social computing for knowledge management
DESCRIPTION
The world is abuzz with social computing: Facebook, My Space, YouTube, Flickr, Wikipedia, blogs, wikis and other spaces powered by Web 2.0 technology. It’s a social revolution, empowering individuals to communicate, share what they know online, and help others locate information that is important to them in both their private and working lives. Some see all this as a big waste of corporate time, but is it? Is there value in handing over control of collaboration and sharing knowledge to individuals, rather than hoarding it in records systems, knowledge systems, and thousands of network dive folders? Is there a way you can harness this social revolution to help improve our organisation’s knowledge management practices? Is there actually a solid business value proposition for social computing? Matthew will look at knowledge management in modern organisations, and how you can benefit by learning from the principles of social computing and Web 2.0 technologies. Matthew will look at case studies in government that demonstrate successful and not-so-successful ways of employing social computing tools, the factors that contributed to their success, and the pitfalls to watch out for. In particular, he will look at the issues in relation to corporate culture by drawing on recent research in blogs and wikis that is based on the theory and work in organisational psychology by Hofstede.TRANSCRIPT
1
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y Social computing for knowledge management
Matthew HodgsonACT regional-lead, Web and Information ManagementSMS Management & Technology
19 May 2008
2
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Case study – social computing in government
Conceptual Design
SystemsDevelopment
SystemsDesign
Analysis
3
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
4
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Folk Taxonomy
Glossary/Thesaurus
Glossary/Thesaurus
Glossary/Thesaurus
Glossary/Thesaurus
5
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Where’s Wally?
6
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Team’s available brain space
7
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Wiki
Jargon
Jargon
JargonHAS
TERMHAS
TERM
HASTERM
EQUIVALENT TO
PARENT TERM OF
PARENT TERM OF
8
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Folk Taxonomy
Glossary/Thesaurus (Knowledge Layer)
9
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Benefits of using social computing toolsFor the project: Quick to set-up Easy to use Accessible Saved time Single source publishing – terms into multiple physical
documents
Managing the team’s knowledge: Tool for creation and collaboration Allowed team to record knowledge as it evolved Context – record the relationships between “things”
10
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Results
The good: Visibility of new practices Other project teams from other divisions took notice They joined in and used this tool
The bad: We had broken traditional editorial approval process The wiki was closed down
11
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Why?
12
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y 1. Control v. rebellion2. Humans are social creatures
3. Cultural factors
13
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
1. Control v. rebellion
14
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
15
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y Organisations like to CONTROL their information
16
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
17
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Taylorism and Scientific Management
18
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
What the KM guys say
David Snowden Jon HusbandDave Pollard
A “buttoned-and-battened-down efficiency derived from a manufacturing-focussed era”
Most traditional management methods are becoming less and less useful but are still in place as the proxies for status and power
We’re still stuck in old management thinking based on Taylorism and Scientific Management Method
19
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
The effects of Taylorism It’s for an Industrial-Age processes, not for
Information-Age processes
Reinforces power-hierarchies in our organisations
Gives power to:The decision-makers Information gatekeepers
No power to the people with the ‘stuff’ in their heads!
20
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Gives power to Editors
21
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Gives power to information-organisations
22
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Gives power to companies
23
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Gives power to those who control the front-page
24
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
We don’t want them to decide!
25
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
A rebellion is here …
26
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
27
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Now THEY control YOUR information
28
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Why?
29
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Some stats
6.5 billion people on the planet Over 1 billion people use the Internet [1]
Approximately half visit web sites that facilitate social interaction and networking [2]
[1] Internet World Stats (2007)[2] (Ipos Insight (2007)
30
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Some stats (cont.)
Wikipedia: 100 million hours of evolving knowledge
Television: USA – two hundred billion hours of TV every year 100 million hours per weekend watching ads Internet connected people – one trillion hours of TV
Source: Mel Blake (2008) Gin, Television, and Social Surplus
31
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
KM needs the ‘right’ management practice
Harness all this activity by using the right governance model:
Centralised: I want it all Decentralised: You can have it Hybrid: I’ll be strategic, you be operational
Hard-security: check every step of the way Soft-security: let them have cake, and then check it
Source: AGIMO, Better Practice Checklist (2008)
32
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Lessons learned
Our team project: The ‘right’ governance model Knowledge easily shared Social computing tool supported sharing
Wiki tool going ‘global’: Spanned silos No governance model beyond the team Broke organisation’s overarching models
33
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
2. Humans are social creatures
34
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Survival instincts
35
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Today, technology helps us fulfil social needs
Source: Felton, N (2008) New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html
Great Depression
36
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
We have social needs
Source: Wikipedia (Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs)
37
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Group membership affects us as well
38
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Traditional information-consuming roles
39
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
New roles help with the different knowledge activities
13%19%
15% 19%
33%
52%Source: Forrester Research (2008)
40
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
They do want to help each other
I comment to help refine
knowledge
I join so people
know the discipline I belong to
I review to help build knowledge
I just like to be a part of the group
I re-edit to ensure
knowledge evolves and is accurate
I’ll consume information, but will just watch on
the sidelines for
now
I’ll tag it so I can find it
laterI’ll tag it with
words I know my
group uses
I share my bookmarks so people
know what I consider valuable
41
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Key points
Its about the social: We are social animals and have social needs The web is an enabler of social activity Knowledge-sharing and collaboration is social activity
We love enablers of social technology: Give people EASY-TO-USE tools and
they’ll use them to do social things to help the Long-Tail
It’s not for everyone: Not everyone wants to be ‘social’ in this medium
42
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Lessons learned
Our KM tool supported the ‘social’: Knowledge creation Refining Collecting Commenting Discussion
43
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
3. Cultural factors
44
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Culture affects the way we work
Geert Hofstede
There are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behaviour of societies and organisations, and that are very persistent across time.
45
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Cultural Dimensions
It’s the Organisation’s personality
Highly relevant to: Web design (Marcus & Gould, 2000; Robbins &
Stylianou, 2002) Web-based communication (Tsikriktsis, 2002; Wilson,
et al., 2002)
46
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Cultural Dimensions
Individualism: Personal independence Uniqueness Competition Personal achievement and success Introspection Emphasis on internal attributes rather than other
people’s opinions and indications
47
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Cultural Dimensions
Collectivism: Feeling of involvement in, and contribution to, the lives
of others Sharing – material benefits and non-material
resources Willingness to accept the opinions/views of others Concern about the effects of actions/decisions on
others Concern about self-presentation Belief in correspondence of own outcomes with the
outcomes of others
48
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Cultural Dimensions
Power-Distance: Value power according to rank Value hierarchy over flat organisational structures Chain-of-command Important emotional distance separates subordinates
from authorities Respect and formal deference for higher status people
Differential rewards between high and low status
people
49
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Individualism / Collectivism
Source: Hodgson, M (2008) The Relationship Economy
50
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Power Distance
Source: Hodgson, M (2008) The Relationship Economy
51
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Interactions with Wikipedia
Behavior Power-Distance Individualism/Collectivism
Add Information ABSOLUTELY!
Clarify Information YES
Delete Information NO
Delete Link NO
Fix Link YES
Grammar YES
Mark-up Language
Spelling YES YES
Source: Pfeil, Zaphiris, & Ang (2006)
52
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Key points
Culture affects: Adoption of social computing tools Knowledge creation and sharing behaviours
You can’t easily change corporate culture: But you can be aware of it what it will do to KM You can use it to your advantage
53
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Lessons learned
Being aware of cultural issues helps: Avoid problems Take advantage of motivators
Culture: High hierarchy – can kill knowledge sharing High team-centric approach – good sharing High individual focus – good creation
54
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Conclusions:
the value proposition
55
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Intranet expectations
1. Better internal communications 90%2. Improved processes 80%3. Knowledge sharing best-practice 72%4. Improve efficiency 65%5. Reduction in paperwork 65%6. Avoid duplication of effort 62%7. Real-time information sharing 55%8. Cost savings 55%
Source: Melcrum Intranet Survey (2001)
56
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
The $13 billion USD filing cabinet
Source: CNN Money
57
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Lessons learned for KM
Jon Husband
Had social computing been available been available a decade ago, “what we have called knowledge management would have been embraced and used more successfully”
58
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Social computing can help KM
Achieve KM strategic objectives by: Delivering systems that support social interaction Supporting evolving knowledge, not static knowledge
Implement KM through: Aligning Governance with social processes Recognising the importance of the social over the
technology itself Being aware of culture, not trying to force it to change
to meet KM needs
59
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Final thoughts
60
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Be aware of many factors:
Governance – what model?Social interaction – what behaviour?Culture – the good, the bad, and the ugly
Next time?
61
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y FIN
Questions?
62
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y Social computing for knowledge management
63
SM
S M
anag
emen
t & T
echn
olog
y
Twitter: magia3eSlideshare: www.slideshare.net/magia3e
Blog: magia3e.wordpress.com
E: [email protected]: 0404 006695
Matthew HodgsonACT regional-lead, Web and Information Management
SMS Management & Technology