digital vs social (warning: rant)

Feel it closing in

So I was having lunch with a friend a few days ago. She's working in social media but she's finding herself in competition with the digital arms of ad agencies - which lead to a discussion of the differences between digital media and social software. From where I'm at, there's only two problems with the term "digital media" - word "digital" and the word "media".

Digital

Marshall McLuhan observed that when a new technology arises, we spend much of our time treating it like it was what we have already rather than something new. When the internet erupted just over a decade ago, the obvious analogy was with television. They were both spat out of a cathode ray tube into your home weren't they? But hang on, the back in 1996, bandwidth speeds were rubbish, so the internet was mainly words. So it must be a newspaper, right? Coz they're full of words too. So we got stacks of banner ads. Lots of them. Some of them moved around a lot. But this was fundamentally TV and print on the internet. It wasn't a waste of time - it was just, well, dull. Important to note, the current giant of online advertising is not the product of an ad agency. There is nothing wrong with putting cool words, images (and maybe music) in front of people. Studies show that advertising sells stuff. And having no advertising makes it much harder to sell stuff.

Another important point to note: an industry that sells its creativity in content is highly conservative in form. Part of this can be blamed on clients: Please give us something we know that works. But I suspect (and I don't work in this industry so please tell me if I'm talking ****) that it's as much a function of background. If you are a hot graphic designer, then you want to keep on making sexy imagery. If you write arresting words then you want to keep churning out those sentences. If you excel at talked about events then you want to keep them spectacles coming (in fact, I'll have pair, boom-tish). But doing something else doesn't seem to be half as much fun.

So cutting to the chase, "digital" implies simply turning what you had in "analog" (TV/Print) into ones and zeroes. Ideally a really annoying Flash site. ATTENTION: If you need Flash to make you site interesting, you are in deep ****. I mean so deep that your body will never be found in the Macromedia Midan. Let's do some word association here: I say "digital" and you think: Casio wrist watches? Calculators? A long-dead tech company? These are not good connections to be making. If you are digital, you may have hard-coded conservatism into your identity but it's not as problematic as the second word.

Media

The internet is not (just) media. For a start, trad media is one-way, broadcast. The internet is two-way, interactive. I am not stating anything new here, simply repeating the blindingly obvious. Which means that corporate/brand presences on the web can include selling, customer service and aftercare. The metaphor of "internet as TV" only works if the glass nipple expands Videodrome-style to engulf the whole house. Can I use the TV to fix my washing machine? The opportunities for conversation & exchange are so much richer than before. But this richness comes at a price.

Creative types are apt to think of their outputs as their children. They have brought them into the world and laboured to feed and clothe them. As hard-headed and results-driven as some are, there is no one who doesn't favour their ideas above those of others. And here's thing, we're moving to an environment where you send your children out to get raped*. And some of the products of these monstrous unions will die immediately, unfit to reproduce. But others will be fitter and stronger and spread wider than their parents.

So if you want to show me your crazy new viral app for Facebook - cool but it looks oddly like a TV commercial to me. Not that there's anything wrong with TV commercials. And for some products, broadcast may always be the way to go.

But for me it's just a bit, well, boring.

The hallmark of a good host is the ability to listen, to make the guest feel as welcome as possible - not to show how smart you are, which is currently what a lot of online advertising aims at doing.

*Obviously I'm being provocative here. Or am I? This author equates fan-fic with physical violation.

brands: long tails, complex systems, stories, communities

Sean offers a link to this paper by Mohammed Iqbal. It's fascinating reading because it provides a grounding for a fancy that I've been toying with for a while now: brands as complex systems.

The Long Tail of Meaning

MI's paper talks about a power law distribution of brand propositions associated with a brand. You might even call these brand propositions (with their rational and emotional aspects, their blind cravings for meaning, their roots in lived experience) by another name: "stories". Trad advertising focuses on identifying what the big stories around a brand are. May be one, may be two, a handful at most. These stories can then be blast-broadcasted out via TV, print, even a viral widget for Facebook. However these stories are simply the biggest, loudest and most palatable associated with a brand. They aren't all the stories out there.

Narrative Ecosystems

One thing the long tail model doesn't make very clear is that entities you find in the distribution may not be isolated from each other. Just as a curve in sand may be the mark left by a snake, the long tail itself is the mark made on a distribution of entities (books, songs, brand propositions, dreams) by human choice. If you've ever worked with stories, you'll realise that they exist in an ecosystem - the long tale tail chatters to itself uncontrollably. There may be a single story that someone wants to communicate perfectly to their consumers, employees, citizens or subjects; but once it has been released into the wild it rarely stays unchanged. Instead it interacts with all the related stories that are being told. You don't own your brand. You never did but that comforting deceit is becoming harder and harder to maintain. You can't control the story ecosystem - you can influence it, engage with it, add to it but you can't control it.

Joining the Swarm: Communities

Trad advertising (TVCs, print) still works reasonably well for the head of the tail or the simple/complicated domains. It's not going way but as the rest of the tail and the complexity that forms it becomes more visible, we need other ways of dealing with it. Which is where those pesky community things come in. The stories/meaning/brand propositions become more diffuse and far more messy. You get the whole distribution around you, not the edited 30-second highlights. The leadership that's required here is a little different from yer standard issue.

The gift of the internet has been to surface human behaviour as much as it has been to change it. Can we handle that?

software companies - please note

Every month or so, someone shows me their software - mostly in the collaboration or KM field. They would like my advice on it or they would even like me to sell it for them. They are all very smart - smarter than me. However there are often some significant things they leave out:

• Before we go into the demo, do you have a brochure? Yes an old skool, 2-page A4 brochure. Telling me: who the product is for; what it does for them; how it is different to everyone else operating in this space* and then what it's technical specifications are. If you do not have that, go to the back of the class.
• Hold off the demo for a bit longer. Do you have any references. Who has implemented this? Which bits have they implemented? Are they willing to go on the record that they have implemented it and that it is not a pile of ****? No references is not fatal but they are very helpful.
  
• Now we go onto the demo. Is the demo available as a video file I can take away and look at? If not, can we have a couple of those please?
• Finally pricing. How much will this baby cost - hosted, on server, or in a sesame seed bun? Don't be bashful now, it'll have to come out some time.

This is a shame because these applications are mostly the opposite of "brochureware" (i.e. all the things I mentioned above but without any actual, y'know, working software). So I am more than happy to see your software (and tell other people about it who may be interested) but please read this beforehand.

*Yes, I know you have no competitors. I am six foot five of rippling muscle who melts the hearts of all who gaze upon me. Now if we can pilot a course for reality, warp factor ten please?

network not-for-profit

Digging deeper into the social software & not-for-profit world, a few things have turned up.

• Steve Bridger's work really knocked my socks off. I'm still going thru this presentation but there are two things that resonate very strongly with me:

1. The web of relationships that NFPs have to manage is complex - service recipients, staff, donors, volunteers. The promise of social software is to both broaden and deepen these relationships. To make them more transparent and to make them stronger.
2. Social software should support what those people do already - it shouldn't be about making heaps of extra work.

• World Wildlife Fund Australia have a couple of interesting projects on the go: Earth Hour (which you've probably heard about) & Future Makers. Thanks: John Johnston & Barry Saunders.
• World Vision Australia seems to have gone social media ker-azy: Twitter, Facebook, Bebo, YouTube, MySpace, Flickr, and a Snags for Change viral gig. The willingness to experiment is damn impressive! Thanks: Keith Don.
  
• This video about the journey of a Kiva loan is just pure genius.

giving

You've probably heard about Dave Armano & Daniela. Daniela's story is heart-breaking. Dave has done a good thing. Visit the site and chip in some cash.

There is a bigger story here. Dave has tapped into his (considerable) network to help someone. However what do you do if you are a Daniela without a Dave? And there are lots of Danielas without Daves out there.

Well, there's government aid - which shouldn't be underestimated but it often patchy, slow & bureaucratic. And then there are not-for-profits (NFPs) - the likes of WorldVision. They're going thru a tough time at the moment. The tanking economy means that for many people, charity will not only begin at home but stay at home. They are scrabbling for attention and funding in a world that is not particularly interested right now. However they do have one thing going for them - they are organisations driven by a purpose. Organisations about whom the word "mission" can used without cringing.

I've been doing some research in this area. There should be a big opportunity for these organisations to use social software to enable staff, volunteers, donors, even perhaps the people they are helping. As with so much in Australia, it feels like this is bubbling under the surface. Philanthropy Australia have embraced blogs & wikis. The World Wildlife Fund are using YouTube but it feels like the toes are just being dipped into the water (and the water's fine).

Do you know of any examples of Australian not-for-profits doing something cool with social sofware? If so, please drop me a line.

don't leave it to the experts (even if you are one) - tell us all about it

Patrick & I have been discussing doing "something" around the area of expertise for a couple of months now. There will be probably more than one "something" but we're starting with a narrative-based project.

What does this mean? Well, we want to collect your stories:

• Where you've had your expertise appreciated (or not).
• How you have seen organisations use well the expertise available to them (or not).
• How you have found accessing the expertise of others.

We want the highs, the lows, the agony, the ecstacy and the banality.

As the site indicates, we think the issues around expertise are critical for many organisations and yet they are not always well handled. Help us dig into this important area.

Find out more.
Add your own story.
Read the stories of others.

the art of 360 degree presentation

This should be a bit of a cracker. I've not worked with David Kayrouz but I am looking forward to it. As for Louise Mahler & Ralph Kerle, 'nuff said.

Go on, sign up now.

community unmanagement

The "Chief Conversation Officer" meme cropped up again recently here and here. And it's been coupled with some conversations with community managers such as Scott Drummond.

What I find interesting is that a bunch of people from diverse areas have picked up the label "community manager" - some from a knowledge management background, others with histories in marketing or PR, still others with technology backgrounds or even social activism.

What these people have in common is that they have been tasked with managing a "community". And "community" seems to be any group that is not a formal organisation or a bunch of autonomous individuals. This needs a bit of unpacking.

Organisations and Individuals

Organisations are established to create predictability through coordination. This coordination requires hierarchy and hierarchy requires managers who will coordinate subordinates. Interaction outside their formal roles was deemed irrelevant. In effect, the employee relationship was between an individual and a corporation (or government department) through a manager.

The creation of corporations also created consumer mass markets. And corporations tended to model their consumers as individuals. Everyone knew that these consumers interacted with each other but these interactions were secondary to their individual relationship as consumers with corporation.

The Rise of 'Communities'

This division of the world into individuals on the one hand and organisations on the other has always been artificial. What technology does is make it harder and harder to maintain that artificial division. Communities are what fill that gap. The social glue. Or may be a shock absorber between David & Goliath.

Unmanagement

The problem with these non-organisational groups is that you can't manage them. You can't sit down with members of a community, agree objectives and resources and then get on with it. Well, you can do a bit of that but communities tend to reject managers - "Who died and put you in charge?" is the first reponse. "I'm not coming back here again" is the second. They need stewards, facilitators, hosts and bouncers. Sometimes they need leaders but that leader may not be you. But they do not need managers.

What makes a Community Unmanager?

• You care. I don't want to say "passion" because it's a horribly over-used word but community unmanagers have to care about both the topic they are involved in and the people around them. If they don't then their community will feel betrayed.
  
• You help other people make stuff happen. Facilitation. Listening. Responding. Encouraging. Exactly how you facilitate is up to you. You can be gentle and nurturing. You can be aggressive and confrontational. It depends on the kind of people either already in your community or who you want to attract to it. But be mindful of what you are like and what that means for everyone else.
• You are aware of your environment. Online this may mean having the technology skills to get people up to speed with the tools. It might mean having an eye for design. It certainly means being a good host.

ignite sydney

5 minutes
20 slides
11 presenters

Register now to avoid disappointment.

the age of conversation - live from moscow

Buy Now!!!

where did all the money go?

Ross Dawson writes about "Wealth Adaption Syndrome" - i.e. you were a master of the universe 18 months ago and now you are down to your last million. Or simply that the value of your house (or your super/pension) is worth less. You are feeling poorer.

How do you deal with a sudden reduction in your financial worth and consequent reduction in status? Well, one tried and tested strategy is denial. The stories of former managers who couldn't tell their families about their sacking and would get dressed for work everyday, leave the house and then hide in the park with their packed lunch and sense of overwhelming guilt. Some people will not be able to accept the new reality - opportunities in debt collection and financial counseling here. The escapism and fantasy that Ross mentions are subtle forms of denial.

Another response is to redouble your efforts. Find a new investment vehicle (preferably one not linked to Bernie Madoff), fashion a new career, go back to uni, etc. You had a taste of it once and you're not going to give it up.

A third response is one that attempts to look beyond money & purchasing power as your core defining characteristic. Kim talks about a boom in craft sales, the rise of the "slow" movement (including slow community may be), a burgeoning interest in meditation, yoga, Buddhism and probably the wackier end of spirituality. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, "self-mastery" is worth pursuing; on the other, it may be a charlatan's field day.

The choices people make are to an extent dependent on their circumstances. If you have a lot of commitments (mortgages, children) and comparatively few assets then your focus is going to be paying the bills. Where as empty-nesters and 20-somethings may choose different paths.

N.B. An important point to note about status in general and wealth in particular is that it's relative. If you lose a pile of money when everyone else is doing great, that sucks. If everyone else loses a pile of money then it still sucks but it sucks less. Products that offer improved relative status at comparatively lower cost should do well (e.g. hiring rather than buying luxury goods, groups that require selective membership rather than high admission prices).

expert in what?

I picked up a copy of The Black Swan for AU$10 yesterday and rereading it, I came across a reference to the work of James Shanteau, in particular, this paper from 1992.

It's interesting because it suggests that the performance and reliability of experts is dependent on their field - we can't expect stock brokers to be as accurate as weather forecasters. It also means that we should be suspicious of those who claim expertise in "dynamic areas" - your mileage may vary...

the age of conversation 2 - so much more than a runner's up prize

Buy Now!!!

more age of conversation testimonals

Buy Buy Buy!!!

the age of conversation - live from berlin

Drew & Gav put together a little promotional video for Age of Conversation 2 based on the Downfall meme:

However some people have been offended by this*. As my family were not killed by the nazis, I wasn't especially outraged. If Gav & Drew had put together a video featuring the things that did kill my forebears (arrogance, cigarettes, alcohol, a diet rich in saturated fat and poor in vitamins) I might have been outraged. Or I might have been watching Mad Men.

In an effort to return things to the realm of good taste, I offer up the following:


There are some more promo images that I might post up over the coming days. If you want to stop me, then buy the book.

*N.B. There's nothing wrong with being offended by stuff. It'll be sad day if we ever reach the state where nothing's shocking.

seamless teamwork

A couple of weeks ago, I got a copy of Michael Sampson's Seamless Teamwork. A longer review may appear elsewhere but for now, let me say it's pretty nifty and I've already recommended it to some people who are using Sharepoint for team collaboration. If you're new to managing virtual teams but not using Sharepoint then it's still worth a look. I haven't digested chapters 11 & 12 that are available on his web site but extent to which Michael has tied comon project activities and challenges (e.g. brainstorming, vision setting, team building) to Sharepoint functionality is impressive.

Some slightly critical comments:

• Lots of people loved the framing of the book in the context of the fictional project Delta. I find this device in business books really grating as the author shifts gear between a third-person description (in this case the story of Roger the project manager) and second-person directive statements ("you can do this with the wiki").
• Sharepoint's social software attributes get quite a few mentions (wikis, blogs, RSS) and yet these are still quite rudimentary compared to other offerings out there. Michael has not persuaded me to love Sharepoint yet.

Looking forward to the next book Michael.

five common collaboration tool errors

I was presenting on collaboration tools last week and I was reflecting on five common mistakes made in the selection or implementation of these tools that I have seen (or even participated in at one time or another) before launching into descriptions of the tools themselves and some case studies. Here are the five members of the hall of shame:

1. The No Goal Error. Not having a purpose or objective behind what you are doing. What will people be using this for? Does what you are asking them to do matter to them? (N.B. "collaboration" is not a goal in itself). Warning Sign: "We put in a x because we thought it would be, y'know cool". Nothing Wrong With: There is no upside to this one.
2. The Magic Bullet Error. Thinking that one tool will do everything for you. There are a range of tools out there and no one application (or platform) does everything equally well. Warning Sign: "We plan to do everything in x, the sales guy/evangelist for x said it will do everything we need". Nothing Wrong With: If something works well in more than one situation then by all means use it.
3. The New New Thing Error. Deciding to deploy something because it is new rather than based on its merits to meet your purpose (N.B. You do have a purpose don't you?) Warning Sign:"One of our directors read about x in an in-flight magazine, we have to implement x tomorrow". Nothing Wrong With: Experimenting with new tools (with all that the word "experimenting" implies).
4. The If I Wear Brad Pitt's Suit, I'll Look As Hot As Brad Pitt Error. Just because another organisation gets good results with a certain tool and set up, it does not mean that you will also. My body is not the same shape as Brad Pitt's nor is my face as pleasantly arranged, hence his suit will probably not have the desired effect. Your organisation and your culture are not the same as somewhere else and context is important. Warning Sign: "Organisation Y (in the building next door but a completely different industry) just implemented x and it went great for them, why don't we do it?" Nothing Wrong With: Learning from the experiences of others and listening to intelligent case studies.
   
5. The Titanic Error. It's not the parts of the iceberg that you can see that you should be worried about. Successful collaboration is about many intangible things (leadership, trust) and yet people focus on what they can see - i.e. the tool. Warning Sign: "I want an online community, show me how to customise the skin on Ning". Nothing Wrong With: Paying attention to design and usability and making it all look good.

I suspect you will have seen (or written about) versions of these before. I also suspect you will have seen others.

further

This is all about raising awareness and funds for a microfinance project in the Philippines. Check out the links please.

The hippies had left the bus dumped in a ditch
when the trust fund money evaporated
like sunstroked bong water.
The engine was long gone, a generator in waiting.
The seats scavenged for a room for living in.
You had cut the tyres into shoes
while we attacked the frame with tinsnips.
You should use every part of the carcass.
We will reincarnate this bus's body
everywhere around us.

My eyes will not leave the destination sign:
"Further"
So I close them and the sign hangs in space.
I see the bus decomposing
a symphony of human activity.

Follow the rivulets of metal
and the binary pulses of money
and the actions falling like dominoes
in a world record attempt.

Follow the chromosomes
that interlock like acrobats
to create the trick of a life
Balance, harmony - a high wire act.

Follow the tectonic fault-lines
that skid round the globe
without our permission.
Plates spinning in that same circus.

Follow the word network,
the net worth of word nets
that catch us each in ourselves
when the high wire snaps.

Laugh at the words "independent" and "self-made"
carved in the biographies of great men
like a child's profanity on a park bench.

I open my eyes and the sign is gone.
I hope you took it.

luck

My grandfather said
that you make your own luck.
He made his with shotguns
and post offices.
The cops made theirs
with informers and patience.

My grandfather said
that one day your luck
will run out.
His luck ran out and took
the last seat in the getaway car,
leaving him to face the music
counted out in 4-4 by police batons.

N.B. My actual grandfather wasn't a bank robber but he did play a mean game of Scrabble.

high on my own bs

I hadn't been to the Single Origin meet-up for a few weeks so it was brilliant to see Gav, Katie, Tim, Ian & Jeannie there plus to meet Julian, Tony, Scott & Neerav among others.

Is this one of those soshal meeja echo chambers? A bit. But the noises in the chamber are pretty and the people are fun. And the barrier to entry is, well, non-existent (unless you are complete tool, in which case don't come). Plus the Single Origin guys know how to put on a party - with a band and masses of people (at 8am in the morning).

Gav gave me a book. It was big and heavy and called GUTS: All it takes to be successful in business (and life). It looks lovely - perfect for my coffee table. On the cover, the word GUTS (in bright orange letters) is hidden by the silver stuff they put on scratch cards - so you have to scratch away (preferably with your teeth, because that's what mavericks do).

It's written by a guy called Simon Hammond. Who appears to be high on his own BS. He runs SEE - "the world's most inspirational company". At what point does a slogan slip from "aspirational" to "delusional"?

All of which makes me wonder whether Guts isn't really an elaborate prank - a parody of OTT business thought leadership and personal development books that claim to challenge every preconception you have and reveal "the truth" in all it's embarrassed nudity - and then offer up a mildly diverting mix of nice advice and stupid exaggerations instead. This is not helped by the "insights" being called SINS, arrived at through the process of CRACC (stop sniggering at the back).

Still, joke or not, it looks lovely on my coffee table. Thanks Gav, I have the perfect book for you as a New Year's gift...

podcast - lauren brown on bicycles, melbourne & art

A brief podcast with Lauren Brown - includes a free guide to experiencing a derive in Melbourne on a bicycle.

Download the mp3.

00:00 - Melbourne as the first city in Australia to be designed.
02:00 - Library Spice
03:00 - The Laneways Commissions
07:00 - The city is not a blank canvas
07:30 - The derive
08:40 - The derive via bicycle
13:15 - What's going to happen in the next 3 years?

christmas time!!!

I'd love you to buy me a present.

Possibly some Kiva credits (or skip the middle man and loan the money yourself)*. Or may be some teacher training from Worldvision. Or else some cash sent to SANE.


*Props to Johnnie Moore, Step Two & the amazing Lesser Kudu for their fantastic loans.

generational stereotypes

My parents were both born towards the end of WWII. They hit their 20s in the 60s. So they were hippies right? Flowers in their hair? Free love? Drugzzzz?

Erm, no. My Dad spent most of the 60s on board the Royal Navy ship where he was a stoker. My Mum is a relatively conservative person who traveled a bit in Europe and trained to be a teacher. Neither of them fit the generational stereotypes that history (and lazy cultural commentators) may yet hand them.

There were plenty of hippies in the 60s. But many young people weren't. The future is interesting precisely because it gives us more opportunities to be ourselves (should we so choose). Of course, if that's too scary then we can just get the nice comfortable labels out again.

the day after tomorrow for knowledge management

So we know that today is pretty screwed up. The world was running on US consumer debt and now the tab has to be paid. It's all about cost reduction and efficiency at the moment. Knowledge managers will face a tough couple of years. You can axe most KM operations and not see any impact for, ooh, 3-6 months. Of course 6 months down the track managers will be saying "we used to do this stuff well, why do we suck at it now?" but that's in the future.

The bad news: Some of you will be fired no matter how good your work is. Corporate cullings may be presented as rational exercises in cost control & restructuring but from the inside seem more like frantic acts of self-harm by bulimics at break point. If the chamber in your game of involuntary Russian Roulette does contain a live round then take the money and get out of there.

The good news: KM really began as a movement after the last major recession (and the BPR-related blood-letting) of the early 90s. Organisations will fire too many people, just as they probably hired too many people in the recent past. They will be awash with ignorance. Fertile territory for those whose job it is reduce the dead weight of ignorance.

Hang on.

new communities

If librarians are unsuited to the role of personal information coach ("You ain't taking a break until I get 20 items tagged folksolonomogalically"), then we might need to expand what "community" means for us.

We've been used to geographical communities - the local library. And geographical communities are neglected at our peril. But they are no longer the only game in town. The public library system was largely a result of the titanic upheaval of communities wrought by the industrial revolution. Urbanisation and increased literacy rates created the communities that the public libraries served. There are now many communities of which people are a part - professional, aspirational, lifestyle-based. And all of these communities need the skills of librarians.

The big question is: Who's going to pay for this? Is it the government? Is it communities themselves? Some mix of the two? Or no one?

information coaching

As you may know, I'm a librarian by training. Mark Pesce writes about a new(ish) role for librarians:

Some of this won’t come to pass until you move out of the libraries and into the streets. Library scientists have to prove their worth; most people don’t understand that they’re slowly drowning in a sea of their own information.

Check out the comments by Philippe Van Nedervelde BTW. David Pollard has also written extensively about the importance of personal information management (PIM) and like Philippe he shares an enthusiasm in David Allen's Getting Things Done (no, not that one).

The challenge for librarians is to move away from The Collection. The justification for the library was that books (and hence information) were expensive and scarce for the masses. Hence the initial focus of librarians was creating and managing collections. And we saw this is a responsibility that we did on behalf of a community. Whether for the public or the academy or some other group, we managed books and periodicals. We played a role of mediation - gatekeeper or matchmaker.

Two things have happened in the interim. One visible and one less so.

The first thing was that the information landscape got more complicated. First with records and radio then TV, video, DVDs, CDs, mp3s, ebooks, ejournals, webpages galore. Even with the book, higher earning power means that people can buy many of the books they want (if they want them). Many librarians will tell you that much of the good stuff isn't free. And that's true but the care factor is low. Good enough will do for many. This much is obvious.

But the second thing is much less remarked upon. The communities we serve are not what they were 100 years ago. The public librarian faces an urban (or suburban) environment rather than a rural one - with an array of ethnic groups, special constituencies and transients. The academic world has expanded into a billion-dollar business and organisations see employees come, go and return as contractors.

Librarians can survive the fragmentation of the book but their real struggle is to comprehend what their communities are becoming. Mark P talks about librarians as “life coaches” but the image that comes to my mind is the librarian as Ronin. Coaches have always focused on the individual whereas librarians have always focused on their communities.

I'd like to see librarians more engaged with their communities - beyond the library (be it paper or electronic). If the role of the investigative journalist is to "follow the money" then the role of the librarian is to "follow the information". Information is everywhere. It touches everything. If librarians follow the scent of information we end up back out in the community, where we belong.

reasons to be cheerful

There's a lot to be miserable about at the moment. In the short term, the economy is going down the pan. In the long term, the Earth's ecology may collapse. I have decided to be optimistic - on the grounds that being pessimistic may be right but it's no fun.

what's a wiki grandad?

I quite like social software. Hence the blog, the podcasts, the use of wikis & google docs, the twittering, the social network stuff (not much Second Life activity as of yet). And I go around telling people about this kind of thing because I like it but I am also quite a sceptical, cynical person.

So I try to strike an uncomfortable balance between enthusiasm and realism (and I don't always succeed). One area that has worried for some time are the claims made on behalf of those younger than me (Gen Ys and younger) by those my age or older. Apparently the next generation is effortlessly using social software to change the world. I think this contains a kernel of truth but it also causes problems:

• It's something for social media experts to scare potential clients with.
• It ignores the differences within generations to focus on the differences between them and so perpetuate stereotypes*.
• It gets social software labelled as "young person's stuff" - rather than stuff that everyone can and does use.
  

So I was intrigued to find Net Gen Nonsense - which includes links to some interesting data from Australian students. And surprise, surprise, the picture is actually quite complicated. A minority of students are into social software as a creative activity but many are not.

So what does this mean? I think we need to bin the generational arguments around using social software in the enterprise. It's not about the Gen Ys or their younger brothers and sisters. Some of them are really switched on but there are plenty out there that know less about this stuff than you, dear reader.

*Those Gen Xs are just like you Scorpios y'know. Or is it you ISTJs? Or you chicks? Yeah, you're all the same.

analyse that

The responsible and hardworking type. They are especially attuned to the details of life and are careful about getting the facts right. Conservative by nature they are often reluctant to take any risks whatsoever. The Duty Fulfillers are happy to be let alone and to be able to work in their own pace. They know what they have to do and how to do it.

Typealyzer said both this blog and the other are ISTJs. GenderAnalyzer said here there is an 87% chance that we are male but over there, there is a 56% chance that we are female!

Make of that what you will.

canberra - information & knowledge policy

Just a quick note to say that I enjoyed the presentations by Kylie Dunn, Sally-Anne Leigh and (of course) Nerida Hart at Information & Knowledge Policy Development gig.

i had my social media echo chamber designed by mc escher

Some nice person gave me a pass to Online Social Networking & Business Collaboration World 2008. I missed the morning sessions which apparently saw senior execs from Friendster, Bebo, MySpace and Google tell the throng (200 people?) just how important their site is.

I did go to the afternoon session with Andrew Mitchell (Urbis), Chris Knowles (Heinz), Jeremy Mitchell (Telstra) and Wayne Hughes (Virtual Medical Centre). Andrew, Chris & Jeremy were all good - but I've seen their presentations before (may be I should go to less conferences). Wayne's topic was interesting but I was a bit mystified as to why he was in that stream and he had a fair whack of sales material in his presentation.

Captain Coincidence being who he is, Hugh McLeod has been posting this series of cartoons. There'll probably be more soon.


My take is that there is no real role for social media experts. There are people out there who will either sell you existing software or build it for you - and that's fine. There are also people out there who can advise you on marketing, collaboration, information & knowledge management, advertising, etc - and they may use blogs, wikis, social networks, virtual worlds, RSS, etc in doing so. Many of them are very good.

user generated learning

I really must start asking these guys for some cash.

the banality of wisdom

Nerida sent out a link to this. I'm still processing it but I kinda feel ambiguous when I saw the trailer. We have a lot of famous people, most of whom are quite old. They mostly say sensible stuff. And sometimes they say it in quite a charming or poignant way.

But it's rarely stuff that you haven't heard before. But that's the thing about wisdom. Most of it is not new (that doesn't make it easy do). So we are left with people who have done wise and unwise things and who may (or may not) be wise in some respects. But whilst I'm sure they can entertain, I'm not sure that they can enlighten. We can enjoy the cinematography and nod sagely but are we any the wiser?

stupid ideas and dead people

You may remember my obsession with the Cochrane Collection Collaboration. I've been pursuing this on the actKM list with all the ferocity of a man trying avoid a major deadline around a difficult client report. Anyway, we got into a big discussion of measurement and causality and stuff - but the vibe I got from a few people was "this is just too hard, we will never produce anything as rigorous as medical science". They may well be right. Knowledge managers are not doctors.

But if you compare the Cochrane Collection with The Old Operating Theatre in London then some perspective comes into play. I was at the Operating Theatre a few months ago (there's nifty picture of me getting my leg cut off that I've go somewhere) and, although they'd tidied it up a bit, you could imagine what a dirty, dingy, deathly place it must have been. If you got a broken limb then you were probably dead. And if you weren't dead then you were certainly due an amputation.

How has medical science advanced? Simple: stupid ideas and dead people. There have been lots of stupid ideas in the history of medicine. Often not completely wrong but not right either. And these stupid ideas meant lots of dead people. And at various points in history, medics have decided (whether for reasons of humanism or greed or pride or whatever) that working out which ideas are the least stupid will mean less dead people. This is not a linear narrative of progress. This is messy. There were (and are) mistakes, blind alleys, and maddening gaps.

One of the most interesting things for me are the articles in the Cochrane Review that say "there is insufficient evidence to come to clear conclusion on this". That speaks of an ambition to eventually find out what works and to improve health.

In my own discipline, we need that ambition. Lots of catastrophes have a knowledge dimension (or more frequently an ignorance dimension). But to be honest, most of my work is about the alleviation of small problems that make working lives miserable and organisations less effective than they could be.

We need to be more reflective and critical of our own practice. We need to find ways of sharing our failures as well as our successes. And we must not loose the focus on results. Most of all, we need to understand that our first efforts in this will be partial, messy, crude. We don't get to start in a gleaming, hi-tech surgical lab. We are rummaging around in the darkness and grime of garret. Tough - that's where you start.

We may not have as many dead people but I'm sure we can make up for that with stupid ideas.

captain coincidence strikes again (2)

So I liked Fake Steve Job. Then I forgot him. Sorry Steve, the illness showed that you were weak and mortal. I had to dismantle my shrine. Then a couple of days ago, I found Real Dan Lyons. He is a blisteringly funny writer about the tech world. And then mere hours later, he stopped.

Coincidence?

Well, yes, absolutely. What else could it be?

captain coincidence strikes again (1)

So earlier this week I wrote about Ben Goldacre - who has a pet peeve against suspect nutritional advice in general and "superfoods" in particular. Yesterday I received an email from a friend inviting me join a "multi-level marketing"* scheme involving a goji berry energy drink - from a company he told me would be the nutritional equivalent of Microsoft (cue: lots of gags about bloatware & obesity). I like my friend, he is one of the nicest guys in town. He is also pretty damn smart. I wondered if I had lost my mind.

He did assure me that there were over 100 "solid gold" clinical studies on PubMed. I had a look (using the Latin term "Lycium barbarum") - and it brought back 103 papers. From what I could see, most of them dealt with in vitro experiments or tests on lab rats. Now if I was a bunch of cells on a glass dish or, indeed, a rat (steady), this might be handy. The only clinical study on humans (outside China - they seem to be keen on the berries) was carried out by... a major distributor of goji products.

I should say that the goji berry energy drink had less sugar in it that other energy drinks (yay!) - but also had caffeine in it. Which makes me wonder if goji berries are so gosh darn great, why the caffeine?

*This is not a pyramid scheme - as one Brisbane newspaper found out to its cost. However I did look at the compensation scheme for "marketing executives" on their web site and was completely confused. Nine pages of points, ranks, numbers, uplines, downlines and I was no clearer at the end as to how much money I would get. Maybe their compensation system requires you to have had your brain boosted by goji berries before you get it.

collaboration models (2)

Stuart French has been working away on his model for wiki participation. Matt Hodgson has expanded it with Stuart into this beast:

There's a lot of very interesting stuff in Stuart and Matt's musings. The critical insight that social software participation can be a mix of either/or both/and "bottom up" vs "top down" is a useful one. I have a few quibble but the key comments would be:

• The activity domain seems to be a bit of an after-thought. What are those 5 kinds of behaviour doing compared to the rest.
  
• As a way of exploring thinking visually, it's intriguing. But it seems to be getting more complicated rather than less. At some point it has to become a simpler or become one of those complicated diagrams that everyone nods at sagely but doesn't really understand.
  

collaboration models (1)

James Robertson has developed this three-tiered model for collaboration. I like it. However there are two comments I would make:

• I'm not sure it's a fully-fledged model yet. It's a checklist of things that impact an organisation's ability to collaborate grouped into 3 areas. More map than model. How do these things interact?
  
• James writes: There are many elements of collaboration, and we often encounter the “blind men and the elephant problem”. We’re all talking about collaboration, but we’re actually discussing different parts of the animal. I think there's an additional issue. There are not just different elements to collaboration but there are different kinds of collaboration (that based around project teams vs virtual communities for example) that require different individual skills, models, tools, governance approaches. I don't get a sense of that from this.
  

bad science and getting better

Ben Goldacre writes for the UK's Guardian newspaper and also puts out the Bad Science blog. His mission is to attack poor uses of science - esp. in the medical field where he was trained. New Age therapist, Big Pharma PR, dodgy neuroscientists, credulous journalists and dishonest labs get mercilessly ripped. BG seems to rather enjoy doing this.

It's via BG that I discovered the Cochrane Collection Collaboration. It's an organisation that systematically reviews the medical literature for evidence that particular treatments work (or don't).

For the past year or so, Patrick's presentations and blog posts have explored the development of health science as discipline in comparison with knowledge management. It's something I've been pondering recently too. In part because I've been reflecting on the divisions between academics and practitioners in the KM world - which encompassed a discussion on actKM (many thanks to the participants). Patrick articulates it well:

"There is no great merit in and of itself that a practitioner "gets into" academia, or an academic engages in practice successfully, or that gifted individuals manage to get invited to both tea parties. The merit is in whether practice gets better. KM is fundamentally a practice - theory is its servant. And the practice needs to show beneficial outcomes affecting real people in real organisations in real economies and societies."

How do we get better?

blogging is boring - excellent!!!

James D highlights the the death of the blogosphere. In this Wired article, Paul Boutin says that writing a blog will no longer guarantee you attention and Bloggers today are expected to write clever, insightful, witty prose to compete with Huffington and The New York Times. Paul is of course a journalist and also a former blogger.

Paul is of course right - starting a blog now will not get you the attention it would have got you 4 years ago. But as a journalist he assumes that all bloggers want to be journalists. However lots of us don't. The more I blog, the less of a **** I give whether I have readers or not (which explains my 49-part history of custard - to be launched next week).

Twitter and Facebook/LinkedIn status updates just don't give me the space I need. I need more than 140 characters - cuz, like, ohmigod, I'm a 35 year old man with a receding hairline who needs to vent a lot - that's a lot. And I ain't pretty enough for YouTube.

Now some middle-aged Californian has said this isn't cool, can the rest of us just get on with it please*?

*This is the definition of "plateau of productivity" in Gartner's hype cycle that they toyed with but never had the balls to publish.

making marketing interesting

A couple of jobs are coming to an end in the next few weeks and it's time to gear up into marketing / selling mode again. I don't mind selling - I definitely wouldn't say I was a "gun" salesman - provided the person wants to be sold to. So I'm going to be picking up the phone and talking to people. If you don't want to be talked to then just say that. If you don't want to talk about business then let's grab a coffee and talk about something else.

I have one request for you tho. If there's someone you think I could have an interesting conversation with then let me know. Not (necessarily) in terms of business development or doing some kind of deal. Just in terms of having an interesting conversation.

writing articles - any requests?

I've been writing a fair few articles recently (as you can see). It's partly because I like writing and find it fairly straightforward (altho I haven't heard about the last one I submitted - so it'll probably get rejected and I'll be left feeling a little less smug). I can also justify it as "marketing".

I'm feeling a little stale tho. So over to you. Feel free to suggestion publications (& topics) that I should pitch to and I'll give it a go.

km theory vs case studies

Final follow-up to this post below. Most case studies are useless. I remember being at a major KM conference and a friend asking me: "What's wrong with me? Why aren't my KM projects as smooth and flawless as these presentations?" It reminds me a bit of the argument about unrealistic portrayals of female bodies making ordinary women depressed. If everyone looks like a Hollywood starlet then I must be ugly and useless.

The thing is most case studies as written up in articles or presented at events leave out the really useful stuff. Where did you screw up and why? What were the unexpected events?

However 'real' case studies (warts n all) are very powerful indeed. I love The Mistake Bank. I think that knowledge managers are slowly, painfully building up this base of experience - but we could do a whole lot better - as Patrick has often stated.

The role of theory here is, for me, not fully decided. Dave, Patrick, Shawn, Gary Klein and others, have all done a brilliant job of bringing in research from complexity theory, cognitive science and narratology to bear on real-world problems. More KM practice needs to be built on research. However theory by itself is not enough. It needs to be constantly tested against brute reality.

What I am arguing for here may be impossible: A transparency around KM practice that requires a strong theoretical base, a willingness to experiment and a drive to learn from the work of others.

the strategic question for knowledge managers

This throw-away post seems to be still generating more heat than a forest fire.

The challenge I (and my colleagues) faced as knowledge managers was getting beyond the "oh, you look after databases" dismissiveness of staff, managers, execs, etc*. It wasn't that we didn't want to focus on strategic issues (well, some were happier hiding away but I think they were in the minority) but that getting the opportunity to tackle them is harder than just walking into the CEO's office and saying: "Hey I'm going to solve your strategic problems for you".

I can remember sitting in meetings where we were talking about workforce change, systemic organisational risk, improved performance for a group of workers and we'd get asked for some minor changes to be made to a web site. Occasionally an issue would erupt that would give us some traction, some leverage with someone we already had a relationship with (possibly because we'd edited their web page for them). And then we'd run as far as we could with it. And then there would be a pause. N.B. Simply showing how our KM activities aligned with the corporate strategy didn't really differentiate us because that's what everyone does. Saying you support the corporate strategy is like saying your in favour of "good stuff" (motherhood, apple pie) rather than "bad stuff" (war, famine).

So you readers out there (all 3 of you). Can you give an example of a game-changing moment that you have had? A moment where you saw an opportunity and went for it?

*A core quality of a successful knowledge manager is sheer bloody-mindedness.

Now if I can get through this without accusing anyone's mother of darning socks in Hull, we may get an interesting discussion.

gigs - melbourne / sydney / canberra

I'll be doing sessions based on the actKM presentation in Melbourne next week (courtesy of the KM Roundtable) and possibly in Sydney two weeks later (courtesy of NSW KM Forum). There's now the white paper and I'm toying with T-shirts & coffee mugs but I reckon there's a limit to cross-promotion on this baby.

And then there's that gig in Canberra that with a social software bent. Thanks to Alex, Andrew, Paul, Cory, Kelly, Luke, Viv & Dan for answering the dilemmas and sharpening the thinking.

Hmmm - T-shirts, now there's an idea....

smart people + recession = ?

The last couple of articles seem to be focused on "tough times". But anyway, Talent Management in a Down Economy is now available on the other site.

white paper - justifying your km programme

A new white paper over at the other place.

tribes - how about that audio book

So as you may remember, I signed up for Seth Godin's latest book Tribes. The book arrived last week. So what's the verdict?

• The marketing campaign was a blinder. The Ning site for the first 3000 people to sign up to the book - which was a bit of mess and kinda lost my attention but still a brave experiment.
• Sending you two copies of the book for the price of one to those 3000. One to give away. A nice(ish) gesture. It wasn't like it was ice cream or anything but that doesn't travel so well. But a fantastic idea in terms of spreading the word.
• Giving the audio book away for free. Some people bitched about this but so what? It's free!!! And it's different to the book so that's fine.

So I think SG has done a dashed good job of marketing by being quite nice to his readers and generating buzz. Full marks.

Now let's get to the actual book. SG writes cool, buzzy sentences. Even his paragraphs are quite good. Things start to unravel at the chapter level and the final result is not really a book as many traditionally might think of it. There is no line of argument rather there's a rant that riffs around tribes and leadership with lots of case studies - a statistically improbable number of which are based in New York restaurants. I'm not finished yet but I'm getting a similar feeling to reading "Purple Cow" last year. There is an idea here but it feels more like a talk thats been worked up (really worked up) into a short bookette. I suspect the audio book would actually be better because then you might lose yourself in the momentum of the SG verbiage. Maybe he should charge for the audio book and give the paper one away for free.

I don't think that SG was always like this as a writer - I mean Permission Marketing felt like a, you know, proper book. Or are proper books, like, soooo 20th century? Plus the prose has a bit of a Tony "Awaken the Giant Within" Robbins feel to it. Is there going to be a 5-day, 5-figure seminar series off the back of this?

As for the idea? That (informal) tribes are more important than formal organisations? That leadership comes from all over the place? It's not a bad idea by any means and there are parts that I absolutely agree with. But it didn't feel that new to me. Maybe it's "Here Comes Everybody" if you have ADHD.

So Seth Godin. Genius marketer. Good blogger. Book writer? Not so much anymore...

politeness

A recent post led to a somewhat predictable exchange with someone. In the comments section, I am told that one of my statements is impolite. A couple of months ago I had a stoush with someone else on an email list that then went off-list. I had publicly attacked the mode of arguing that person had used. In an off-list exchange, I was told I was being impolite and unprofessional. Maybe I am.

I'm always a bit dubious when the "politeness" card is played. If I have called you "stupid" then I agree, that is impolite. If I have called what you say "stupid" (and also justified why I think that) then the case for "impoliteness" is much weaker. It often seems to be a distracting tactic. I reserve the right to criticise statements and behaviour. I also accept that my words and actions will get called these things in return. And yes, those who seem generally "nice" will get treated more gently than those who seem to relish verbal battle.

What do you think the rules of etiquette are?

[UPDATE: Well that doesn't seem to have ended well]

actkm - networks

Graham and Laurie both ran sessions on networks of different sorts. BTW networks are so hot right now.

I interpret Graham's work as being built on a single, brilliant insight (plus lots of hard work). The insight is that the nodes in social network analysis don't have to be people. They can be projects or policies or many other kinds of business objects. I strongly advise you to read his blog.

Meanwhile Laurie's partnership scorecard is also shaping up nicely. He now has lots of nifty templates. The session suffered from being a dash hypothetical (I imagine it plays so much better for real) but again definitely worth checking out.

actkm - arthur shelley's wiki

Arthur presented on his wiki experiments with RMIT students. The trials and tribulations. The collective efforts. It's a shame that this one wasn't recorded as the slide don't really do it justice.

actkm - matt hodgson

The key part of Matt Hodgson's presentation for me was the note that social software uptake inside organisations could be related to power distance i.e. social software is more likely to be taken up in organisations with low power distance. Matt - Do you have the background research on that?

UPDATE 30.10.2008 - Stuart French has pointed me towards this discussion on Matt's blog where Matt sources his findings. I'd like to get my hands on the underlying data if possible. Any spreadsheets there Matt?

actkm - dave snowden's challenge

Rewinding to the actKM conference a couple of weeks ago, I want to pick apart a comment by Dave Snowden. In a public discussion, he stated that knowledge managers should focus on solving intractable problems.

I have two responses to this:

1. That's easy for you to say, Dave. To my knowledge, Dave has never held down a KM role inside an organisation (apologies if that's wrong) and his primary engagement with KM has been as a consultant. He gets to pick and choose "intractable problems" that he will work on. Most knowledge managers do not have that luxury but must try to sell innovative projects to a sceptical management while ensuring that things like the intranet are working.

2. As a provocation, an incitement to knowledge managers not to get pigeon-holed as document minders, it's a great one.

an infatuation

All the Obama vs McCain stuff in the US? It nags at me. Not because I think Obama will lose. It's possible but looking less likely by the day. At not because I think Obama will be a bad president. I think he'll be competent enough. And he seems a better choice than his competitors for the crown.

My beef is that he cannot possibly satisfy the desire for change that he has both nurtured and ridden. He reminds me of Tony Blair in the UK - and to a lesser extent Kevin Rudd here in Australia. A dream has been created that must necessarily be broken.

Within 12 months of Tony Blair's election, many of those who had been hyping him turned against him. They had created a fantasy candidate in their heads and Blair with all his human failings (plus the slightly autocratic leanings that Rudd seems to share) could not live up to their dreams.

The problem with infatuation is that you don't fall in love with a person but your project of that person. I give the infatuation 6 months before it fractures in the face of the human reality.

i really don't give a **** about social media

I'm kinda over it all at the moment. Maybe it's because I'm sick in bed with nothing but my computer for company. But maybe I'm getting a bit over the social media milieu as well. We are actually a very small group in Australia - buzzing each other up on Twitter.

I'm a bit bored of presentations talking about "revolution" and using inspirational stock footage that trigger associations with these guys. This stuff isn't a revolution. Which is good coz most revolutions fail in their aims and end up eating their children. I don't want a revolution.

I'm struggling to articulate these small annoyances. They'll nudge together into something more coherent over time. I want this social media bubble of voices bouncing off the inside of its skin to burst.

I want little moments of insight.

i don't want a clean feed

Let's get one thing straight. I am against child pornography. However I am also against censorship of the internet by governments. Esp. when that censorship is ineffective. The EFA's no clean feeds campaign is well worth a check out. As is Angry Aussie's analysis of the situation.

email not dead shocker

A friend of mine called me last week and said she was thinking of setting up an online community for a group of female entrepreneurs. What should she use? Well, we had a chat and what do you think we came up with?

A blog, a wiki, a Facebook group, a Ning site?

No - an email list. An oldie but a goodie. These people aren't tech-savvy and email is their primary form of communication. I've ranted about email before but in this situation it kinda makes sense (for now).

mp3 on advice to new knowledge managers

I asked several people at the actKM conference what advice they would give to people new to the field of KM. You can now listen to their advice on the actKM site.

Hear what Mark Schenk, David Gurteen, Arthur Shelley, Graham Durant-Law, Keith De La Rue and Cory Banks have to say.

What piece of advice would you give?

Age of Conversation TWO!!!

Some of you may remember the first Age of Conversation last year. Well Gav & Drew have been hard at it and assembled another 200+ writers, ranters and relics for Age of Conversation
TWO!!! The aim is to raise $15k for Variety (the children's charity not the magazine). You can buy the book here.

Go on. Treat yourself...




Adrian Ho, Aki Spicer, Alex Henault, Amy Jussel, Andrew Odom, Andy Nulman, Andy Sernovitz, Andy Whitlock, Angela Maiers, Ann Handley, Anna Farmery, Armando Alves, Arun Rajagopal, Asi Sharabi, Becky Carroll, Becky McCray, Bernie Scheffler, Bill Gammell, Bob LeDrew, Brad Shorr, Brandon Murphy, Branislav Peric, Brent Dixon, Brett Macfarlane, Brian Reich, C.C. Chapman, Cam Beck, Casper Willer, Cathleen Rittereiser, Cathryn Hrudicka, Cedric Giorgi, Charles Sipe, Chris Kieff, Chris Cree, Chris Wilson, Christina Kerley (CK), C.B. Whittemore, Chris Brown, Connie Bensen, Connie Reece, Corentin Monot, Craig Wilson, Daniel Honigman, Dan Schawbel, Dan Sitter, Daria Radota Rasmussen, Darren Herman, Dave Davison, David Armano, David Berkowitz, David Koopmans, David Meerman Scott, David Petherick, David Reich, David Weinfeld, David Zinger, Deanna Gernert, Deborah Brown, Dennis Price, Derrick Kwa, Dino Demopoulos, Doug Haslam, Doug Meacham, Doug Mitchell, Douglas Hanna, Douglas Karr, Drew McLellan, Duane Brown, Dustin Jacobsen, Dylan Viner, Ed Brenegar, Ed Cotton, Efrain Mendicuti, Ellen Weber, Eric Peterson, Eric Nehrlich, Ernie Mosteller, Faris Yakob, Fernanda Romano, Francis Anderson, Gareth Kay, Gary Cohen, Gaurav Mishra, Gavin Heaton, Geert Desager, George Jenkins, G.L. Hoffman, Gianandrea Facchini, Gordon Whitehead, Greg Verdino, Gretel Going & Kathryn Fleming, Hillel Cooperman, Hugh Weber, J. Erik Potter, James Gordon-Macintosh, Jamey Shiels, Jasmin Tragas, Jason Oke, Jay Ehret, Jeanne Dininni, Jeff De Cagna, Jeff Gwynne & Todd Cabral, Jeff Noble, Jeff Wallace, Jennifer Warwick, Jenny Meade, Jeremy Fuksa, Jeremy Heilpern, Jeroen Verkroost, Jessica Hagy, Joanna Young, Joe Pulizzi, John Herrington, John Moore, John Rosen, John Todor, Jon Burg, Jon Swanson, Jonathan Trenn, Jordan Behan, Julie Fleischer, Justin Foster, Karl Turley, Kate Trgovac, Katie Chatfield, Katie Konrath, Kenny Lauer, Keri Willenborg, Kevin Jessop, Kristin Gorski, Lewis Green, Lois Kelly, Lori Magno, Louise Manning, Luc Debaisieux, Mario Vellandi, Mark Blair, Mark Earls, Mark Goren, Mark Hancock, Mark Lewis, Mark McGuinness, Matt Dickman, Matt J. McDonald, Matt Moore, Michael Karnjanaprakorn, Michelle Lamar, Mike Arauz, Mike McAllen, Mike Sansone, Mitch Joel, Neil Perkin, Nettie Hartsock, Nick Rice, Oleksandr Skorokhod, Ozgur Alaz, Paul Chaney, Paul Hebert, Paul Isakson, Paul McEnany, Paul Tedesco, Paul Williams, Pet Campbell, Pete Deutschman, Peter Corbett, Phil Gerbyshak, Phil Lewis, Phil Soden, Piet Wulleman, Rachel Steiner, Sreeraj Menon, Reginald Adkins, Richard Huntington, Rishi Desai, Robert Hruzek, Roberta Rosenberg, Robyn McMaster, Roger von Oech, Rohit Bhargava, Ron Shevlin, Ryan Barrett, Ryan Karpeles, Ryan Rasmussen, Sam Huleatt, Sandy Renshaw, Scott Goodson, Scott Monty, Scott Townsend, Scott White, Sean Howard, Sean Scott, Seni Thomas, Seth Gaffney, Shama Hyder, Sheila Scarborough, Sheryl Steadman, Simon Payn, Sonia Simone, Spike Jones, Stanley Johnson, Stephen Collins, Stephen Landau, Stephen Smith, Steve Bannister, Steve Hardy, Steve Portigal, Steve Roesler, Steven Verbruggen, Steve Woodruff, Sue Edworthy, Susan Bird, Susan Gunelius, Susan Heywood, Tammy Lenski, Terrell Meek, Thomas Clifford, Thomas Knoll, Tim Brunelle, Tim Connor, Tim Jackson, Tim Mannveille, Tim Tyler, Timothy Johnson, Tinu Abayomi-Paul, Toby Bloomberg, Todd Andrlik, Troy Rutter, Troy Worman, Uwe Hook, Valeria Maltoni, Vandana Ahuja, Vanessa DiMauro, Veronique Rabuteau, Wayne Buckhanan, William Azaroff, Yves Van Landeghem

my future bank is blank

If you are an Australian social software head then you probably know all about Cheryl, uBank/NAB and the demise of My Future Bank. At this point it would be de rigeur to beat up Loaded Tech/NAB and point you towards my own top 10 tips for corporate social software engagement (because this is, of course, all about me).

Here's my take:

• Cheryl's been writing about the marketing attempts of Australian banks for a while. I think her criticisms were valid and I share a lot of her frustrations with the way Australian banks operate. I want the banks to get it. I want them to give a flying **** about their customers but I am not convinced they do.
• The more observant of you may have noticed a little turbulence in the financial markets at the moment. Perhaps many people are not liking bankers presently...
  
• ...However the question of what my our future bank(s) should be has never been more important. We desperately need more consumer engagement from our banks - N.B. "engagement" does not equal "advertising".

So here's the pitch. A bunch of us re-start MyFutureBank. The banks are invited. Consumers are invited. Governments & NGOs are also invited.

Let's have this conversation.

actkm 2008

Massive shout out to the team who organised and contributed to the actKM 2008 conference in Canberra this week. Here are the presentations from Day 1 (including my own). Further reflections will follow on the weekend.

webifying the australian government

Did you know there is a Director, Web Policy & Online Technologies in Canberra who is responsible for making the Australian government all Web 2.0 n stuff? I didn't until a couple of days ago when I got an email for her. I had written to AGIMO to enquire as to what had happened about this. Of course in between sending the mail & getting the reply, I found this. There is undoubtedly some good stuff going on - such as Lindsay Tanner sticking his head above the parapet.

Apparently there are several events going on in Canberra in the next few months around this. Has anyone out there been invited?

It seems that the government are trying to achieve a radical goal (online engagement with their citizens) through traditional means (consultations, expert advice, behind-the-scenes meetings). N.B. If this is not the true state of affairs then educate me.

I really want to encourage them to go beyond that. Can we have members of AGIMO blogging about this for example? One thing I love about people like Jason Ryan is that they walk the talk. Come on my little cuddly bureaucrats, it's nice and sunny out here.

slower (perchance to dream)

I was at the Dave Gurteen / NSW KM Forum brekkie on the topic of "Is KM social?" with many of the usual suspects and some new faces.

One thing that stuck with me, while social software tools allow you to record experience as part of people's work, they can't fully solve one of the key challenge that knowledge managers face. Whilst embedding stuff and making things easy for people is very important, we've actually got to be wary of making things too easy for people.

Sometimes it's our job to say "Stop".

A key part of learning (individual or collective) is reflection. If you aren't willing to stop and reflect on what you have done (and its consequences), then you do not get the full benefit of that experience. We all probably need a weekly thinking time.

Just as our bodies need time to process the events, thoughts & emotions of the day (which may well be a key function of sleep), so we need time to process. Sometimes we do need to be asleep on the job (metaphorically).

One symptom of sleep deprivation is psychosis. If we cannot process our lives, we risk going insane.

Join the dots.

game 3: sticky wiki

A wikipedia entry referencing the minister of your department includes derogatory nick-names given to your minister by the press. A senior advisor to the minister approaches in the tea room one day and asks you – as the office “computer whiz” – to delete the offending remarks.

What do you do?

game 2: forumed is forewarned

An internet forum site with thousands of Australian users – tidalwave.com.au – includes a number of threads that are openly critical of the work that your group does. One thread in particular contains accusations that you and your group have acted illegally. These accusations are false. A major national newspaper has been lifting stories from this forum site on a regular basis and you fear that the contents of this thread could be next. You contact the media relations advisor in your department but they do not appear to understand the risks involved.

What do you do?

game 1: unleash the blogs of war

You are a public sector manager. Anne, a member of your staff, has a public blog where she posts mostly personal news about her rock climbing hobby. You don’t read the blog but occasionally she sends round email links to her climbing photos on the blog to her colleagues in the office. One afternoon you receive an angry phone call from Tricia, a senior public servant in another department. Apparently Anne has posted a blog entry critical of activities of that department that involve the rock climbing community. The post is not defamatory but some of the readers' comments attached to the blog post are abusive. Tricia believes that Anne has broken her terms of employment and wants to institute disciplinary proceedings against her.

What do you do?

social media public sector decision games

I'm doing a conference session in Canberra in November. My session is Social Media and the Public Sector - Examining the Hazards and their Policy Implications. I thought I'd kick things off with some decision games. I will post the 3 exercises up here. You can post up:

• The decision you would make.
• How you might change the scenario to make it more challenging or useful for participants.

the election (no, not that one)

Just before I went overseas (hence the lack of blogging), I exercised my rights as a new Australian citizen voted in my local elections. Australia differs from the UK in that voting in compulsory – punishable by a fine if you do not participate.

If you ask most Australians which system is better then they say the Australian one. However if you dig a little deeper and ask if they believe that Australia has a more engaged and informed electorate or a better standard of government than the UK then they tend to answer no.

The big problem here is that compliance is a poor way of generating engagement. The option of “going thru the motions” is a very tempting one for most people when presented with a compulsory activity. Do I need to point out any similarities with the world of organisational change and knowledge management?