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.

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.

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.

Do You Need to Pick Through Garbage to Find Valuable Content?

It has been weeks since I blogged, or even Tweeted on a regular basis. Where have I been? Dan and I are on the road, consulting on a very complex, grand and most interesting ECM project. A Fortune 100 company that remains successful and growing in spite of the economy, has managed to achieve such greatness without benefit of a formal Information Architecture and ECM strategy. This project has been the focus of our time and attention of late. The challenge is great and the potential opportunity huge. We are dealing with a large and diverse collection of content in various stages of maturity, quality, accuracy and accessibility. The organization readily realizes that years of ad hoc, manual and individual approaches to content management have resulted in a nearly chaotic collection of content and processes. Many issues exist, from a need for enterprise search and a centralized taxonomy, to strategies for content distribution. But a fundamental issue is the state of the collection of content itself. Among the many repositories, valuable content resides amongst dated, ambiguous, unapproved and at times contradictory content. A critical decision has been made to clean up the content repositories before addressing findability. The merit of beginning with the establishment of search and taxonomy, under a series of UIs, and using these to expedite the discovery of dated and inaccurate content and subsequently deleting it was debated, but a fundamental decision was made not to expose users to the “garbage”, but rather, first authenticate and clean up the content and subsequently use the findability tools to expose an “official body of quality content.” But I am not blogging today simply to relay this experience. While deep in thought about this situation, I heard a news story that brought this decision point to mind, and ignited in me a chance to blog about the BP oil “spill”. (Hey its not a spill - it’s an underwater gusher. Let’s call it what it is.) Despite many strong opinions about this disaster, I have refrained from blogging about it because the charter of my blog is ECM. Last week’s news, however, gave me my excuse to express opinion about this disaster, ala ECM. BP is using a form of ECM and Web 2.0 to control public opinion. They have hired “reporters” to write about the “spill” from a “more positive” perspective. These “reporters” are using phrases to describe their experience watching the clean up effort such as: “...enjoyed the spectacular ballet at sea… dolphins swimming around us. Even a shark came along to watch the show.” (Watch the show? Try struggle to survive, in disgust? And what's with "ballet?"). They have also reported that “... hotels have been prospering because so many people have come here from BP and other oil emergency response teams.” According to other independent, i.e non-BP owned sources, this is simply not true and the local tourist trade is seriously hurting. I keep my outrage and disgust about this entire situation in check – the point I want to raise here is this, if left unchecked and un-managed, garbage such as this could potentially be retrieved as “fact.” Content authentication and source identification are critical to a comprehensive ECM strategy. Internet and intranet sites alike have the potential to provide access to a wealth of content, but can contain “garbage” among the “jewels”, garbage as rank and lethal as the oil “spill” itself. (OK I snuck that in.) Consumers of content need to be diligent in filtering garbage from “fact”, or be assured, as is the case with our client going forward, that systems are in place to control publication. I am not advocating censorship, but ECM systems need to provide some approach to quality control, tailored to the scope and needs of individual situations. Fact checking, authority and credentials of authors, and/or providing clear and blatant identification of authorship are all steps that can be taken to at least let the reader decide what is content and what is “garbage”. In an earlier blog post, I directly addressed the need to authenticate content – of all types. As an issue fundamentally critical to any and all collections of content – especially those that are “findable.” In another earlier post I commented on the irony of bloggers who were “unhappy” with a regulation that compelled them to disclose any affiliations or gifts they received in connection with their blog writing. I have to say that at least in the case of BP, authors are identified as “BP Reporters”. So at least the potential is there for the reader to use a garbage filter on the consumption of content. – In the absence of content quality controls, such as those being implemented by my client, readers must beware.

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.

Context is King and ECM-based BI is the Keys to the Kingdom

Yesterday I tweeted (@carlfrappaolo) about a Boston Globe articleEndeca. I was going to let it go at that; congratulations Endeca for getting the attention of the Sunday Globe and for having the popular press cover the fact that search is more than just findability and Google, that search can be used as a form of business intelligence (BI).

But then this morning, serendipitously I heard a story on NPR about the dramatically changing world of television watching and the impact that is having on the services provided by Nielsen. For decades Nielsen has had a monopoly on this market; reporting on the “popularity” of television programs based on eyeballs on TV sets at a particular time. This data is extremely valuable because it provides potential advertisers with insight on how much a spot on a given program is worth, and to which audience.

But television watching just isn’t what it used to be (echo newspapers and magazines). Television content consumers have alternative ways to access content (e.g.TiVo and Hulu) via alternative viewing devices that include smart phones and laptops, to name just a few. (I know my kids are forever watching TV without the TV on.) The viewing audience, including the way they view is changing. Nielsen customers (i.e. advertisers) are demanding that Nielsen keep pace and monitor these viewing habits. The television ad market is not dying - it is morphing and as a result is potentially more valuable. Through ECM-based technologies, it is possible to compile BI on multiple consumer habits, at unprecedented levels of granularity. In the case of television viewing, for example, not only what viewers are watching, but also when, where, what was skipped, re-played and shared. As Nielsen's president Steve Hasker put it. ""We'll be able to tell what type of video they watch, what type of sites they go to, how they interact on those sites, what they buy on those sites, what types of news articles they're reading." That is BI at a far lower and wider level of granularity than Nielson provides today.

Now think this new proposition through. Advertisers, using more ECM-based technology (e.g. e-publishing and DAM) advertisers can deliver more personalized and granular messages, in a timely manner – ads in context. Yes, once again, CONTEXT is king, and BI is the keys to the kingdom. ECM is at the foundation of great new opportunities and challenges for organizations. I recently completed an article for Ron Miller in which I focus on the circle between ECM, KM and Innovation Management. This triumvirate will soon become a requisite to remaining competitive in virtually any market. The article discusses this concept in some detail, more than here. Here, I draw attention to the tie between Innovation Management and ECM (in that order). In a phrase: get innovative with ECM. As highlighted in this blog post, the integration of new content types and new means of content distribution and consumption, coupled with new approaches to BI creates amazing opportunities; truly personalized real-time publishing, contextual publishing and a constant loop of feed back (including web 2.0 emergence) that allows the content provider to continuously fine-tune the presentation and make-up of content. The future for advertising and marketing is ripe with positive change, and ECM is at the foundation of this.

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

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.)