Web 2.0 vs. Knowledge Management

I spoke at HR Tech last week on Web 2.0. During the session, someone asked whether Web 2.0 concepts are different than the Knowledge Management initiatives of the 90’s, or if we were just reinventing the wheel. I think they are different, and that they are part of a more systemic change happening in the workforce.

The rise of Knowledge Management (KM) programs in the 90s stemmed from the transition to an information economy. Companies, particularly in financial services and consulting, realized that their primary competitive differentiator was the information in people’s heads. If someone moved on to a new assignment or left the company, that information could be lost. So the companies started programs to have teams document their processes, results, and learnings. That way if they had turnover, they would retain the intellectual property that their employees had generated. It’s a completely reasonable request to have employees share information and collaborate with others, and this was in line with the trend toward more self-directed teams. So why didn’t KM take off?

When KM programs were implemented, they were seen as just another thing to do. (As one of my clients once said, “It’s Another Fine Program from HR.”) The systems were well-intentioned, but didn’t fit well into the processes the firm already used. Content had to be rewritten, and users had to change their processes to ensure their information went to the system. Once the system was installed, team members could collaborate or build upon content. But there were already processes in place for that, so again users had to change their processes to include the KM system. Also, team members weren’t as familiar with technology, so there was a learning curve involved in using the system. As a result, unless someone was mandating system use and including a strong change management program, the KM program became more a repository for finished documents and projects – a digital filing system.

The difference with Web 2.0, is that the users are driving adoption of the tool. Rather than a top-down mandate to share information, Web 2.0 comes from the bottom up. A developer decides he’s tired of trying to find the latest version of a document. So he builds a wiki, puts documents there, and tells the rest of his team to do the same. Or a marketer wants a new way to look at content, so she creates a team workspace to capture ideas and build up new messages. Or an employee is tired of keeping up with all the blogs and PR content that is sent around the company via email, so he creates an RSS reader, and then shares what he’s done with other team members. These people aren’t waiting for a program, or a central source. They are familiar with technology and know that it can meet their needs right now.

So what’s different? We are still capturing information, and making it available to others, just like we did with KM systems. We’re still allowing multiple people to view and build on content. But now, the focus is more likely to be individual productivity vs. intellectual property management. The workforce is much more familiar with technology, and willing to explore using new tools. In fact, they will likely bring the tools into the company themselves rather than wait for a corporate program. The new generation in the workplace expects to collaborate, to share and to use technology to do so. These systemic changes in worker attitudes and technology acceptance will lead to Web 2.0 adoption, and deliver on the promise of the original Knowledge Management systems. We're not reinventing the wheel - we're improving on it.

[img credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/12392252@N03/]

1...2...3...Eyes on Me.

We were talking technology pet peeves at dinner last night, and the topic turned to using laptops in group meetings. The argument for not having a laptop in a meeting usually goes along the lines of “if it was important enough for me to call a meeting, and to request your participation, then it should be important enough to you to give the meeting your full attention.” That argument certainly makes sense, but it also assumes the content is equally relevant and important to the attendees, and that the meeting is being well-managed.

Rather than placing an outright ban on having computers in the meeting room, I think it’s worth asking a different question: why are they being used?
- Are people multi-tasking?
- Are they reaching out to other people to contribute to the content of the meeting
- Are they preparing for their part of the meeting?
- Are they taking notes?
- Are they looking up stock quotes or the latest entertainment scandal?

I like to use laptops as a proxy to determine how the meeting is going. For example in a recent meeting, we had an hour-long presentation that I didn’t think was resonating with the group. When I looked around the room, 4 people were actively using laptops, 2 had their BlackBerries out, and the meeting organizer was doodling on her notebook. The next speaker had a longer timeframe, but the content was relevant, and presented well. BlackBerries went away, and laptops were closed or pushed forward. People were leaning in and actively contributing.

Do you really need to ban laptops to get people’s attention in a meeting? Arguably a laptop is a compelling distraction device, but laptops aren’t the source of bad meeting behavior – they just make it more visible. A better approach would be set groundrules for good meeting behavior. For example, the leader should double check the attendee list, and make sure people are attending for the right reasons and the right time frame. If someone is only needed for a portion of a meeting, and needs time to prepare a demo, or work on their presentation, why not suggest that they step out, and return when it’s time for their topic? If someone seems distracted in the meeting, why not encourage the presenter, facilitator or leader to draw them in? Ask the distracted person a direct question a few times, and they will realize that they need to put their attention on the meeting rather than email. Yes, it’s more work for the meeting leader, but it also likely means the meeting will be better managed. In a well-managed meeting, with the right attendees and compelling content, I suspect laptops would be used more as tools than distractions.

[Photo credit: Shenghung Lin]

Think of the User...Please!

I had a terrible user experience last week. I realized that our video camera’s memory was almost full, and decided I’d download the videos to our family server. Now, I’m not the most technical person on the block, but I have previously been successful in transferring pictures from our standard camera, and I’m pretty adept at managing standard software packages. Plus, the video camera is from a reputable brand and purchased in the last 12 months. Surely I’d be able to figure this out – after all, it’s a consumer product right?

45 minutes later, I still hadn’t downloaded a single video. Why? Because the software didn’t work the way I’d expected. I had dutifully looked over the instructions, plugged in the connections, started the application and opened the lens cap when prompted (Sidebar: Why would you need to open a lens cap to transfer video? It’s not like the camera is beaming the content to the computer….). Then, I was presented with what looked like a reasonable set of choices:
1. Edit/copy video
2. Edit/copy pictures
3. Settings
4. Close
It seemed pretty clear to me. So I clicked #1, reviewed the videos, and selected one. Then up popped a confirmation: Copy video to c://blahblahblah…? Wait, when did I select that folder? Where is that folder? Is that on the server or on my desktop? Oh no, am I about to lose my only copy of 6th grade band playing “Hills of Kilimanjaro”?

To be safe, I cancelled the confirmation and looked for a place to change the folder. No links on the screen to change folders or create new. Still thinking logically, I went back to the Settings link, thinking I could set preferences there. I found an option (good…) which then took me to the root menu for the computer (not so good…) and made me scroll up/down (really not so good…) until I landed on c://docs and settings (yay!). But once here, there was still no way to select a sub-folder, or create one! Frustrated, I ended up quitting the program, creating a new desktop folder, going back into the annoying scroll screen to select the folder and FINALLY TRANSFERRED THE STUPID VIDEO (/rant).

Now, I work in the software industry. I have a fairly high tolerance for figuring things out when they don’t work the way I think they should. But I have family members who don’t work in this space, who would have needed the geek squad to make this application work. There’s a reason why people left the VCR clock blinking at 12:00, and why the vast majority of digital pictures stay in the camera. The interface didn’t work the way people expected to.

It’s easy to assume that the people who will use your technology are just like you and approach problems the same way. But unless you are working with a highly structured process, there isn’t always one single flow that will apply to all users. It takes talent to make a user interface that is simple, and more importantly, follows a user’s mental model. The best designers get out of their design environment and test with all sorts of users. The content that comes from user feedback is really valuable. It gives designers and coders a better understanding not just of the requirement, but the reason why the requirement is needed. Regardless of the role you play in developing a product, the more you invest in knowing your user, the better the chances for a successful customer experience.

[Photo credit: Basial]

Second Life for HR

At every conference, there should be 1 session that blows your mind. Most conference sessions are geared toward providing new information on something you already know. You already know that there's a shortage of nurses, but you didn't know that the constraint is in college classes. Interesting, you've just added to your body of knowledge. But the session that blows your mind, that introduces new technology, or shows you a completely new way to work, is the session you'll be talking about in 6 months. It's the session that justifies your attendance at the conference.

The mind-blowing session at HRPS was the plenary session: Second Life: The Business Case for HR in the Virtual World. The abstract included a well-constucted audience tease.

You will be transported into the virtual world of Second Life, where the future is now. Explore the impact of the new economy, the emerging virtual workforce and the workplace of the not so distant future. Your Avatar moderator and tour guide will show you what millions of people and dozens of leading companies are doing NOW in a virtual world and economy.

Hmm.... there's an Avatar moderator? How's that going to work? Will there be someone live as well? Are they actually going to present in Second Life? I was intrigued.

The presenter (in person, standing behind the podium, bummer!) started by asking how many in the audience had an avatar, in any application. (maybe 5-10% of the audience.) He then offered a definition of Second Life as "the unholy offspring of The Matrix, MySpace and eBay". That was followed by some suprising demographic stats. 43% of Second Life users are female. Average age: 32. 55% of users are outside North America. He was also very careful to distinguish Second Life from World of Warcraft. (WoW: it's a game, and you live within its rules and narrative. Second Life: focus on commerce and creativity.)

And then the fun started. The moderator brought up his Second Life instance, and in the guise of his Avatar ("Ace Carson") proceeded to give a guided tour, including interacting with 2 other avatars who co-presented. The demo paid particular attention to how IBM has invested in Second Life as a way to better interact with their workforce. Chuck Hamilton, from IBM @ Play walked through their Onboarding Island, complete with detailed documentation for IBM's processes and services. They also are using Second Life for virtual conference participation, saying that the Avatars give more of a presence indicator than just participating in web conferences. The IBM team has built out spaces to support this stronger presences as well. For example, when Sam Palmisano was speaking in China earlier this year, he was also speaking in "China" in Second Life. Another area when they have found Second Life useful is in mentoring. The use of Avatars helps employees feel more comfortable asking questions, or interacting than they might in real life, and they don't have to rely purely on text, or audio communication. After moving their onboarding and mentoring to Second Life, they have found that employees are building more connections, faster. One reason given is that the Avatar-based relationships feel more "real" than pure instant messaging or email-mediated communication. The results, according to Chuck are better relationships, less travel, and a very active virtual world. There are currently 15,000 IBM Avatars.

The audience reaction was just what you would hope. Lots of questions, lots of interest, lots of people thinking about how to apply the technology. There was a fair amount of skepticism as well. ("It's all well and good for IBM with the resources they have. How would this work in a company of less than 5,000 employees? Who has the time or money to invest in this?") But most importantly, this was a topic that reached out well beyond the time allocated for the session. At lunch on Day 3, people were still talking about Second Life, drawing connections between other tools, and thinking about how this might change the game. Will it happen overnight? No. But this is exactly what you hope to take away from a conference: new ideas, new conversations, and new solutions that you want to go explore.

Navel Gazing

As I wrote earlier, I'm a huge fan of Twitter. Last week I hit my 250th post, and am now over 60 followers. So I thought it would be interesting to see where my tweets are focused. The results surprised me:

I *thought* there might be more mention of technology or work. Instead, the tweets show interest, and exploration (New, Great, Wondering), my priorities (Kids) and my challenges (Time, Day). One thing that tweetclouds could improve, or add, would be to show links that were posted -- that would be a great way to track interests, and the way they change over time. Food for thought, and a check point to see how this my use of this application continues to evolve.

Twitter: Headline News for the Next Generation?

I think you could call me a geek wannabe. I work in technology. I'm married to an Engineer. I live in Silicon Valley, where technology changes constantly, and the your next door neighbor could be the architect of iTunes (true for a close friend) or a senior person at IBM (true for me).

I know I'll never be a programmer - I barely passed CS 106. But I find the continual advancements in technology to be completely fascinating. First there's the "Wow, that's cool!" factor. And then there's the question of how does it impact a person? How does it make someone more productive? Change their lives? Change their thinking?

Twitter has been one of those fascinating revelations for me. At first I thought it was interesting. I can get messages on my phone in a constant stream? Cool. Then, it became annoying. Too many messages to track on the phone, and I'm not that interested in constant texting. At the end of last year I moved to Twhirl to see if my use would change when I had a constant gadget, and suddenly Twitter became an essential application. As of this writing, I'm following about 40 people. I haven't set specific criteria for following, other than being quick to stop following if the noise ratio gets too high. What I've found with the group I'm following is that they have diverse interests, they are dispersed throughout the globe, and they all are quick to share what they know. As a result, I've come to view Twitter as a participation based Headline News.

When I was in college, Headline News was a critical channel. I didn't have time to watch television, and even if I had, I had no interest in watching the local tv affiliates at 11pm every night. But at any time of the day, I could check Headline News and get the latest on critical stories, get updates on other news that I might not have heard on the local channels, and usually find 1-2 off-beat stories that would be good for later discussion. Also, if I missed an important story, I could be confident that it would be repeated later. Twitter is providing the same content. In the last few months, my Twitter friends have discussed politics, Heath Ledger, Britney, Bhutto, Seesmic, iPhones, the Monte Carlo fire....you name it, there is content, and links to follow to drill into more detail. The news isn't precisely personalized, as there are plenty of tweets that I can ignore. But Twitter has become a new way to stay informed, and to share content, that I've found quite valuable.

How does this apply to management? Or HCM? I don't know yet. It could be that Twitter will be more of a social faciliation process. The mash-up between Twitter and GoogleMaps for Super Tuesday is a fascinating way to track a national process. And it shows that there is still a lot of room to explore the use of Twitter. I think encouraging use (and importantly connections!) between team members can make Twitter a resource for better sharing, and overall team productivity. How could you use something like this mash-up to support a distributed team working on a key project? I'd be interested to hear from others who are using Twitter in a business context. Comment below, or follow me: @GretchenA.