Community Portals

Looking back at lessons learned from community portals (2005) I would say that the transactional portal is the only one that still makes any sense to me:

Transactional: sites which are accessible, complete, thoughtful, and coherent; and with more than one type of on-line interaction (e.g. payment, application, consultation, bookings).

RSS has blown up the content-only portal funded through advertising but the wide adoption of Twitter is giving content publishers a new push mechanism to get eyeballs to their sites. I don’t follow anyone on Twitter who only publish their recent blog posts, that’s what a feed reader is for. However, some people may prefer getting updates via Twitter. I wonder if this will significantly change the use and utility of RSS?

Back to portals. I’ve found that checking out the various portal/community sites that I belong to is rather tedious and am consciously avoiding requests to join more communities. Not sure if community portal overload syndrome is widespread but I think there’s a sea change happening. Are central portals dying, seeing a resurgence or best left for internal organizational use? I’ve noticed that proprietary portal software is still being sold for lots of money and there are several strong open source projects available too.

Are portals old tech or still a solid way to support communities and various types of online transactions?

Photo by yewenyi

Don’t look to business schools for leadership

Business schools tout themselves as thought-leaders, but they only appeared on the scene after the mass production industrial model had been proven. We shouldn’t expect leadership from our academic institutions, with their profitable business schools, until we have a proven new organizational model for the post-industrial era. Actually, business schools may be to blame for our current economic problems. According to renowned management professor Henry Mintzberg:

From where I sit, management education appears to be a significant part of this problem. For years, the business schools have been promoting an excessively analytical, detached style of management that has been dragging down organizations.

Every decade, American business schools have been graduating more than a million MBAs, most of whom believe that, because they sat still for a couple of years, they are ready to manage anything. In fact, they have been prepared to manage nothing.

The current economic situation is the result of an utterly failed management model. It’s obvious when you compare Japanese automakers with the “Big Three” in North America – the same materials, the same technology and the same base of workers, but DIFFERENT management. Yes, it’s management’s fault.

Mintzberg also says that, “Management is a practice, learned in context.” That means that book-learning is not enough. Thomas Malone’s The Future of Work and Gary Hamel’s The Future of Management are two good books that look at the need for new management models. They’re a start. What’s missing from both are practical models to implement and that is one of my key interests in consulting. I think that adding the framework of wirearchy and the practical examples of natural entrepreneurship would be useful. Since both of these are completely ignored by business schools, I take that as a positive indicator. However, we still need to try these models, frameworks and ideas in the context of managing real businesses. That’s the challenge.

I believe that future management models can find inspiration and clues in web-based service companies as well as small, community-based businesses. A networked society means that businesses have to be nimble and small-thinking because every individual transaction is unique. One bad experience can go viral. Lack of transparency is mistrusted. Command and control matters less and less. Look to business models that understand the importance of community.

Any new management models will have to break down long-standing silos between departments and let people connect on a more human level. We are not “human resources”. We need models that keep everything at a human scale, so biological metaphors, instead of mechanistic or military ones, may be more appropriate. This is the kind of thinking that the Internet Time Alliance is extending: tearing down the training department and instilling human performance into the organizational DNA. Learning is not something that is ‘done to you’ and management should not be an external force but instead an internal motivational driver of the organization. Once again, look at the definition of wirearchy:

a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on information, knowledge, trust and credibility, enabled by interconnected people and technology

This would be a good foundation for the next generation of business schools.

Future of organizational learning and development

On 21 April 2009 Corporate Learning Trends will be organizing sessions, speakers and workshops online; all for free. The main topic is the future of organizational learning and development. Follow the link to make any suggestions on topics of interest, format, times and delivery modes.

The previous sessions were well-attended and the whole togetherLearn gang is helping out with this one.

Visit Corporate Learning Trends and Innovation 2008

Come join in the conversations and learning.

Angels on the head of a pin?

In March, LCB asked where would workplace learning be in 10 years. I responded that work and learning would continue to be more integrated and later wrote that soft skills, especially collaboration and networking, will become more important than hard skills.

Saul Carliner just wrote long-live instructor-led training, opening with:

In March 2009 the monthly question on ASTD’s Learning Circuits blog wonders what training will look like in 2019. Nearly all of the contributors predicted the death of the classroom.

and concluding:

But one question still nags; if the evidence suggests that instructor-led instruction still has a long, healthy life (whether in the classroom or online), why do bloggers continue to insist that its death is imminent?

There were many responses to LCB’s question, and a good variety of views but I cannot find a single comment that explicitly says the classroom will die. Tony Karrer takes Saul to task on many points:

Long Live what?  If his point was only to say that people claiming the death of the classroom in 10 years are wrong … and that the classroom will still be around in ten years … then I agree.  But it just seemed that his argument quickly left that and into a bunch of dubious statements.

I would claim that it’s probably much more instructive to go look at some of the individual posts cited and make up your own mind.  And I would still ask you to answer the core question: Where will you spend your time?

Instructor-led teaching in a classroom is one approach that is used in both training and education. Classroom teaching methods have been developed over the centuries. Online instructor-led teaching is a more recent method used in training and education. However, training is not education and neither training nor education are learning.

There is evidence that people learn from formal training and education. Good training can help to acquire skills and knowledge. Good education can open one’s mind and help gain knowledge.

There is also strong evidence that people learn in informal and unstructured ways and some people will learn in spite of formal education.

If you’re in the teaching and training business, you should use the optimal tools and conditions for the circumstances. If you want to argue over the death of a tool-set, then go ahead.

If you’re in the human performance or organizational effectiveness business then you need a broader scope. For the most part, you shouldn’t concern yourself with the arguments of teachers and trainers, you just want people to perform their jobs, solve problems and find new opportunities. How best to support workplace learning depends on many variables:

  • Thinking of workplace learning as only applying what has been taught is extremely limiting.
  • Thinking of work performance as mostly dependent on training is also limiting.
  • Most limiting of all is too much concern over the delivery mechanism.

Perpetual Beta

It hadn’t really occurred to me before that pilots are an almost inextricable aspect of Enterprise 2.0. Of course the ‘iterate and refine’ concept can be implemented in other ways, but I think it’s fair to say that organizations absolutely need to get good at running pilots, if they’re not already there. It is a key facet of the path that leads to improved organizational performance.

So says Ross Dawson in pilots as a key instrument for improving organizational performance in a complex world. If you take the cynefin approach for working in complex environments you first Probe then Sense and then Respond in order to develop emergent practice. There are no good or best practices that will work for  your context in a changing complex environment, so probing (AKA: piloting or Beta releases) is necessary to see what works. However, changing from a highly designed approach to an agile method is difficult. I previously recommended that instructional design adopt agile methods but even in the programming world, letting go of old ways is difficult as Sara Ford at Microsoft explains in how I learned to program manage an agile team after six years of waterfall.

There is no silver bullet solution to running the human performance side of an organization in the complexity of a highly networked economy with ubiquitous access to information and people. New tools keep being developed that can change the way we work and learn. Today it’s Twitter and tomorrow it will be something else. Approaching enterprise performance from the perspective of perpetual Beta is a way to maintain your sanity in all of this change. The values and culture can remain stable while the tools and practices keep evolving to take advantage of the situation.

Pilots are key to improving organizational performance but the culture of perpetual Beta is critical. Perpetual Beta is my attitude toward learning – I’ll never get to the final release and my learning will never stabilize. I’ve also realized that organizations with a similar attitude are much easier to work with than those that believe that we will reach some future point where everything stabilizes and we don’t need to learn or do anything new. I think that point is called death.

Protesting infringement on privacy and free speech in Canada

Ontario Court Orders Website To Disclose Identity of Anonymous Posters

Protection for anonymous postings is certainly not an absolute, but a high threshold that requires prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim is critical to ensuring that a proper balance is struck between the rights of a plaintiff (whether in a defamation or copyright case) and the privacy and free speech rights of the poster. I [Michael Geist] cannot comment on the postings themselves (and I recognize that Warman has been a frequent target online) but I fear that the high threshold seems to have been abandoned here, with the court all-too-eager to dismiss the privacy considerations associated with mandated disclosure by not engaging in an analysis as to whether the evidentiary standard was met.

We need very high thresholds before our rights can be trampled.

It’s time to black-out in protest.

Starting an Online Community

There are several factors that should be looked at when creating a collaborative working/learning space. I’ve previously referred to Column Two’s three tiers of collaboration – Capacity, Capability & Strategy and it’s a good model to start with. Part of capacity are the existing processes and culture of collaboration while capability includes the best tools for the job. It’s not easy for a group of individuals, who do not know each other, to work collaboratively from the onset. It is even more difficult to ask that this collaboration occur online when the participants are not in the habit of working on the Internet. The practice of sharing needs to be joined with the tools that work for the culture. Finally, strategy includes the leadership, direction and project management of getting things going to work collaboratively online.

It’s important to get participants/members first used to processing their information flow online. A framework such as Personal Knowledge Mastery can be used, but each person must be given time to practice, connect and get feedback. The community also needs to be nurtured, one relationship at a time, as the creators of Flickr realized:

A lot of our success came from George, the lead designer, and Caterina. Both of them spent a lot of time in the early days greeting individual users as they came in, encouraging them and leaving comments on their photos. There was a lot of dialogue between the people who were developing Flickr and their users to get feedback on how they wanted Flickr to develop. That interaction made the initial community very strong and then that seed was there for new people who joined to make the community experience strong for them too.

Because culture is slow to change I would recommend starting with the simplest tool-set possible. Turn off most functions and only enable new ones when people start asking for more. As with tools, the same minimization principle goes for content. It is more important to build relationships and to draft the right people than it is to build the best content. Community trumps content online. Therefore, the focus should be on building connections.

A model we used for a CoP prototype (the first of several to be implemented on a variety of ‘topics’) was based on these roles in the core team:

Process Lead (Communities) – Stays current on online communities, evaluates progress, helps members with knowledge-sharing, develops processes and records progress.

Recruiter (Early Adopter) – Identifies and connects with other potential Early Adopters.

Recruiter (Maven) – Identifies subject areas of interest to the community and finds knowledge or human resources.

Technical Lead – Identifies technologies and ensures that the community has the right tools.

Topic Lead – The ‘go-to’ person on all questions relating to implementation. This person is supported by the other core team members.

Break down the walls

If we don’t bust down the industrial-age silos in our organizations, their walls will inevitably crash down on us. Just ask the News department that had walls between print and the Web.

Three years ago Jon Husband called for an amalgamation of support functions in the networked workplace or eOD (e-OrganizationalDevelopment). Luis Suarez has suggested the merging of knowledge management and learning. Most recently Euan Semple calls for combining HR, Communications and IT. Euan says that HR are “maintainers of order, rather than enablers of staff”; that Communications manages rather than enables communication; while IT controls risk instead of enabling the business. These are generalizations, but expose the weaknesses of our current management system.

I’ve recommended before that a wide range of silos (HR, Training, Personnel, KM, OD, Communications, PR, Marketing, etc.) should be incorporated into one support function. Individuals could have a variety of roles, depending on organizational needs but all have to be focused on the organization. Separate departments create tribes and internal cultures that may be at cross-purposes with other departments or the overall organization. With hyper-linked information and access to expertise, not only are internal departments of less value, they could subvert the organization’s future by not responding quickly and appropriately.

I know that there’s more than one way to achieve better functioning organizations but tearing down the walls is a good place to start.

Twitter: more than what I’m having for breakfast

Twitter is a great source of information. Here are some “tweets” that caught my attention and I’ve added as “favorites”. An eclectic mix of tools, tips, information and ideas:

sleslie how did I never know about the <acronym> tag? http://snurl.com/adf6y

shantarohse When you want the whole discussion not just a monologue. TwitterScope by @designmeme shows posts with @ replies. Clever. http://bit.ly/rYEQ

skap5 RT @aptuscollab: @skap5 Future work unit is federated teams. Recession has broken valence bonds of old corporate molecule.

soluzioni #davos “… education is the engine nexus … technology is the flywheel …” – Linda Lorimer

valdiskrebs In this century, global power will increasingly be defined by connections — who is connected to whom & for what purposes. http://is.gd/iNyF

MichelleBlanc Retweeting @Cleo_Qc: @MichelleBlanc http://www.back-to-iraq.com/ Un journaliste supporté financièrement directement par ses lecteurs.

Dave_Ferguson RT @levyj413: “From 30,000 Feet to 3 Feet: Running a Federal Blog” http://twurl.nl/550nep <slideshare>

kate__k Great patching-together of twitter, delicious and RSS: become a ‘twitterteacher’, too! – http://tinyurl.com/bjtcdo – thanks @thecleversheep

thecleversheep PDF to Word is now available to everyone! http://www.pdftoword.com/

robpatrob Fast Forward guide to Twitter – all you need to know to convince a friend/boss/colleague is up now http://tinyurl.com/ayzub2

Disruptive business models already here

The Great Disruption is on. Globalized, kleptocratic powers are trying to control the change by grabbing the monetary system while at the same time the Web has enabled empowering, grassroots initiatives like Kiva.org to spring up. As stock prices plummet and currency fluctuates, even the unwashed masses, who never understood derivatives, are realizing that money has no real value. That’s good because two types of organizations don’t need a lot of money.

First, a lot of Web services start with sweat equity and their service fees fuel organic growth with little need for investment until they are are already proven businesses. Second, natural enterprises, based on community, continue to spring up all over. Starting your own small business is one way to deal with down-sizing. In our town we have witnessed the launch of an organic bakery, a community supported agriculture association and a green builders cooperative in the past few years. All three are growing. At the same time, I’ve seen local web-based businesses going global with niche products and services.

A presentation from CFIB this week showed that 1) Farmers and 2) Small Business Owners are the most trusted professions in Canada. Investment bankers did not even make the list. So who is going to suffer from any future lack of talent, the big guys or the little guys? The big firms can only offer money, while smaller businesses usually offer lifestyle and a sense of doing something worthwhile. If we enter into a period of currency devaluation, then money will be of even less value. The barter system actually works at the local level.

In the networked, always-on workplace, community is king, as it has always been at the local level. Today, organizations, public, private & non-profit, need to connect with their communities. People are already doing this on the Web and it’s becoming unnatural to go to work and not be connected to our communities. Workers only surf the Web or play solitaire when they’re disconnected from their work. Keeping people connected and engaged is the great challenge, especially for larger organizations. This can be a role for the training department, but I’m not sure if most are up to it.

To weather the great disruption a successful organization will have to be more like 1) a web-based service company and 2) a small, community-based business. It will have to be nimble and remain small, or small-thinking. That means breaking down silos and giving autonomy to sub-organizations. It also means sharing and enabling people to connect on a human level, not with some document or policy. The future belongs to an organization that can think like a small business, where your word is your bond, and at the same time act as an inter-connected global citizen.