense that we have each other’s best interests in mind, even if we do reside within a large org? I get that the idea is a big one. I also try to shoot for the right thing regardless if it’s the norm or not. A large organization willing to take an honest look inside is a special one. This work won’t be easy and it won’t be for every organization.

At the CXO layer a specific set of operational social competencies should be clarified. The prevailing notion that social proficiency = leader blogging is damaging at best. Non-participating CXO’s are missing out on volumes of vital business and organizational intelligence, as well as meaningful affinity with a workforce embroiled in their own work/life perspective shift (millennials, remote work, the rise of a worker-as-entrepreneur culture). The basic lack of operational knowledge is an expensive operating cost that too many organizations gladly assume.  Some clarity around the notion that growth doesn’t = more demand on an executive’s (or employee’s) time is needed. The reality is that growth demands greater efficiency, proficiency and social competency. It will be required to lead amidst evolution. Isn’t that what leaders have been doing since the dawn of time? In my view, participation at the CXO level should at least include some base level of engagement in the social channels. Involvement in conversation beyond organized appearances creates opportunity for employees and customers to build trust, align to/comprehend where the business is going, and allows leaders the vital feedback they need to avoid simply believing their own press releases. It takes guts to be an enterprise leader. We get that. It takes real bravery to be a leader in the open. We’ve got work to do there.

The Employee layer requires a solid set of social competencies to deliver on the promise of E20. Increased efficiency, emergence, trust, discovery, engagement…  Education and reasonable accountability for actions that can place the organization at risk are the ying to the yang of more open spaces and trust. It’s a two way street. Employees  also have to understand how to represent themselves in public social spaces as they would in a meeting with a client or a new colleague. Stories such as “nice wand” (my personal fav) have crossed many an executive desk and create an emotional reaction fast. If you want to carry a wand you’d better understand how limited profile works.  Employees also carry the added responsibility of self advocacy. This can be demonstrated in their choice to engage with leaders, the organization and colleagues in the open spaces. Think about what we used to call networking as engagement. It's a whole new story. Remember, this is a 50k ft view.

Every organization will have their own cultural norms, policies to abide by and conclusions to arrive at. The idea here is that it will require some honest organizational analysis to get to the right spot, and that right spot will move over time. If you were tasked to create a competency model that included social business tomorrow morning, what would you include? What resistance might you meet? How would you sell it? Eager to hear your ideas.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »