TakingAIIM

ECM and Web 2.0 Impact Social Impact

I stand at an intersting point of intersection. Web 2.0 technology progresses, providing more and more flexible and impactful ways to collaborate. Social impact approaches are emerging that focus on being collaborative, innovative and taking a systems approach to the definition, strategy and delivery of social change.

Whether by chance or deliberate action, instances of social computing positivley impacting the execution of philanthropic causes continue to surface, shedding light on the potential power of each, and more importantly, the heightened effectivness realized. A recently published report, commissioned by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations Foundation, and Vodafone Foundation Technology Partnership, appropriately titled, Disaster Relief 2.0, examines both the current and potential future impact of Web 2.0 technology on humanitarian disaster response. The challenge facing those working for social cuases is not unlike that facing virtually anyone sle, determining how best to leverage social computing. As one of the authors of the aforementioned  report, John Crowley, research coordinator for crisis dynamics for the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative stated, “We have the opportunity here to take advantage of the situation [new social computing tools]… If we do it, we can adapt faster, respond faster, and respond more efficiently.” 

Read on to learn more about recent advances in the use of technology and social impact.

A Great Big Dollop of Secret Sauce on My Face: Culture and ECM

I’m Back.  Yes,  I know it has been many weeks since I have blogged (and my Twitter activity has been a bit anemic as well.)  Dan and I are eyeball deep with a major, challenging and amazing ECM and KM consulting gig.  We are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel though. Much progress has been made, but the organization has a long way to go – at least concerning ECM and E2.0.

It’s as if they pulled a Rip Van Winkle and let the ECM and E2.0 technology world move on without them for the past 2 decades. But I am not throwing stones. To the contrary – in spite of this, the company is very successful, thriving, growing, and highly respected as a leader in its industry.  This fact is humbling, because it reminds the ECM and E2.0 zealot in me that there is so much more to success than technology.  Oh, I know that I, and many other industry analysts have said this many times – but here I am engaged in a textbook case of just how unimportant technology can be.

Their secret sauce- it’s no secret. I have talked about it before as well, it’s corporate culture, and the way this company permeates it all the way down the employee chain. It’s this organization’s greatest asset, IMHO, and it is so powerful that, as I said, it keeps the company successfully buzzing along despite a gap in ECM.  (I can only imagine how things will take off when the “lubrication” that ECM provides is injected into the wheels of business.- There's that ECM zealot again.)

Most of you are probably familiar with the graphic (below) that I often use to describe KM as the alignment of business strategy, people/culture, processes and technology. I know that I have said before that culture is the most important among these, In fact that was the focus of my presentation at this year's  E2.0 Conference.   But I think that I have never really appreciated just how powerful and important people/culture really is until now. And so, I just don’t say it again, but SHOUT it (and eat a bit of (ECM) humble pie) “Culture is far and away the most powerful of the components.”   My client has taught me that really great culture can more than adequately make up for a dearth of technology.

Oddly enough, this reawakening came at a time,when Dan Keldsen, among others, got involved in an online debate/dialogue with Susan Scrupski – of 2.0 Adoption Council fame.  The debate provided a mirror reflection on my awakening. Susan was lamenting that Apple and Trader Joe’s are examples of most successful companies, that do not practice the mantra of E.0 – transparency.  She stated “Truthfully, there are many, many successful companies that do not subscribe to a culture of openness and sharing, much less transparency....” Susan went so far as to label Trader Joe’s as  “anti-social.”(See why the debate ensued.)

Susan, the secret sauce is not your prescribed “E2.0 transparent culture.”  The secret sauce is "any" healthy corporate culture – and quit frankly you do not know what their corporate (i.e., internal) culture is. (Is that what is bugging you?) That is their secret sauce – and likely a smattering of technology in these cases as well. But just as I am sometimes too over zealous about technology –culture zealots sometimes miss the point as well. There is not one best way to “do culture”. Transparency and emergence are not the only traits of a healthy culture, nor do they necessarily guarantee success by themselves. Indeed, Scrupski’s 2.0 Adoption Council is a very much closed community. I am sure that within its firewall there is great collaboration and transparency, but they do not share all they know and discuss with “everyone”, nor do they allow just anyone into their community.

The 2.0 Adoption Council is likely the same as Trader Joe's and Apple. While I have had a chance to consult with Apple  – I have not had the opportunity to work with Trader Joe's – though I am a loyal customer.  Do not underestimate the value, and QUALITY of the internal culture of thee organizations. Are they "transparent and social” with the general public - maybe not, but they got it right nonetheless.

Ripe culture does not mean always open, transparent and fully customer driven. The secret sauce of internal culture sometimes is just that – a secret.

Facebook & Privacy - Still Off Balance

Only two months ago I blogged about another confrontation between Facebook and users' rights to privacy. At that time I quoted Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg as stating, “The company [Facebook] treads a delicate balance between protecting privacy rights and promoting social networking." 

Well apparently he still is off balance. Over 100 million Facbook user ids, including passwords, were published. The person responsible, a 3rd party security specialist, Mr,. Ron Bowes, may have had the right intention - but to subsequently publish the information on BitTorrent - I am not sure what that was all about. 

The related issues of privacy, security and records management in this 2.0 world are in the spot light more and more. As I have blogged and presented before, the interplay between access and transparency, and security and privacy is the ultimate design decision of E2.0, knowledge management and ECM systems alike. Earlier today I blogged on e-mail management violations in Boston City Hall. At last month's Enterprise 2.0 Conference, I presented research on how private enterprise are dealing with privacy in a 2.0 world. 

It is clearly one of the hotter topics - and one that this industry has got to get right - hopefully soon, less there be a sacraficial lamb that finally forces the issue to the limit.

E2.0 With FAME Will Come Obscurity

Last week the Enterprise 2.0 Conference was held right here in my hometown, Boston MA. As usual, the E2.0 community was abuzz with Twitter (#e2conf). But, now, with the show a happy memory, many of us attendees reflect more deeply than 140 characters allows, in our blog posts. The blogosphere is ripe with conference coverage. Among them I recommend those from Sameer Patel, Jacob Morgan, Rawn and Ron Miller. I will refrain from sharing observations that are redundant to theirs – except in cases where I think redundancy will add to the power of the message. So that said – here goes. in keeping with tradition, I have rolled-up my impression of the conference into an acronym. This year the conference is characterized as

FAME

OK, to explain the acronym - lets start at the end;

E is for ENERGETIC

More so than ever before, I could not help but feel the energy level of the crowd (Yes crowd, this may have been the most popularly attended E2.0 conference yet), as the spilled out of sessions and milled around the hallways. MAybe it was all that fine Starbucks coffee that was being served - but I think not. Read on... Now, back to the beginning;

F is for FUNDED

I came away with the impression that most of the attendees were not there for theoretical or introductory eduction - but practical insight on how to succeed with Enterprise 2.0. Most seemed to be working on real and funded programs, (Which likely was the root of the aforementioned energy level). I could not help but pick up on this during the various Q and A sessions and one-on-ones that I had. Indeed, for the first time in 2 years I walked away with no less than 3 real leads – i.e. individuals seeking proposals for targeted consulting.

A is for APPLICATION-focused

The conference responded to the attendees' focus on real-world issues with a nice mix of case studies, all focused on the leveraging of E2.0 functionality to specific business applications - many presentations in the form of real-world case studies. My favorite was a group of three panelists all discussing how innovation was managed as a process within their respective organizations, partially based on collaborative software. Innovation Management was a popularly discussed business application at the conference, overall, including 2 of the keynotes. The crowd was also coached several times by those pioneers of E2.0, the 2.0 Adoption Council members. Their experiences are always a conference highlight. Lastly,

M is for MATURE

This is perhaps reflective of the other letters in the acronym. Presentations were far more grounded in real-word examples, workshops were provided by industry veterans, and attendees came seeking practical advice to move funded project forward. The market has matured. Both of my presentations focused on implementation issues, each illustrated by real-world examples. The first looked at how culture impacts the implementation of E2.0. (Download slides) My second presentation, based on a study done with the 2.0 Adoption Council, provided insights into deploying E2.0 in a controlled environment (in this case focusing on privacy issues in the European Union).

Esecurity e202

View more presentations from Carl Frappaolo.

In the presentation I broadened the definition and scope of E2.0 (See slide 4) – positioning it within an integrated Enterprise Content Management (ECM) strategy. (ECM – at least the way I define it.) In the end, I would have to say that Maturity was the big take away for me this year. In fact, as I was presenting E2.0 and Privacy it struck me, and I stated, that I believe the success of the E2.0 show – characterized by the maturing of its focus and audience, will be the demise of the show or at least the label Enterprise 2.0. Typical of many nascent technologies – they are couched in definitions and frameworks that position them as business applications. I draw the analogy to imaging. Circa 1990 imaging was discussed as if it were a business application. People spoke in phrases such as “we do imaging”; "I am the manager of our imaging application" . It may seem odd to think of scanning technology as a business application, as opposed to a way to create and share content within business applications – but I assure you that was the case. Imaging too had a trade show built entirely around it – less we forget that AIIM stands for the Association for information and IMAGE management. The focus, attitudes and energy surrounding E2.0 are changing. I do think that the success of E2.0 will be the demise of the conference, as we know it. But this is a good thing, and it is actually critical. In its nascent state the market focused on E2.0 as an application: "Does your organization have an E2.0 project, budget, leader/champion?". This will fade into obscurity as we realize you don’t "do E2.0", . you leverage this genre of capabilities to facilitate and strengthen and redefine business applications. This was perhaps foreshadowed in the subtext of this year's conference title, "Business Powered by Collaboration." I give the conference 2 – 3 years tops, before it either fades into history, or morphs into something related – but bigger. This is not a reflection on the show, but market maturity. In fact once again, Steve Wylie and crew are to be congratulated for their skillful orchestration and attention to detail. The show was a huge success, but with success will come obscurity (and likely something bigger and better.)

2.0 is a Balancing Act, "Oh Really"

It's likely you have been following the pressure Facebook has been getting concerning its privacy policies. The pressure seems to be working, as Facebook recently announced it will change its approach to privacy and make it easier for users to protect their personal data. This has been an on going battle. I first commented on the need for better controls in Facebook 3 years ago, prompted by the then reaction of Facebook to privacy violations related to its Beacon advirtisements. At that time I commented that “mature” uses of 2.0 (especially those that take the form of Enterprise 2.0) have to address the issue of privacy and learn from established corporate practices concerning responsible content management. Here it is three years later and Facebook is in a similar situation, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is still resisting the demand to do the “right thing.” While the ability to set privacy controls within Facebook has “been made simpler,” defaults are still set to "open." The ability to disable the mining/access of personal profiling by marketers is still “not that simple.” Sure, Zuckerman is moving in the right direction, but he is going kicking and screaming, one small step at a time. But enough critisism on that issue. You can read the many articles and commentary out there, and determine for yourself if Zuckerman and Facebook are doing enough. In this post, I want to focus on one of Zuckerman’s recent quotes in particular. In commenting on the struggle between social computing and privacy, Zuckerman stated, “The company [Facebook] treads a delicate balance between protecting privacy rights and promoting social networking." When I read this quote – I could not help but think of Seth Meyer and Amy Pohler on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update: “Oh Really.” I have stated for years that as the adolescent we know as "2.0" matures, it will become a bit more cognizant of the realities of the real world – for many reason. The issue of balancing access and security is not new, nor unique to 2.0. I have been describing ECM as such a balancing act for over a decade. I first developed the graphic above over 10 years, as a way to explain how to approach an ECM strategy. At the top a grayscale bar represents a continuum between control/secure and collaborate/innovate. This is framed under the competing business practices of risk management and knowledge management. This is the highest level design decision you must grapple with when controlling any and all forms of content - social content included. Depending on the context and the point in the content's lifecycle, the balance between security/privacy and access/collaboration need to be treated perhaps differently, but always proactively. So, come 2.0 GROW UP. Social computing – open, transparent emergent platforms – sure they are powerful and should be exploited, but you cannot throw caution to the wind. It's time for social platforms to take responsibility for what they create - whether inside or outside the firewall. Inside the firewall, there really is no excuse, not to address this issue head on. The concept of balancing access to content against security is the focus of the IAI Primer: "Enabling Collaboration While Managing Risk." (Free download) The issue is also addressed from many angles in a series of IAI Primers on Enterprise 2.0. (Free download) I also recently authored a study on behalf of The 2.0 Adoption Council, sponsored by NewsGator, entitled, "Implementing Enterprise 2.0 Within the European Union: Transparency and Emergence vs. Privacy and Compliance." I will also be addressing this very issue head on at the upcoming Enterprise 2.0 Conference in Boston, on June 17, in a presentation entitled Implementing Enterprise 2.0 in a Controlled Environment: Lessons Learned. Want to hear more, and/or debate this point with me? I hope you can attend the talk, (Thursday at 9:30 AM). If you cannot make it, stay tuned, I will be posting my slides and the reaction I get from the audience in an upcoming post - promise.

Content Security and KM "D'oh"

OK, I admit it. I do not spend all my weekends sitting around thinking deep ECM and KM thoughts. I enjoy hanging out with the kids and indulging in some mindless TV watching. Its amazing though how the KM/ECM geek in me will sometimes connect the two – mindless TV and ECM/KM that is. Last night I was wrapping up the weekend watching The Simpsons with my 2 daughters. Sure, occasionally there is a poignant message or two – usually lost on the kids. But in last nights episode there was a strong and important message directed right to every KM, ECM and E2.0 manager. Intentional or not – it was there and you did not have to think to deeply to catch it. The Simpsons find themselves in Machu Pichu (don’t ask why – its not worth it). The narrator is explaining the significance of the site and states something along the lines of “This great civilization built a great wall around its people to protect it from the outside and keep their culture pure. But great walls also lock out knowledge, (Seriously that is the word he used.) and as a result the Incas were not adept at understanding the rest of the world or dealing with change. When the conquistadors appeared they were confused, ran and were destroyed.” OK – you all got it right? “But great walls also lock out knowledge.” (Yes, the historical accuracy is off here - but the tie to ECM, KM and E2.0 - nonetheless poignant and worth reiterating.) “But great walls also lock out knowledge.” I spared my kids the thought that popped into my mind, “EXACTLY and that is the mission of every KM, ECM and Enterprise 2.0 manager”, to manage the BALANCE between security and collaboration. It is a topic I have spoken, written and blogged about many times. IAI published a primer on this very subject. I am currently in the process of working with Susan Scrupski, and members of The 2.0 Adoption Council on this very issue. A group of the Council members who had to deal with strict privacy laws in Europe could have taken the “Machu Pichu” approach and erred on the side of security. But in the interest of collaboration to support agility and innovation, they worked a bit harder and used techniques and technologies to strike a clever balance between security and collaboration. Sure – some of us may look at such approaches and say “D’oh”, or even “Duh”, but far too many have yet to really embrace this balancing act as the primary focus of long term success in the world of Knowledge Management, ECM and E2.0. If you haven’t, I again invite you to read the primer on Content Security, and the 2.0 Adoption Council report when it is available next month.

Making Blogs More Transparent Angers Bloggers - Huh?

An article in today's Boston Globe, reports that a new regulation will compel bloggers to disclose any affiliations or gifts they have received. As Web 2.0 matures, it will be more regulated. This is an issue I have blogged and spoken about many times before. But what makes this article even more interesting to me is the reaction of bloggers. In this case the regulation actually seeks to make blogs more transparent - exposing any and all connections between the author and another possibly conflicting interest. The article states "Beginning today, bloggers, Twitterers, and others who write online reviews or endorse products ... must disclose it when they receive free merchandise or payment for writing about an item." Ah - disclosure - full transparency. This is a good thing - right? Web 2.0 zealots have long pontificated that the 2.0 movement is grounded in transparency and openness. And yet, in this instance they are "unhappy" with a ruling that makes their sites even more transparent. Oh the irony. As previously stated, I have many times before blogged about the need for responsible use of Web and Enterprise 2.0 technologies, including the strategic leveraging of security, control and yes full-disclosure. As Web 2.0 matures, perhaps many of its zealots will have to mature as well and realize that in many cases their writings are not random ramblings but real business content, which needs to be responsibly managed and accurately positioned for what it really is. The article is really worth a read. The commentary and arguments from bloggers are telling and at times almost amusing.

Nothing Virtual About Virtual Distance

Today I had the great fortune to attend the Center for Information Management Studies (CIMS) program at Babson College. I almost didn’t go – having just returned from the Enterprise 2.0 conference, I was feeling a bit “full” of talk on collaboration and technology. But luckily three things coerced me into attending.

1. The event was being produced by Kavin Moody of CIMS, who I had worked with a few weeks back on a similar symposium at Olin Innovation Lab (Olin College of Engineering), and was impressed with the group and his work.

2. The speaker, Karen Sobel Loeski was highly recommended by my colleague Joe Wehr, whose opinion I respect and value greatly.

3. The topic was just a bit left of center – Leading the Virtual Workforce. So I decided to go. WOW – OMG am I glad I did. Karen Sobel Loeski was not only a dynamic, engaging and entertaining speaker, but her message was fascinating. As those of you who follow my work know, when I address collaboration and knowledge management audits I utilize an 8-dimension model. Using a variety of techniques I measure the effectiveness of (and obstacles caused by) these 9 facets.

In performing these assessments leadership style is assessed - as part of team structure, communication and structure. But, Karen’s work focuses deeply on leadership. While I pontificate on the value of leadership and best practices in leading collaborative teams – and the need for a different approaches when teams are virtual – Karen actually has come up with something called the virtual distance, an approach by which one can measure the reach or gap that exists amongst a virtual team. I will not go into her talk and work in detail here. I recommend that you buy her 2 books – really. I will summarize my favorite points.

1. The need to address the issue of virtual distance is critical in this era of Enterprise 2.0. One of the biggest value propositions of E2.0 is the ability to support and facilitate effective team-based collaboration regardless of time and distance between team members. This is empowering, but as we migrate to a virtual workforce, we need to realize that the approach and role of team management needs to be adapted. All too often we hear that E2.0 is about collaboration without leadership, anarchy, and the destruction of business management. Karen (and I) averts that this simply is not so. Teams – virtually any team (no pun intended) - begs for leadership – of some sort. The leader of a virtual team faces different challenges and requires different sensitivities and skills but is as critical as a "traditional" team leader.

2. Although typically associated with geographically dispersed teams, virtual distance can occur between 2 people sitting in the same car (you had to be there to appreciate this comment). Virtual distance is a cognitive and psychological distance as well as a physical distance. Karen provides a 10-dimension model to assess the virtual distance of a team. The Virtual Distance Index^TM

3. Glocalization of our workforces has changed many issues for business – not just leadership style. We need to reexamine how we evaluate the value of our workers and the work they perform. ROI models steeped in “cost/time of widgets produced” models simply do not work any longer. Karen offered many great examples; one: Adobe Reader makes no money directly for Adobe, so it has no value right? – We all know the answer is “wrong” – it is “new value”. Although “its not about the technology” – technology is changing the economic models of the past.

Interestingly enough, I was speaking with Michael Idinopulos of SocialText the other day. SocialText provides a host of services (including assessments) along with their E2.0 technology, because (as a virtual company themselves) they appreciate that the value derived from technologies that enable virtual collaboration and teaming is only maximized if the culture AND LEADERSHIP associated with the technology usage are specifically adapted to leverage the technologies and the environments they create. Michael addresses the issue of "leaderless collaboration" very well in his post Transparency, not Anarchy. I think part of the reason we are having such a difficult time getting through this transition is partially based in our lexicon. Perhaps we need to think of another term for technology-enabled teams and collaboration that transcend time and distance. We call them virtual - but there is NOTHING virtual about them. They are very real, and they are very powerful. I'll wrap this somewhat lengthy post up by stealing a quote from Karen's presentation - she quoted Albert Einstein "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."

of

Enterprise 2.0 San Francisco - ER Sums it Up

Last week, like hundreds of others, I attended the Enterprise 2.0 Conference in San Francisco. In this blog post I provide an overall impression of the conference, that in-turn lends insight into the state of the Enterprise 2.0 market in general. After attending the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston last June, I blogged that for me, the show came down to an acronym – CIT, which stood for Culture, Innovation and Twitter. This time the conference is summed up in an even shorter acronym – ER. No I am not referring to the popular use of ER as in Emergency Room, inferring that the show needs resuscitation – FAR FROM IT.

Read on ...

IT meets KM meets E2.0 meets Innovation in the Boston Subway

Yesterday I was preparing for an Innovation Management training session I will be doing later this week. The sponsor, after reviewing my credentials asked “How you make the leap from information and knowledge management to coaching/developing innovation
skills?  … Your background seems to be IT.”

I provided what I hope was not too lengthy a response. In essence it stated that I view Innovation management as a fully ingrained component of KM, and IT as a strategic facilitator of both. Its interesting, but to many friends, family and colleagues my background appears disjointed. To me it is completely synergistic and intertwined.

Well, this morning I saw an article that pulled it all together. (read on and access the article.)