Archive for Culture
by Bill Ives
February 8, 2011 at 3:20 am · Filed under
Collaboration, Communities, Culture
This is the third part of my notes from the Hyper-Social Summit sponsored by the Human 1.0 Network. It is based on research conducted by Francois Gossieaux of the Human 1.0 Network and Ed Moran, Director of Innovation at Deloitte. I will highlight some of the key findings that were presented.
There was a wide range of companies involved in the study: 22% had revenues over 1 billion and 32% had revenues under a million. The smallest group was the 500 million to 1 billion revenue group which accounted for only 2% of the sample. Within the sample 56% were considered B2B, 23% B2C, 9% were nonprofits and 2% were government.
There was also a range of experience with 14% having communities up for more than three years and 24% less than 6 months and fairly even representation in between. The size ranged from 26% less than 100 members to 11% with over 50,000 members.
Francois pointed out that the dynamics of pilot will be different than a large scale implementation so be careful with pilot results – 53% did pilot and 47% did not. A community can be successful either way. Many piloted their external communities internally so the results might not be relevant on many levels.
There was a wide range of objectives for the communities: 50% served marketing research, 46% were PR related, 45% had branding objectives, 43% provided thought leadership, 39% supported reputation management, 32% provided customer support, 28% provided lead generation, and the same number supported knowledge management.
Marketing was by far the most function engaged in the development of a community with participation in 79% of the communities. Next, was IT at 37% and sales at 36%, followed by knowledge management at 22% and legal at 17%. Similar results occurred for community management with 53% marketing, PR and community development at 11%.
These results suggest a strong external focus and that was the case with %*% externally focused, 10% internally, and 28% hybrid. Within the external and hybrid communities 81% were customers focused, 49% were prospect focused, and 37% were partner focused.
There was often a mismatch between goals and implementation. There can be too much marketing focus when non-marketing goals have been generated. Related to this finding, there have been too many programs around products rather than audience.
The objectives considered most successful were: generate more word-of-mouth 40%, increase brand awareness 27%, increase customer loyalty 25%, bring outside ideas into the organization 24%, and improve customer support quality 23%. The least successful was to increase sales at 22% of the respondents. At the same this was the leading measured used for success at 38% followed by increase leads at 33% and generate awareness at 28%.
Success factors included: ability to connect with like minded people 50% and ability to help others 45%. The findings stressed the importance of social factors for success and secondary importance of other incentives.
The biggest obstacles were getting people to engage 66%, getting people to come back 42%, and attracting people 42%. The number of active people varies as to whether you can rely on user-generated content. Only 25% deployed external people to develop content and 65% did have internal people develop content. A big factor is the level of passion. However, a community should still have some professional generated content to seed it and direct it.
The investment were mostly modest with 68% spending less than $50,000 a year on the community and 16% between 50 and 200k. Most community were managed by employees 84% and only 8% out sourced. The investment in management was also modest as 51% have less than one FTE and 16% deploy 1 FTE. Looking ahead, 50% plan to increase investment and 45% stated than the level of investment will stay the same. Looking at what types of investments will increase they found that 85% will increase time, and 68% will increase funding. In addition, 68% will invest in content development and 58% will increase their marketing efforts for the community.
These trends indicate that companies do perceive they are getting value from the communities as only 5% plan to decrease investment. However, communities are still primarily driven by marketing goals and some are really marketing programs with little social components or focus. There is often a disconnect between objectives and success factors. The companies are missing the value that can be derived from strong leadership as only 45% indentified leaders within the community.
While there is some success, there is a lot of room for improvement by injecting a greater social focus into the communities. This is very consistent with then theme of the event. It is the human much more than the technical that will make a community work. Communities will be a major component of company’s success going forward. The winners will realize that these are human networks and act in this framework. There is much opportunity and much room for improvement.
by Matthew Hodgson
October 9, 2009 at 8:12 pm · Filed under
Communities, Culture, Web 2.0
For some decades now, workforce planning has been an inportant part of strategic thinking in our organisations. It ensures that we have the right skills, knowledge and abilities to do what we needs to do. But with technological advances penetrating our workplaces at an alarmingly rapid rate, offering web 2.0 solutions to increase worker productivity, collaboration, communication and social learning in order to capture and share organisational knowledge, what are the generational factors and the technology influences we must now take account of in planning for both our current and future workforce?
In the 70s we employed Baby Boomers and with them the values of hard work, family, the need to address gender equality, and a demand for participatory democracy in the management decisions of the organisation that resulted in today’s trend toward less-hierarchical work structures [1]. While they represent 30% of the population their values are the foundation of today’s management practices [2]. Their attitudes and behaviour toward technology largely reflects a generation who know and understand the use of the telephone and television as marketing and communications tools but whose views of computers and the internet reflect beliefs that these new technologies have negative effects on productivity and business [3]. As a result, they use technology less than other generations, from personal computers to mobile devices [3], and with the advent of social media are less likely than others to create content and are less involved in sharing their knowledge and experience through writing blog articles or creating videos and posting them online [4].
These adoption factors have serious consequences for the tech savvy Generation-X and the often labelled ‘Digital Natives’ of Generation-Y. For if Baby Boomers are the managers setting the agenda, casting doubts on the security and value of web 2.0 within the workforce, and limiting its penetration, they may be responsible for creating a workplace alien to the needs of those generations who will replace them as senior managers of our organisations. We see this picture emerging most typically in government organisations. Web 2.0 tools essentially equips workers with tools to create and share knowledge, but its adoption faces cultural hurdles by conservative Baby Boomer workers who see knowledge as power and therefore have vastly different attitudes towards collaboration in the workplace [5]. For many Baby Boomers, web 2.0 symbolises a loss of control and a sense of inferiority when they compare themselves to their technically fluent younger colleagues particularly given the collaborative and open nature of web 2.0 tools, such as wikis for example, eliminate the public service’s command-and-control structures because even people working at the lowest levels of an organisation have direct access to executives [5].
The truth of the matter is ultimately that 76 million Americans will retire over the next two decades. Only 46 million will be arriving to replace them. Most of those new workers will be Gen-Yers [6]. If we are to take workforce planning seriously, therefore, we must plan for a workplace in which Baby Boomers leave behind a legacy — open, transparent, collaborative, and technology rich — suitable for the generations who will follow. One in which the gext generation of senior executives — Generation-X — will thrive in and Generation-Y will want to be a part of.
M
- – - -
1. Cohen, W & Simons, J. 1995. A new spin on the economy. US News and World Report, p54-55.
2. AARP, 2004. Baby Boomers Envision Retirement II
3. WorldOne Research, 2009. LexisNexis Technology Gap Survey
4. Owyang, J. K. 2009. How To Reach Baby Boomers With Social Technologies. Create And Sponsor Social Content And Allow For Their Voices To Be Heard. Forrester
5. Hadar, G. 2008. Managing the enterprise information network. Fed Web 2.0 Reaching across generational boundaries.
6. Gelston, S. 2008. Gen Y, Gen X and the Baby Boomers: Workplace Generation Wars. CIO Magazine, 15 Feb. Online at: http://www.cio.com.au/article/205772/gen_y_gen_x_baby_boomers_workplace_generation_wars?pp=2
by Celine Roque
October 6, 2009 at 2:34 pm · Filed under
Culture
I chanced upon some people discussing the changing nature of work and how we seem to lag in addressing it, even with the little things. For example, in Outlook 2007, we can mark our status throughout the day so that other people would be aware of our availability for meetings and other tasks. Right now the only options are Busy, Tentative, Out of Office, Free or Outside of Working Hours. For the common office worker, this system is sufficient. However, as more and more people are working in their homes, on the road, and other off-site locations either part-time or full-time, this creates a few problems.
It’s all a matter of perception and expectations. “Out of Office” becomes misleading when teleworking is part of the equation. You could still be working even if you’re not in the office, perhaps accessible via phone, Skype or instant messenger during office hours. This confusing status may cause colleagues to think twice on asking you their urgent inquiries, set meetings or work with your on collaborative projects.
If you say you’re “Busy”, meaning you’re working, will they assume that you’re at the office and stop by your cubicle to find you’re not there? Is telling them you’re “Free” for a certain period inviting complications? If you’re scheduled to attend a meeting, you might be expected to talk to the boss face-to-face. Questions could be asked requiring data inaccesible to you off-site, or you may be asked to perform a task using a resource-intensive program that’s impractical unless you’re using the powerful office workstations and connected to a fast broadband line. All these could be avoided if expectations have been set correctly with clear status labels.
At first glance, the problem seems trivial, but we’ve already seen that it’s not. Technology is changing the way we work, and we need to adjust our tools to reflect this. Suggestions were made to create a new category “Working from Home” or “Working Off-site”, the latter probably with an additional text field to indicate location. Do you have other ideas? Please write them on the comments section below.
by Patti Anklam
September 1, 2009 at 2:24 pm · Filed under
Culture, Learning, Management, social media
Today’s juxtaposition:
Fish (@nytimesfish) argues for the importance of teaching English composition as a vital requirement for success in any profession. Happe is thinking that it’s hard to fill senior positions because many people who are skilled in social media lack experience navigating large organizations.
One of the questions these both raise for me is the effect of social media practices on our ability to think and communicate, and especially the need to be able to construct models of thought. Dr. Fish provides a wonderful example of how he teaches the “neither/nor” construct, not as a “rule,” but as an experience of learning the pattern. Similarly, I think that the ability to navigate large organizations comes from time spent experiencing the territory.
What is the experience, what are the learning patterns being developed as laptop-toting students express themselves using shorthand? Yes, they (and we who tweet, blog, and befriend) are learning to cope with fragments and put those pieces together. Yes, I believe that the primarly new skill of management is the ability to manage complex sets of interactions and set up boundaries and spaces for possibility to emerge. And yes, I know that the trajectory of my own career experience is based fundamentally on my ability to write.
by Celine Roque
August 24, 2009 at 9:39 pm · Filed under
Culture, social media
What do people really tweet about? Is it what they had for breakfast? Is it the latest breaking news? corporate marketing? Do people talk to each other or do they just throw random stuff out there? Pear Analytics sought to answer these questions once and for all.
First, let’s look at the demographics. A previous study by Quantcast showed that Twitter reaches 27 million people every month in America. Of these, 55% are female, 43% are between 18 and 34, 78% Caucasian, and with an aaverage household income of $30K-$60K. A dedicated one percent of all users are responsible for 35% of the visits, 72% are passersby, while only 27% are regular users.
Pear’s methodology involved random sampling of the public timeline. Every weekday for two consecutive weeks from 11:00am-5:00pm, they took a look at 200 tweets – or a total of 2,000 tweets in 10 days. These were grouped into six different categories: News, Spam, Self-promotion, Pointless Babble, Conversational and Pass-along Value.
The result was that what they rather derisively defined as Pointless Babble comprised the biggest share of tweets at around 40%. This includes random musings and shares things without necessarily looking to get anyone engaged in a conversation. Coming in at a close second with 37.55% is actual Conversations. These are made up of @replies and questions that seek others to share their own thoughts. Pear Analytics says that if the sample size were bigger and the polling was held longer, these two categories would probably even out.
Pass-along Value, or retweets, came third with a far lower 8.7%, while Self-promotion (corporate marketing and the like) was at 5.85%. Spam came in at 3.75% and lastly 3.6% was mainstream-type News. According to the research firm, “We thought the News category would have more weight than dead last, since this seems to be contrary to Twitter’s new position of being the premier source of news and events. Self-promotion was also less than expected, [which] may be enlightening to some folks, as there appears to be a flurry of companies and businesses joining Twitter to promote products and services.”
Another interesting result from the study was that the best time to go viral with your tweet is to send it on Mondays, preferably at 11:30am CST. Meanwhile, news peaked around 2:00pm on Tuesdays. Conversations, on the other hand, really get going in the afternoon, and more so during Tuesdays. Pear surmises it may be due to people trying to catch up with work in the morning and on Mondays before freeing time to tweet for fun. Sadly, spam tweets are constant every hour of the day.
Pear Analytics will regularly repeat the study every quarter to spot emerging trends. I do hope that in the next iterations, they’ll be able to include weekends, expand the hours, as well as increase their sample size considerably.
by Celine Roque
August 14, 2009 at 8:12 am · Filed under
Culture, Web Commuting
Coffee shops have long been favorite workplaces for freelancers and telecommuters. They’re convenient for those who need a meeting place, crave a social atmosphere, or just want to have a different view other than the four walls of their house. However, the recession has seen some patrons ordering less – sometimes getting a single cup of espresso but working on their laptops the whole day, enjoying the free WiFi. Owners are taking notice, especially in New York where space is a valuable commodity.
The Wall Street Journal reports that some owners have seen people bring their own tea bags and avail of the free hot water. Others eat sandwiches they brought along with them. Barely surviving in this fragile economy, a few NY coffee shops are forced to restrict electricity and WiFi usage to free up seats. Lunch and dinner time are particularly sensitive hours as owners are anxious to cater to the influx of hungry, well-paying customers. In some locations, there’s a laptop ban on the busiest days, and still others go through such lengths as placing a padlock on their electrical outlets.
The plight of shop owners is understandable, though some might object to their methods. Regulars need to be more conscious of their behavior so they won’t be deemed abusive. It can still be a win-win situation if owners and patrons recognize and respect each other’s needs. Shops can also take a cue from Starbucks, which offers WiFi access cards for a fee, or think of other creative options. Not all telecommuters are freeloaders, and I’m sure quite a few would be willing to earn their seats.
For those who can’t afford it, perhaps it’s time to look for alternatives. Why not try the park, the mall, the bookstore, or the public library? You might also take this opportunity to re-decorate your home office so it will look inviting for you to work there. Sometimes, even a little cleaning and organizing can do wonders.
by Celine Roque
August 14, 2009 at 8:11 am · Filed under
Culture, Distributed Work, Scenarios
Last week, I read an article on Engadget about the imminent death of the PC, saying that “PCs are simply getting too complex, difficult and expensive for most consumers to master and maintain.” The author never defined what he meant by PC, so let me take Wikipedia’s definition and share my thoughts on the subject.
“A personal computer (PC) is a generic name for a general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user, with no intervening computer operator.”
Nowadays, the term applies to a myriad of devices. Desktop computers, laptops, and even some smartphones are essentially PCs in various forms. Computers used to be purely office machines that took up a whole room, and now they are small enough to fit in our pockets. I don’t think that PCs as we know them will die out anytime soon (though it’s also unwise to say they’ll go on forever), but they will continue to evolve and diversify in order to better serve our various needs. It’s fascinating to think about how all these changes will affect the way we work in the future.
What will happen when computers shrink to a size small enough that we can carry them on our key chains? What if smartphones become competent enough to also serve as a desktop when paired with a monitor, keyboard and mouse? Is a shift from stationary to mobile platforms for the enterprise feasible? To what extent? And what role can cloud computing play in this? How will software change in response to hardware? And what role will the Internet play in all this when 4G’s speed and coverage comes along?
In thinking about technology as we push it to it’s limits, we should not forget that we, the users, also have ours. There’s only so much detail our eyes can detect no matter how you increase resolution. Keyboards that are too small can become very uncomfortable. A typical office worker doesn’t need the power of a gaming rig just to create spreadsheets.
If you could nudge technology one way or the other, what would you like to see? What would make your work life better?
Older entries »
Thought...
