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.

Flipping Over Content Delivery

 
Readers of my work know that one of my more favorite aspects of ECM is content delivery. Along with mobility, the ability to re-purpose modular "chunks" of content in a variety of formats and contexts significantly enhances the value derived from ECM, increases the effectiveness of communication and quite frankly is just plain fun.

I have blogged about the concept often over the last few years, and originally began writing about it more than 15 years ago.  Many never seemed to quite get it - but slowly over the last few years more and more apps have emerged that clearly demonstrate the value of dynamic content delivery.  The latest is a free app known as Flipboard.

Flipboard  is a personalized digital magazine, created by culling social media and content pertinent to the reader.  This is the future of publishing, and it will take off - of that I am sure.  But do not just take my word for it.  Flipboard has received many great reviews, and commentary , that like this post, positions Flipboard not just as an iPad app, but another step forward in dynamic content delivery.  Initial reaction has been so positive that the provider had to ask for patience with potential early "blips in service."

- My point, I am not enamored with Flipboard per se - but am very excited to see yet another well done app come to the market that helps all of us experience the power of dynamic content delivery. Merge this with DAM and multimedia and the possibilities for new more effective ways to communicate are endless and the boundaries of ECM are stretched once again. 

Oh yeah, the ECM nerd in me is again having a very good day.

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

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.)

It Ain't the Medium Its the Message or - Its the Content that Counts

In 1964, Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase " The medium is the message."  I have often quoted McLuhan in my writings and presentations, in agreement.  But, I fear far too many take his message the wrong way, which can and has lead to serious repercussions.

Yesterday I was watching a video podcast interview between two colleagues.  Both will remain anonymous.  Who they are is not important.  Their posture and what they said are important. Both are noted industry advocates in the ECM and Enterprise 2.0 space. Both provide advice to the market, which is what concerns me. One of them made a statement that was simply naive and misleading, and the other one did not correct or modify it.

My angst is grounded in the further worry that history will repeat itself, and not in a positive way. The interview was focused on the use of collaborative social technologies in an Enterprise 2.0 setting. The comment made that caused my concern - and I paraphrase - was that many enterprise users are using tools such as Twitter (Twitter was specifically mentioned in the discussion),  without any real thought as to the management of the content created.

There were two distinct points made that were misleading - possibly downright wrong.

1. My colleagues casually pondered who will "own' the content and if indeed it will be considered subject to discovery. I believe that the courts, at least in the United States, have already ruled on this. As I stated in an earlier blog post, in a class action suit regarding patient/individual privacy rights, the courts ruled that content in "FaceBook, MySpace, instant-messaging threads, blog posts and whatever else the plaintiffs might have done online" was discoverable. The plaintiffs' objection that this violated the plaintiffs’ privacy was shot down. These tools and their content were viewed as public, not on a private network, but the public world wide web. Who "owns" the content.  Apparently Twitter, in the example given by my colleagues, and, Twitter content is "public" content and therefore discoverable.  There should be no speculation about this. 

I believe part of the reason these individuals got it wrong was that they confused Web 2.0 tools with Enterprise 2.0 tools.  This is an issue that also caused frustration for me and Ron Miller during the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference, an issue we both blogged about.

2. The second statement that caused angst was the more serious one.  In further discussing how and why organizations should take a proactive approach to managing Twitter content (again - I am being liberal here in accepting their example of Twitter as an Enterprise 2.0 tool, my commentary is more focused on Enterprise 2.0 content - not public-based Web 2.0 content),  a statement was made that organizations need to take a specific look at the Enterprise 2.0 content and develop a management strategy specific to it.  A comment was made along the lines of "You should not want to apply the same rules and policies to the Twitter threads that you do your contracts."  WRONG.  As stated in the title of this blog post, it ain't the medium it's the message.

This perspective and advice was the same naive opinion that got too many organizations in trouble with e-mail.  You should not have a different management policy for e-mail, or blogs, or microblogs. The medium or format should not dictate policy (other than acceptable use of the tool of course). It is the content that matters no matter what format or tool it was created in.  My two colleagues made somewhat light reference to "Twitter streams" as if they could not really contain any mission critical content.  This was the same way many felt decades ago when e-mail was emerging as an "unofficial and casual" means of communication.  If commentary regarding contract terms (sticking with their example) are made in a Twitter stream then they should most definitely be subjected to the same policy and scrutiny as the contract - just as any relevant and related e-mail is now subjected to e-discovery.

Do not trivialize Twitter or any other form of Enterprise 2.0 and Web 2.0 created content.  The tools used do not determine the value of or discoverability of the content - the content does.

Enterprise 2.0 – It all came down to CIT

Last week the annual Enterprise 2.0 Conference was once again held in my home town, Boston. Of course I attended. How could I not; hot topic, personal and professional interest, and the show was within walking distance from Information Architected headquarters.

Like thousands of my colleagues, I came, I saw, I commented. 

So, why has it taken me so long to blog about it? Well, in addition to the usual – “I have been busy” excuses (truthful as they are), I also am learning how to balance microblogging and blogging. My more prolific than usual use of Twitter while at the conference kept the burning need to post an entire blog entry at bay. I am beginning to learn the complementary nature between Twitter and blogging. But more on that later.

Let me start by stating that some excellent commentary and insights have already been posted via Twitter. If you missed them you can retrieve them via the tag #e2conf. Additionally, there have been some very insightful blog posts form friends and colleagues such as Larry Hawes, Doug Cornelius, Oliver Marks , Stowe Boyd, Ron Miller and Bill Ives.

So the purpose of this post is not to rehash the comments I made in Twitter, or to restate (most) of what has already been documented in the blogs I listed above. Here, I share a very high level summation of the event.  I have pondered in retrospect what it all came down to, for me and can summarize it in an acronym – CTI.

CTI? - read on

ECM Means Business

More than once I have blogged on the emergence of ECM as a specialized obscure practice within techno-geeks into the limelight of critical business applications. In my last blog post ("ECM It was the Best of Times, it Was the Worst of Times) I discussed how according to popular news sources, ECM was responsible for radically redefining entire industries such as newspaper publishing, leaving a wake of unemployed people and extinct businesses, but also at the same time promoting innovation and giving rise to new industries and burgeoning business models.

Today, in perusing The New York Times Business Section, I was again pleasantly impressed with the degree to which ECM makes business news. On page one (continued on pages 3 and 7) for example, the Times reports that Google is getting into the e-books business with a mission to take on Amazon and Kindle.

On page 4, The Times covers Google Wave, a "latest" Enterprise 2.0 application. (OK the Times may over state the value of Google Wave (see commentary on Dan Keldsen's blog), but ECM is nonetheless being covered in this reputable high profile business periodical. On the same page, Plastic Logic, a Kindle rival is also introduced, and e-heath records are positioned as a clear technology winner in the government's economic stimulus package.

Page 5, covers the Hearst Magazine's strategy for successfully balancing paper-based and web-based magazine publishing.

Page 6 includes an article about an author who used Twitter to test works in progress. Based on collaborative feed back the very first sentence of a novel was changed - amongst other edits. The eventual publication, was then specifically formatted for publishing on Kindle.

WOW - that's a lot of ink in one Business section devoted to ECM.  OK, maybe the articles do not directly draw the correlation to ECM, but the topics they discuss: e-publishing, dynamic content delivery, e-ink, digital paper, online collaboration - are topics ECM veterans such as myself are well familiar with, and have been heralding the power of for many years. With the broader business community now catching up, this should spell a bright future for ECM practitioners. Business executives hopefully will now better understand these concepts, and want to further explore the powers and capabilities of ECM technologies within their domain, to drive new business models, increase innovation, streamline costs and processes, increase effective communication ...

As I said in the last blog post, "this glimpse into what ECM can/will be is nothing short of amazing. I dare anyone to view this and tell me that we are not experiencing "the best of times." Indeed, to further quote Dickens, "we had everything before us..." 

But only those that "get it" will be able to leverage these capabilities before they morph from competitive advantage to simply a cost of doing business. Building such strategies is what we at Information Architected do with a passion - simply because it is so powerful and fun.

IAM ALERT: OpenText to Acquire Vignette - Are They Out of Their Bloomin Mind?

Information Architected Market Alert (IAM Alert):

Today OpenText announced plans to acquire Vignette. (See press release.)

On one hand this move makes sense.  OpenText has clearly been on a growth through acquisition strategy, and this move is aligned with that.  As I blogged about last January, Tom Jenkins, OpenText Chief Strategy Officer and Executive Chairman, stated that OpenText was positioned to be the first ECM company to achieve $1 billion in revenue.  With the acquisition comes the revenue and installed base of Vignette. 

But, unlike other acquisitions made by OpenText, (e.g., acquiring DAM technology via Artesia) with this acquisition there is little to no gain in functionality.  The overall value proposition of OpenText remains the same.  With Vignette, OpenText acquires redundant capabilities.  OpenText was the first document management solution to embrace the internet and thus provide WCM.  They strengthened this offering with the acquisition of RedDot.  So what, technically does Vignette add to the OpenText toolset?

I cannot help but think OpenText would have been better off exerting the time, energy and cost behind this effort, with a campaign to go after Vignette customers (and those of similar waning solution providers) and make them a "deal they couldn't refuse." This is similar to what Interwoven did to PC DOCS customers years ago.

The ability to assist customers with such a migration plan is in keeping with the OpenText BLOOM strategy.  Wouldn't Opentext have been better off leveraging BLOOM in this way?  Instead, now OpenText has yet another technology platform to support or build an integration strategy for. At least short-term, OpenText will  have to keep Vignette's product line intact.

Technically, what is the OpenText strategy? Vignette only makes the company's technology strategy more complex and confusing. Open Text already has a mix of  of .NET, C++, and Java technologies. With Vignette they add a J2EE-based system.  And for what - redundant capabilities?  Is this a poor leveraging  of the BLOOM strategy?  Is OpenText out of their Bloomin mind?

E-medical records: Follow Prescription to Avoid Potential Side Effects

Earlier this week in the Boston Globe, there was a front-page article that focused on a subset of ECM, electronic medical records. As I read the article I wondered if its author knew how much was being said "between the lines"?  While the focus was on e-records, it spoke volumes beyond that to me.

OK - lets start with the focus of the article.  Apparently, a Mr. Dave deBronkart, a "tech-savvy kidney cancer survivor", accessed his online medical records from Beth Israel Hospital, and transferred them to Google Health.  This Google App, allows users to centrally store their e- medical records to facilitate  sharing.  The  Google App also provides related services, and in the case of Mr. deBronkart, it went perhaps one step too far.  It provided an automated diagnosis, informing Mr. deBronkart that his cancer had spread to either his brain or spine.  WRONG.

The article critiques the accuracy and viability of e-medical records. WRONG. Once again technology is being blamed for poorly thought out processes, lack of a complete strategy and misappropriation of technology. Yes, I am a bigot - I am a firm believer in e-medical records (just about e- anything actually), but only with the caveat that implementation needs to be preceded with a well thought out strategy, careful roll out and governance.  

If you want to better understand how Google Health did what it did, read the article. Whether you read the article for details or not, realize that what went wrong here was Google taking technology too far, without a strategy or governance, and boldly going where Google has never gone before - and perhaps is not qualified to - dispensing medical advise - which is a far cry from collecting and making available medical records. Sure, the two services are related/complementary, but the credentials and skills to do one do not directly map to the other.  This isn't the first time Google has overstepped its core competencies - see my earlier post. In their enthusiasm and rush to provide SaaS-based/Web 2.0 business apps, many providers, in this case Google, often step too far. The article, in my opinion does not point to the shortcomings of e-medical records, but rather the mistake Google made in trying to mashup medical billing data with automated diagnosis. Google is NOT a medical expert, and thus should not be dispensing medical diagnosis or advice, not without the proper partnerships/expertise, governance and testing. Although the risk of what Google has done in Google Health is more profound,the cause and effect is the same as the company that allows "any user" to mashup billing data and customer support databases, automates processes without taking a deep look into how the current process really works (as opposed to is supposed to work), or enables the use of blogs and twitter without "aligning" the usage with marketing, branding, records management, security and other related business practices.  As technology such as mashups make it easier for "lay people" to create applications and create or expose content, the tendency is to think that strategy, vetting, testing and alignment are no longer necessary. Build it (its easy) - they will come - and if it breaks - fix it.  In some cases, as this article illustrates, this "new" approach to real-time beta testing can be far more costly in the long run.

That said, I also believe that some blame lies with the consumer.  I recall debating with colleagues during the advent of the Web, the risk that was posed by enabling virtually anyone to be a "published authority".  A common topic, interestingly enough related to the Globe article, was, "What if a web site dispensed medical advice (from an undisclosed 10 year old),  which proved wrong and detrimental to the user.  Who, if anyone is liable of "malpractice?"  Web users need to be more diligent in verifying the source and credentials of web content.  Some of my readers may recall a blog post I made 2 years ago entitled "Are You for Real?", that explored this issue in greater detail, and used as an example a website that appeared to be an authoritative source on the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but upon diligent investigation was uncovered as providing content originally created by a white supremacy group. 

Is Google really the place to go for medical advice?  A place to store records - maybe (if they can get the security right, an issue also under debate),  a pointer (i.e. query tool) to potential medical advice yes, but "the source" of medical advice - no - not yet.

Lastly, I should mention, in case you missed it, that last week I blogged about a debate between Dr. Jonathan Oberlander and Dr. John Halamka , the latter an e-records practitioner and the CIO of Beth Israel Hospital ( the original source of the patient's e-medical records).  Dr. Halamka is quoted in the Globe article, and he blogged on it (worth a read).  Dr. Halamka states that " I'm working with Google to evaluate the impact of sending our existing free text problem lists instead of billing codes. It will reduce the number of features available to patients, since Google's educational materials are based on billing codes, but it may be more informative to patients to see the text their clinician wrote, not the diagnosis on the bill. Showing problem lists is what we've done in Patientsite for 10 years." - Exactly - Google through ignorance of medical billing versus diagnosis, and lack of planning and strategy, is responsible for this unfortunate event, not e-medical records created at Beth Israel.

As I stated in my last blog post, KM, Enterprise 2.0, collaboration - no matter the focus, there has to be a strategy in place or the risk of getting it wrong is too high. While the focus of the last post was on potentially getting the business model wrong and underestimating the required effort, in this post, I broaden the risk associated with poor planning and lack of strategy to include potentially rendering a most erroneous end state.

Most infrequently is technology to blame for failed KM, collabortion and ECM projects, yet it is all too often the focus of the blame.  The blame lies not with the technology but the lack of strategy, planning and misappropriation of technology.

Web 2.0 the 21st Century's Office Water Cooler - That's Good For Productivity Says New Study

I have blogged in the past about corporations that have blocked access to  Web 2,0 technology from within the firewall under the belief that all that "twittering" and "socializing" was a distraction and drain on productivity.  Well, a study done by the University of Melbourne found that using Web 2.0 software during the workday, both for "entertainment/distraction" and research can actually boost productivity. 

I have to admit I do not necessarily find the study's results overwhelming ( those that use the internet experience a 9% increase of productivity.)

What I find interesting about the study is that it "re-proves" what those in the KM practitioner world have known for some time.  These social tools serve as a stress relieving distraction in addition to sometimes providing potentially serious business networking and research.  Web 2.0 is the 21st century's office water cooler. The water cooler effect within organizations has always been recognized by KM practitioners as a potentially, often very valuable asset to an organization.  The office water cooler (or bowling team, smoking area ...) allow users to network in an informal manner, to share "off the cuff", and in the process potentially provide insights, spur creative thoughts in others, and build tighter social ties (read - trust and an increased inclination to collaborate).  Many of the Web 2.0 tools (and Enterprise 2.0 - within the firewall) provide basically the same type of fertile environment.  True to the strength of web-based systems, they do so with greatly increased reach.  I know I for one find Twitter at times distracting - but more often a great way to link up with others with similar interest and insights - dynamically throughout the day - and literally from around the world.

Sometimes studies such as this one uncover what we already know - but offer "proof" for the rest of you who need further convincing and/or further proof to convince your management. So, I hope this helps.