Collaboration Calculus

Why is it so difficult to incorporate new collaborative processes and tools into an organization?  I’ve recently been observing a small team in a Fortune 500 company as they wrestle with this Calculus is the study of change...question.  They have the necessary tools at hand, plenty of technical knowhow, and they uniformly express a desire to build community within their geographically dispersed team.  But they are still struggling to get things moving.  What more could they possibly need?

Collaboration initiatives fail for a variety of reasons.  The problem is typically multifaceted and unique to the situation.  However, I believe there is a central theme that can help break down this complex equation.  In short, collaboration requires participation.  My friend and colleague, Joe Moran, recently postulated in a discussion forum on Cisco Community Central at cisco.com a key principle that he calls the Participation Theory.  He set this up as a simple equation that I think gets to the heart of the matter.  I’ll let him describe it here:

Ultimately, I think participation in any activity is tied to what I like to refer to as the: Participation Theory (PT).  Broken down simply as:  

Likelihood of Participation (LoP) = Reward / Effort

Now, of course that oversimplifies things immensely because the perception of Reward (R) and Effort (E) will vary significantly from individual to individual.  Ultimately, I think if we spent enough time we could come up with a core set of variables that would serve as common inputs to determining the weight of each factor.  Perhaps basing it off of Utility Theory or other like decision theories.  Of course we would need to factor in global variables which widely impact a given population, such as everyone within an enterprise.

However, in its simplest form when LoP > 1, we participate.  When LoP is < 1, we don’t participate.  If LoP = 1, then participation may be intended, but follow through is not certain.

So, the Reward must be greater than the Effort required to participate.  When true, collaboration happens.

Sounds simple, but if you read the follow-on comments in the discussion, you will see that there are a variety of other variables that make up R and E.  Things like Inertia and Availability and Awareness and Time to name just a few.  Continue reading

Going Viral in the Enterprise

SisyphusHow can you tell if you are succeeding in your campaign for adoption of new enterprise collaboration tools?  How can you define that magic moment when you can breathe a sigh of relief and say “That’s the tipping point.”  Metrics maybe?  Sure, they are important, but for me it’s when some idea goes viral on your network.  Viral, like the Old Spice guy or the BPGlobalPR twitter feed, but inside your organization.         

More about that in a minute.  First, it’s obvious that user adoption for collaboration tools is becoming a hot topic.  Rightly so.  Even with all of the transformational capabilities at our disposal – wikis, blogs, microblogging, social networking, folksonomies – and the money we are pouring into them, we are still held captive by the ” inertia of the inbox”.  Try as we might to espouse and adopt the benefits of social media or web conferencing we still find ourselves caught in lengthy email threads with a dozen or more people – most of whom wish they weren’t on the CC list.  Personally, as a Collaboration Solutions Architect, I am overwhelmed by a sense of irony (or hypocrisy depending on my mood) every time I exceed my inbox quota.  Solving this is a huge challenge and opportunity.  The benefits are apparent but not easily measured.  I’ll write more on User Adoption in a later blog, but until then I highly recommend you look into The 2.0 Adoption Council.   You should also see Gil Yehuda’s blog and his white paper titled “Framework for 2.0 Adoption in the Enterprise“.         

Angry GooseNow, back to the importance of going viral.  The first time I experienced information that “went viral” was in 1997 at a major pharmaceutical company.  (The term “viral” actually meant something entirely different in that time and place!)  A visionary in the IT department sponsored a system on the intranet for idea collection and harvesting.  Continue reading

“Social” Perspective on the 2010 Enterprise 2.0 Conference

Raise your hand if you attended this in 1994.

I give it a B+.  That’s my initial reaction when people ask about my first trip to Enterprise 2.0.  I always grade conferences based on my level of enthusiasm when I leave.  I’ve been to some conferences that scored “C” or even lower.  I once awarded an “A+” for the Second International World Wide Web (WWW) Conference back in 1994. I still have the T-shirt and, yes, I know it’s sixteen years old and should be in the rag bin.   

Dozens of people have already blogged extensively about the E2.0 conference. Their articles range from overviews of the whole event to notes taken right on the spot during the conference sessions and keynotes.  By and large they’ve done a much better job than I could, so I’m not going to waste precious keystrokes repeating them.  I will, however, provide a list of some of my favorites at the end of this article.  Instead, I’d like to entertain you with some thoughts about the “social” aspects of the conference.  By “social” I don’t mean social networking or social media or even the very social IBM boat party which, I hear, was quite the event.  I’m talking about how the leaders in the field of “social computing” – movers and shakers in the industry – act and interact when they are put in close physical proximity of one another.     

First, let’s look at the demographics. While the ballrooms echoed with the term Millennials (another name for Generation Y), actual sightings were extremely rare. I would even say that the GenX-ers comprised only about 50% of the audience (if any of you have real numbers, I’d love to hear from you). The rest of us were Baby-Boomers or, as Rick Ladd so aptly named us, the BooMillennials – Boomers who adopt the best practices of the Millennials. What can we read into this? I can only speculate, but here are some possibilities:        

  • In these cost-constrained times, the older you are, the more likely you are to have a travel budget – or a huge number of frequent flyer points.
  • Millennials don’t value physical conferences. They do all of their meeting online and create sardonic vlogs about the “old folks” who feel compelled to travel.
  • Hopefully and importantly, there are a lot of Boomers who understand the value and importance of this new way of working. They recognize that organizations must evolve to embrace these tools and practices to invigorate collaboration and innovation. Fortunately, many of these BooMillennials have achieved positions of respect and authority in their organizations. They nurture the seeds of change.

https://markeggleston.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/062310_1546_socialpersp3.jpg

https://markeggleston.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/062310_1546_socialpersp4.jpg

Millennial

BooMillennial

My second “social” observation was the new dynamic of presentations. Up to now, presentations have generally been Continue reading