Exploring Motivation for Web 2.0

Even though it’s the interim between finishing a submission for Enterprise 2.0 and starting another one, I’m still compelled to write a blog. To continue the theme of previous blogs exploring Enterprise 2.0 adoption, I’d like to explore why contributors do what they do.

Being a long time member of www.smashboards.com, I’ve seen people collate and research ludicrous amounts of data about the video game the forum is based around. Data that requires sophisticated recording software and techniques, as well as community developed tools, all just for credit. Even I’ve put in to help manage and maintain resources for the sake of being helpful to the community.

People seem to have an incessant desire to make a mark. People have knowledge, useful knowledge, and they wish to be recognised as being the person who contributes that knowledge, disseminates it amongst the masses. It’s not unlike the scientific community, where research papers are published and scientists are granted credit, which in turn leads to greater roles and better resources.

This is where Web 2.0 can begin to differ. Web 2.0 grants us the knowledge of the crowd, multiple users coming together and creating a resource. Wikipedia is a prime example. Buckman writes that ‘Like scientific communities, contributors to Wikipedia seek to collaboratively identify and publish true facts about the world’. However, Wikipedia articles don’t finish with any creditation to its writers.

Instead, contributions to Wikipedia are linked to you. You’re able to prove your worth merely by contributing to what is already available. Wikipedia contains a system allowing authors to talk and discuss different articles, leading them to being to recognise community leaders and top contributors. These people can even go on to become administrators given enough community support.

Similarly, www.smashboards.com has a post count displayed under your name and avatar next to every post you make. As well as this, custom user titles and user groups are assigned to users as their participation is recognised. This, along with a public view of your contributions helps sustain a sense of achievement as users contribute to the forum.

Humans, with their inherent desire to achieve some level of greatness or accomplishment, will contribute as a user of Web 2.0 without much more incentive than mere recognition. The issue with Enterprise 2.0, is finding a way to translate that desire into something people are willing to integrate with their work.

I’ll admit that some of my blogs lately have been more abstract, and this is probably one of them. In the coming week I plan on blogging about some Enterprise 2.0 platforms in addition to the weekly activity for INB346. Any suggestions?


Anthony Smith


Implementing Enterprise 2.0 – Integration and Assimilation

A follow up on one of my latest blogs; a perplexing dilemma with Enterprise 2.0 exists when you consider many common problems with implementing new processes into an organisation. The big one is simple resistance to change.

Schmaltz sums it up quite nicely, pointing the finger at barriers including:

1) applications not part of user’s workflow
2) time effort > personal value
3) complex applications

To elaborate, the biggest reasons why a user may not take to an Enterprise 2.0 tool is that the application does not fit in with the traditional way of doing their job. That the effort they put in using the 2.0 tool does not equally reward them with value towards completing the work they do, or that the applications are simply too complex to use.

Christoph Schmaltz systematically highlights a number of barriers between an organisation and the successful implementation of Enterprise 2.0 technologies, discusses possible solutions to these ‘problems’ and suggests a solution to nurturing the adoption of these tools.

Put simply, Schmaltz explains that Email needs to be viewed and implemented as an important part of implenting 2.0 – citing that interactivity needs to exist between the two because companies are already heavily email oriented, as are their employees. Schmaltz also analyses a number of common Web 2.0 tools and suggests means of integrating Email.

I’ve found this mode of combing 1.0 and 2.0 technology to be quite effective. For at least a year now I’ve been used to receiving automatically emailed notifications from google groups to say that somebody has made  a new post or a new thread on our google group space.

Maximising what can be done from the email is important too. Facebook’s capability to ‘reply to a comment in an email with a reply should be expected in other 2.0 tools such as wiki’s as well. It simply quickens the process and simplifies that situation. I enjoy this situation for both google groups and Facebook.

The idea here is that we’re resistant to change. but it can be swayed with this careful assimilation of technology that ideally, should be embraced by everyone. I must admit, I’m a little skeptical – this can’t be the only technique employed to encourage adoption – however, integrating email services has definitely worked for me.

Intel Inside (Social Media that is)

So this week’s lecture was from an industry expert in IT Corporate Law named Malcom Burrows. It’s a shame really because I was only able to catch the 2nd half of the lecture (the first half clashing with my Business Process Modelling lecture). Still, I managed to catch up quickly with the slides and readings and now here I am buzzing about with thoughts that I need to be more careful in my job as far as social media goes. I’m a civil servant as well as an IT professional, so it’s something to always be weary of.

Intel employees are no exception it seems. A social media strategist by the name of Ekaterina Walter was recently interviewed by socialmediaexaminer.com’s Michael Stelzner and had some pretty interesting insight into what Intel does in terms of its social media strategy. It seems like they’re really enthusiastic about it. Their employees really reach out to the community through channels such as their facebook page, and try to connect, entering into dialogue with people asking them questions, and making them feel heard.

So it also sets Intel up as a nice case to study as far as social media risks are concerned. As one would imagine they have plenty to worry about with their professional image, industry secrets and all the things kept in between that would cause a headache for a lot of people if things went awry.

Walter played a large role in developing Intel’s Social Media Guidelines. And it seems to address a lot of the concerns organisations face in terms of Social Media Sites.

The policy addresses Intel employee engagement with the community, recommended positions and guidelines for which Intel’s employees and social media practitioners must abide by when making comment on organisational relationships and endorsements and finally guidelines relating to moderation.

I’ll address some of the bigger issues of social media and how they might affect Intel:

Confidentiality, privacy, whoops, did I just let slip that product release date? Intel strives for transparency in their policy, but they also want employees to be judicious – Don’t violate our ‘privacy, confidentiality and legal guidelines for external commercial speech’. Intel’s efforts could easily be undone by an employee’s extended network putting two and two together through facebook comments and result in a loss of confidentiality and a breach of privacy.

Being judicious in what to say and not to say also relates to issues of ‘Misleading and deceptive conduct’, wherein an employee might make a claim about a product in the social media realm, only for that claim to be false, resulting in Intel coming under scrutiny both legally and in their reputation. This is also true of negligent statements, even defamation – It is a difficult situation where Intel employees are encouraged to reach out with social media, but must also be so careful.

Discrimination is also an interesting issue to consider with their policy, specifically their policy on moderation and approving comments. They work to ensure that negative comments towards them are let through just as positive comments are, as long as they are not “ugly, offensive, denigrating and completely out of context”. Of course, the more common definition of discrimination also applies to Intel – they run the risk of damage to their reputation and legal fallout if they are made the center of a discrimination case because Intel employees make a comment on a social media platform that could be considered discriminatory.

I feel that these risks are going to exist one way or another in most enterprises. However, a company such as Intel, one that is a leader in the IT industry is well equipped with people who are of an IT background already, and understand the implications of social media even with formal training.

However, it is with this knowledge that Intel can embrace the benefits that Social Media platforms can offer. It is an openness that they push repeatedly in their policy as they ask for ‘Transparency’ in their employees. They ask their employees to make very clear who they are, who they represent and what vested interests they may have when they make comment so that it is difficult for readers to misconstrue what is being said.

These risks are definitely important to consider, but a quote Ekaterina recalled from a Toyota national marketing manager sums it up best I think:

The price of inactivity is greater than the risks of anything we’d be doing in social media,”

Web 2.0 – The Organic Virus

Organic, viral, all of these buzz words seem to pop out of nowhere and lead you to think that Web 2.0 is some living organism with a mind of its own. In a way, it is I guess. Web 2.0 is like an animal – you can’t specifically tell it what to do, but it can be domesticated, and people are figuring it out the best ways to do it.

‘Viral Marketing’ – Admittedly, I’d only heard the term a few times before this, and even without specifically looking up the term, I had a fair idea of what it was. Justin Kirby, managing director of ‘Digital Media Communications ltd’, explained that “viral campaigns ‘work’ the Internet to deliver exposure via peer-to-peerendorsement. The focus is on campaigns with material that consumers want to spend timeinteracting with and spreading proactively. So in this way online viral marketing provides the missing link between the word-of-mouth approach and the top-down, advertainmentapproach to brand marketing.”

As I understand it, something that ‘goes viral’ is anything on the web that gets people’s attention, and is linked to through the net (typically through Web 2.0 platforms), which results in more people seeing it and relinking it and before you know it, you’re getting asked by people next to the water cooler whether you’ve seen the ‘Old Spice’ commercials or not.

There are a number of ways in which to harness this phenomenon to supplement the overall marketing strategy for a product. Being able to ‘Re-tweet’ something on Twitter, posting youtube videos to facebook, even good old fashioned email forwarding.

The point of my leading this discussion to this point, is to demonstrate the idea that word of mouth, and letting the user decide for themselves the value of something is a good thing to strive for. Justin Kirby sees this, word of mouth (as opposed to business to consumer) advertising to be the answer to the problem of ‘too much advertising’ wherein the consumer learns to tune it out instead.

More to the point though, I think it’s relevant to the promotion of Web 2.0 in the workplace. I noted on this at the end of my last blog post, and is the inspiration for this one. The idea of planting a seed and letting it take root (Reminds me of Nolan’s recent movie, Inception actually).

The overarching problem I want to bring to light is the age old issue of resistance to change. You can do all the business process management tasks and other research to say that Enterprise 2.0 technologies are the way to go in your organisation, but none of it will matter if the employees won’t take to the new technology.

One would think the problem is quickly solved by the boss ordering them to use it, however therein lies a dilemma that Carpenter chooses to address. There are a number of differing view points, some stemming from a ‘push’ philosophy that says management should drive adoption, and some stemming from a ‘pull’ philosophy that encourages the viral, organic adoption of these technologies – the idea being that if executed correctly, you won’t be able to stop adoption even if you wanted to.

The question really is whether it’s better to push or pull. Carpenter explains the decision simply enough with the following framework diagram.

The biggest contributing factors include the value the organisation places on large scale adoption of the Enterprise 2.0 tools and whether the users involved in the proposed adoption find their current method of working ‘good enough’.

As you can see, the less each of these things is valued, the more the company should be inclined to simply let these tools loose on their workforce and leave them as an option. If the company does value the tools (and it is likely that they will in a lot of cases) then it is likely that the business will also need to take some initiative in ‘pushing’ the technology, or at least nudging its employees to be inclined to do as much. Finally, Carpenter believes if the company does not place huge value in the tools and finds its current strategy optimal, there isn’t a need to change what isn’t broken.

Given the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 tools I outlined in my previous blog post, all organisations will need to consider an Enterprise 2.0 implementation strategy at some point. I do believe this is something to consider, since it’s not a precise art – it’s more like trying to domesticate an animal, you’ll hit and you’ll miss, but you’ll get there if you have a clever strategy or two.

Perceivable Risks and Benefits in Implementing Enterprise 2.0

Implementing collaborative web technologies into the enterprise is no small feat and success lies in maintaining a precarious balance between letting these technologies take root within an organisation organically, and nudging it in the right direction to ensure its eventual adoption.

Though, and as I’ve touched on in previous blogs, implementing Enterprise 2.0 brings a number of benefits to the table including improved ‘Productivity and Efficiency, Staff engagement, Knowledge and Reputation’.

There’s two sides to every coin, and as Dawson puts it (as he did the benefits I listed earlier), therein also lie a number of hurdles and risks Security threats, a loss of control, reputation, reliability, productivity and available resources.

To illustrate this using a real scenario, Todd Stephen’s case study of communications giant AT&T depicts the adoption of Enterprise 2.0 technologies on a large scale.

In short, after a slow uptake in adoption of the technologies rolled out initially (including SharePoint), the demand for these technologies grew tremendously.

To list Stephen’s perceived benefits to AT&T:

Over 37,000 Collaborative Sites growing at 124%

Over 4 Million Documents Housed and Managed

User Awareness of 98% of Total Population

Average 8 Million Page View per Month

Intranet Replacement

Documented Reduction of Staff (Web Developers)

Servers Retired (Cost Transformation)

Speed of Business and Decision Making

Which indicate the satisfaction of the benefits outlined before. Perceived, increased productivity, staff engagement on a large scale with knowledge documented and kept visible as they’re stored online.

Stephen also notes on the risks and challenges that seemed to sit at the forefront of these adopted technologies that seem to also fall in line with the ones I outlined before. The solution took a while to take root in the organisation and that is also the result of people being unsure of how best to use these technologies in their work, affecting productivity at first. Their reputation is always at stake in the modern world, and these technologies will always present another risk that AT&T can only hope to continuously mitigate. Finally, concerns over information are also at the forefront, since by adopting these technologies, AT&T is essentially stepping out as an open organisation.

Take some time and read this article. It best summarises the biggest factors in terms of benefits and risks to the enterprise in adopting these technologies.

The most interesting aspect to me is the ‘organic’ way in which these technologies are adopted. Ideally they are something that the user base takes on because they want to, not because they are told they have to. We know it works, it’s why we have Wikipedia. But it is definitely a precarious balance that is mostly at the mercy of the user base – for them to find use in Web 2.0 in the Enterprise.

Web 2.0 in various parts of my life

Web 2.0 tools such as forums and online work spaces tend to be a very useful resource to me. These days, I think nothing of hitting up forums for anything I’m interested in locally, such as for conventions and events. Whilst in my University assignments, my first thought insofar as group work is concerned is to create a new Google group for collaboration purposes.

Internet Forums are an interesting thing. If I had to describe them in my own words, they work a bit like youtube’s commenting feature works, except that initially you’re presented with a page of “Threads” to choose from. Once you click on a “thread”, you are presented with an opening post, which generally denotes the topic, and you’re free to reply to discussion contained in following posts.

The most use I get from them is from either organising my own public video gaming events, or in collaboration with others. I find this effective because my target market with gaming events are generally (in my experience) those who would find out about these events through the internet. They’re also an effective means of creating discussion spaces that are visible to everyone, and can be referred back to as well. It comes back to the idea that older forms of communication create closed channels that are visible to only a select group of people.

Ever since the beginning of Uni, I’ve tried all kinds of Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with team members. I’ve tried wikis, and google documents before, but I’ve found that Google Groups have worked best for me. Google groups is a service that provides a workspace for you and invited contributors (though they may also be made public) to start discussions, create pages and upload files for sharing. In a sense they work like Wikis, but the integration of email services which email users of updates in discussions and of new discussions has made it invaluable. Chris in this blog post notes on the usefulness of google groups in a business situation, one of the biggest advantages being that it is a free solution to file sharing that is hosted in the cloud.

Discover what’s happening right now, anywhere in the world!

That’s the slogan of the popular Social, Web 2.0 service ‘Twitter’ that you hear about all over the news and that people talk about all the time. However admittedly I’ve never seen a need to really try it out or want to try it out. Micro-blogging, isn’t that what facebook is for?

Nonetheless, my Enterprise 2.0 unit at university seems to encourage the investigation of Web 2.0 tools and services I’ve not tried before, so off I went. www.twitter.com went into the address bar and before I knew it I was registering an account and verifying my email address. The set up process seemed very welcoming, giving me a range of topics and categories to start adding twitter accounts for me to follow. Clicking on Australia gave me Kevin Rudd’s twitter account, so I followed that, whilst ‘technology’ gave me Bill Gates, so I followed his too.

The next step saw Twitter analyse my gmail account for twitter account holders I’ve got in my contacts, giving me a list of people I’ve emailed who’s twitter accounts I could add. I chose to add the twitter account of a website I follow daily called ‘SixPrizes’.

The last step let me search for any person or organisation I could think of. I searched for ‘Nintendo’ and added Nintendo America’s account.

Clicking done took me to a page where I could ‘tweet’ a message for followers to see, and also see the tweets from the people and groups I’d chosen to begin following. Kevin Rudd just got out of hospital and a bunch of WiiWare games have been added to Nintendo’s online distribution service for the Wii.

All that was left was to use the service as it is intended – that is to ‘tweet’ a message for all of my potential future followers to see:

“Launching into the world of twitter for the good of my Bachelor of IT degree!”

I think the thing I like about Twitter is that it’s a lot like Facebook in that you’re kept up to date with people’s thoughts and feelings and messages, but that’s it. It’s not cluttered up by applications, social games, photos. It’s quite literally a concise mini-blog.

As long as I was on a roll with Web 2.0 services that I’ve never used in any great capacity, I thought I’d try subscribing to an RSS feed. Being a Firefox user, I thought the first thing I’d try is adding a widget of some description just for this purpose and I found one such add-on called ‘RSS Ticker’ that (description) which I picked mostly since it had a high rating.

Once installed it asked me to subscribe to a news feed concerning web trends, so I clicked ‘ok’ and along the bottom of my firefox browser window came a scrolling bar of various news story blogs. I hovered over the bar, causing it to stop scrolling and clicked a link to a blog containing a blog post about a number of recent DVD releases.

After seeing this tool in action for just a minute, I can already envision myself adding a number of RSS feeds to it. By going into the tool configuration, it gave me the option to add more, so I added the RSS feed for www.smashboards.com and behold, the auto-scroll bar updated with links to new threads on that forum.

I think this goes to show that experimenting will go a long way. In Uni group work and my social life and even in enhancing my web browsing experience!