Friday’s Finds #30

by

What I learned this past week on Twitter:

Dale Arseneault: 8 things you need to know about collaboration. [I like #3 – Collaboration is a human process – throwing technology at people won’t magically/automatically create collaboration]

“I rated a YouTube video (5 out of 5 stars) — OPEN (episode 3).” via @euan [I followed the links and am now subscribed to This Week in Tech]

Social Learning: situation beats instruction. via @charlesjennings

Modeling the behavior of others plays an important role in the worldview of social learning theorists. People change their behavior to fit into a social group, to succeed in attaining membership. They imitate people they admire, to obtain the rewards such a person accumulates. Bill Clinton, for example admired JFK, who inspired him at their meeting when Mr. Clinton was 17.

The Future of Peer 2 Peer University

Accessing OER [open educational resources] does not automatically result in learning. There are reasons why traditional education institutions exist, one of these being the social interaction between peers that enables, facilitates, and motivates learning. But what about those that want to learn outside of brick and ivy walls? P2PU is an initiative outside of the traditional institution that aims to provide the social learning structures, the “social wrapper”, around existing open educational resources.

Shrunken communication in distributed teams – why loosely-connected social network access is important: small talk. via @mathemagenic

Jing now integrates with Twitter as this screenshot shows. via @1ernesto1

Derek Blunt: 21st Century skills do not exist; here are 9 skills that do. via @fredsheahan

Confirmed! Podcamp Halifax will be at the Alderney Gate Public Library on January 24, 2010: Commence wiki! via @RyanDeschamps

Our Virtuous Internet

by

Uploading is the democratic part of broadband. It is the tool of the individual against big brother. User-generated content (UCG) is vital to this revolution – Harriet Wakelam.

Do you know how many videos YouTube has created? I would say that it is rather close to zero – we, the people formerly known as the audience,  have created almost all of the value on YouTube. This is user-generated content. It’s the same for Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Slideshare, Flickr and hundreds of other social networks. We built the Web’s value.

The Internet is an empty shell; or just a protocol connecting a world of ends [originally on worldofends.com by Weinberger & Searls but the domain has been re-purchased]:

  1. The Internet isn’t complicated
  2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
  3. The Internet is stupid.
  4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
  5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
  6. Money moves to the suburbs.
  7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
  8. The Internet’s three virtues:
    • No one owns it
    • Everyone can use it
    • Anyone can improve it

Recently, I wrote the stub of the Curmudgeons Manifesto with some thoughts on how we need to collectively change our behaviours in order to foster a more open Web. In response to some comments, I responded:

My main interest in continuing this conversation is to ensure that others understand the cost of creating content on proprietary platforms and then losing control after it’s too late. Maybe I should I re-name it the “Pro-actively Pragmatic Primer”?

Here is what I hope is only the start of a more positive manifesto. Based on the above three virtues of the Internet, I suggest the Virtuous Internet Manifesto.

  1. We understand that the Internet’s three virtues are, and must continue to be, that 1) No one owns it; 2) Everyone can use it and 3) Anyone can improve it.
  2. We know that the true value of the Internet is on the edges and that each one of us is a Net contributor.
  3. We will use and promote open data on the Internet that each of us can control as we see fit.
  4. We will share openly on the Internet and not constrain those with whom we share.
  5. We will lead by example and share what we have learned to keep the Internet open for all.
  6. We will help to lead others out of the temptation of using web services that do not respect privacy, re-use, open formats or exportable data.

Searls & Weinberger conclude World of Ends with, “We have nothing to lose but our stupidity.”

Workforce collaboration

by

I find that many reports from large consulting firms are like pablum; no grist and easy to swallow by the masses. However, this McKinsey Report on Using technology to improve workforce collaboration actually held my attention.

The authors describe how companies can see large savings by using web technologies for collaboration (not a new concept). For instance, Cisco saved $100 million by mandating the use of web technologies which reduced travel and the need for face-to-face meetings. P&G increased its use of collaborative web technologies and in addition mandated that 50% of new product development come from outside the company. This resulted in shorter product cycle times and increased innovation. Good examples from very large firms.  You now have two more data points to throw into an ROI discussion.

The report includes an interactive graphic that shows profiles of typical knowledge worker roles and then suggests collaborative tools for typical tasks.  Some of the key tools include shared workspaces, wikis, and document sharing [I’m not sure why the fax was included as a collaborative technology though]. There are 12 role types described but I think we will see more hybrid roles such as community manager, which would be an amalgamation of aspects from several roles: instructor, manager, counselor. The graphic is a good model to start discussions but I would not recommend being limited to the 12 roles without further research and observation of your own workplace.

The report also discusses waste in collaboration, and while it is important to understand the potential costs, I wouldn’t want to eliminate all “waste” or you wouldn’t have any opportunities for what Jane Hart calls accidental serendipitous learning.

Overall, there is much food for thought but the recommendations are a bit too structured and could be taken to a level that actually decreases collaboration. You can get a lot of benefits by just using networked collaboration technologies, without implementing structured business process re-engineering and sucking the life out of work communities.

Communities and Work

by

A recurring, and popular, theme here over the past year has been communities:

The Community Manager and this follow-up, the Role of an online community manager

Communities of Practice

Connecting Ideas with Communities

Networked Community Management

Some observations on communities:

The role of online community manager is fast becoming a hot job opportunity for people who not only understand the technologies but how to exert influence in a network. It’s like pushing a rope. Leadership by example (or modelling instead of shaping) is a good starting point. Think of multiple communities divided by low stone walls that serve to delineate areas but also are places to meet and converse “over the fence”. The bottom line is that the community manager doesn’t manage much, but is more of a coach and facilitator.

An important issue is what we call, and how we define, communities in our work practice. I see online communities more as networks than groups. In a network, joint activities are co-operative and non-directive. No one is in charge. Communities and networks exemplify complexity, with fuzzy boundaries, shifting cultures and mostly autonomous members. On the other hand, online work groups have lower levels of complexity in order to get things done in a timely manner. Members have less autonomy and there are clearer roles for managers. The work in these groups may be complicated but there are rules, boundaries and processes.

Networked communities are better structures in dealing with complexity, when emerging practices need to be continuously developed and loose ties can help facilitate fast feedback loops without hierarchical intervention. Collaborative groups are better at making decisions and getting things done. The constraints of the group help to achieve defined goals.

Net Work LearningEffective knowledge workers participate in communities and networks and work co-operatively, sharing openly and learning from each other. Communities of practice are more clearly defined communities, focused on a particular field of work. Groups may form within or across communities in order to get work done, often this is project work with deliverables and remuneration. Online communities are where knowledge workers can learn and share and from which they can gel as groups from time to time in order to get work done. This is the nature of net work in an interconnected world.

Rebirth of the Sackville Commons

by

I worked on the notion of a work/environmental commons for our community for about two years, but after raising about $200,000 to construct a new building, matching funds from the provincial and federal governments (originally promised) never materialized. I ran out of steam and parked the idea.

This was my rationale for a work commons two years ago and it hasn’t changed:

For a community to thrive in the Internet Age, it must be attractive to knowledge workers. These workers need to be connected to other knowledge workers so that they can remain creative. They need to have constant access to fresh ideas. One way to attract knowledge workers is to offer the right physical space and connections.

Secondly, many knowledge workers are not traditional salaried employees, they don’t need conventional office space. Many are starting to create their own alternative work and community spaces in cities such as London, Toronto, Vancouver and more locally – Charlottetown and Halifax. Several variants of Commons are being established all over the world.

The Commons will be our place that will help to build trusted relationships. It is a Third Space, being neither a dedicated office nor your home. Individuals will be paying members, but the cost of membership will be much less than renting a dedicated office.

Recently, a local landmark came under new ownership and we are currently discussing the possibilities of creating a work commons in the front of this 15,000 sq ft professional building. Both the 2nd and 3rd floors have about 2,000 sq ft each and depending on interest we may use both.

Commons2B

To find out if there is interest, we we will be holding an open house on Friday, December 18th from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM-ish. This is what we are proposing but we’re open to any and all possibilities:

  • We will create a non-profit organization to manage the Sackville Commons.
  • Membership will be a monthly fee, probably $50 per month with a one year contract.
  • Services offered will depend on interest and willingness to pay [here is a list of membership benefits from the QSC].
  • We are also looking into the possibility of offering shared art studio space if there is sufficient interest.
  • Membership will be for individuals only – one person, one membership.

Feel free to comment here or on Twitter to @hjarche or @harborne

Please join us at 131 Main Street, Sackville, NB (front door, across from the Mount Allison swan pond). [Parking in rear]

Friday’s Finds #29

by

Weekly review of items of interest found on Twitter:

“As of today I will try to no longer use the word “copyright” but instead call it what it is, ‘Use Monopoly‘” @sleslie

Thinking clearly sometimes requires unbraiding our language. The word “copyright” may eventually seem as dubious in its embedded purposes as “family values,” “globalization,” and, sure, “intellectual property.” Copyright is a “right” in no absolute sense; it is a government-granted monopoly on the use of creative results. So let’s try calling it that—not a right but a monopoly on use, a “usemonopoly”—and then consider how the rapacious expansion of monopoly rights has always been counter to the public interest, no matter if it is Andrew Carnegie controlling the price of steel or Walt Disney managing the fate of his mouse. Whether the monopolizing beneficiary is a living artist or some artist’s heirs or some corporation’s shareholders, the loser is the community, including living artists who might make splendid use of a healthy public domain.

George Wald on The Origin of Death: a thought-provoking read, recommended by my 15 year old son.

From Social Networking to Swarm Intelligence – self-organizing systems and teams for unpredictable ecosystems. via @charlesjennings

The rise and fall of the professionalism of work: The inevitable rise of networked communications in organisations is deeply challenging to many of those currently in managerial positions. @euan

Then along comes the web. The web is about making better decisions faster. It is the evolution of knowledge on steroids. It cuts out the middle men and allows communication and learning to flow through and around the blocks in its way.

“Is it possible for bureaucracies to become more nimble? Or is it just contrary to their nature? When creating a #KM [knowledge management] bureaucracy, make routine only those things necessary for safety; keep everything else nimble & more free-form.” @VMaryAbraham

Jane Hart’s Guide to Social Learning (2 pages). via @c4lpt

Taxonomy of trainers: It seems trainers either ‘just know’ they make a difference or can’t find a way to prove it. via @charlesjennings

Embracing complexity at work

by

After our session at Online Educa this morning (well, it was early morning for me anyway) I thought some more about one of the models I used. The Cynefin framework is a good way to explain different types of work and how training can only help in some cases: when work is simple (cause & effect are obvious) or complicated (cause & effect can be determined through analysis). Training is of little use in developing the necessary emergent practices for dealing with complex problems in our work environment.

cynefin and training
Source: Wikipedia

My basic guideline for the workplace is that:

  • Simple work will be automated
  • Complicated work will go to the lowest bidder, as processes & procedures become more defined and job aids more powerful (e.g. mortgage applications)
  • Complex work requires creativity and is where the value of the post-industrial (network era) organization lies
  • Dealing with Chaos sometimes has to be confronted and this requires creativity as well as a sense of adventure to try novel approaches

Reading between the lines of many comments from Online Educa, one thematic question would be: This stuff may be interesting from a conceptual perspective, but what can organizations do right now to address increasing complexity? Initially, I would say there are two laws at work over which you will have little control:

  1. The bottom of the complexity pyramid (simple work) will continue to be automated.
  2. All work that is merely complicated will be done as cheaply as possible (outsourced, partially automated, done as cheap piece work)

Here is a possible strategy to consider:

Work that is merely complicated does not require all of a worker’s cognitive capabilities (really). Use this cognitive surplus and couple it with a time surplus, like Google’s 20% for engineers to work on pet projects. Have incentives for workers to find the complexities in their work and try out creative ways to address them. This will encourage people to move up the creative ladder, into more complex work. Remember, almost all of this complexity is man-made. We decided to network the planet and increase the speed of human communications. We will continue to create more complex work to do.

As for people whose work already requires creativity in dealing with complexity there are a few things they can do. First, they can become mentors and guides for those doing merely complicated work. This is one way to address Richard Florida’s concern that we need to make the service industries more creative. Who we work with makes a significant difference in how creative we are. Everyone can be creative – just watch this video involving the highest and lowest paid staff in a hospital creating a powerful message together.

Those dealing with complex work situations can also be further encouraged to take on Chaotic situations. It’s one thing to be creative and quite another to jump into the unknown by taking action without any idea of what will happen. Here’s a good video on systemic, organizational change explaining some aspects of simple, complicated, complex and chaotic work environments.

The bottom line is to make organizations more flexible, able to deal with change and even create change. Complexity should be embraced as the future of work and the key to an engaged workforce. Few are bored with complex challenges.  The more people who are engaged creatively, the more effective the organization will be and no, there isn’t a course you can take to address this.

The Curmudgeon’s Manifesto

by

I believe that Luis Suarez has started something in Curmudgeons Unite!:

I guess I could sum it up in one single sentence: “The more heavily involved I’m with the various social networking sites available out there, the more I heart my own personal business blogs“. As you may have guessed, this crankiness phase I’m going through hasn’t got anything to do with the world of social computing in general, but more with a good number of social networking sites. And, funny enough, they all happen to be some of the most popular ones.

It all has got to do with something as important as protecting your identity, your brand (And that one of the company that may be employing you), your personal image, your own self in various social software spaces that more and more we seem to keep losing control over, and with no remedy.

It’s not just about owning your data online, though I think this is important, but also the fact that social media come and go and even change the rules. One way to keep information accessible is to use an open, accessible, personal blog as the centre of your web presence.

blog central

As I thought about Luis’ post, I realized that there are a lot of social media applications that aren’t worth using because they lock you in or just make things more complicated for your content in the long run. Luis cites Facebook and LinkedIn: “Do you realise that by making heavy use of either of them you pretty much lose all of your rights to the content that you generate and therefore should own by default?”

In addition, Luis criticizes Slideshare but counters with Twitter as a good example of an open platfrom. My own list includes URL shorteners like Ow.ly that send you to their site or append lengthy additions to the original URL. It makes it very difficult to make citations to the original work, a major pain for anyone who blogs regularly, as Stephen Downes noted about Feedburner’s Link Pollution.

I’ve decided to start the Curmudgeon’s Manifesto, which may serve as a call to arms to start dumping platforms that don’t understand how to play nice on the Internet. It’s our playground, and through our actions we get to set the rules of conduct.

Here’s my start (additions welcome):

  1. I will not use web services that hijack my data or that of my network.
  2. I will share openly on the Web and not constrain those with whom I share.
  3. I will not lead others into the temptation of using web services that do not respect privacy, re-use, open formats or exportable data.

Update:

A suggestion from Doug Belshaw:

Change the name of the Curmudgeon’s Manifesto to the Open Educators’ Manifesto (or similar). Back OpenID and OpenSocial. People like to sign up to positive-sounding things that cite big players or existing traction.

Success depends on who we work with

by

Here’s a description from Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives, in which sociologist, Brian Uzzi, describes how creative teams (musical productions) function:

Uzzi found that teams made up of individuals who had never before worked together fared poorly, greatly increasing the chance of a flop. These networks were not well connected and contained mostly weak ties. At the other extreme, groups made up of individuals who had all worked together previously also tended to create musicals that were unsuccessful. Because these groups lacked creative input from the outside, they tended to rehash the same ideas that they used the first time they worked together. In between, however, Uzzi once again found a sweet spot that combines the diversity of new team members with the stability of previously formed relationship. The networks that best exhibited the small-world property were those that had the greatest success.

Production company networks with a mix of weak and strong ties allowed easy communication but also fostered greater creativity because of the ideas of new members of the group and the synergies they created. Thus, the structure of the network appears to have a strong effect on both financial and critical success.

As the need for creativity in the workplace increases, organizations should give some serious thought to the structure of work groups and networks. As Gary Hamel described at the Spigit Customer Summit, traditional (industrial) employee traits of Intellect, Diligence & Obedience are becoming commodities (going to the lowest bidder?). The Creative Economy requires more independent workers (like musical productions?) with the following traits that can not be commoditized:

  • Initiative
  • Creativity
  • Passion

It seems that successful creative work groups need to be just cohesive enough with some additional “friction” from new members in order to keep the passion and creativity flowing. This brings into question the rationale for practices such as:

Mass training with standard performance objectives for everyone

Predominantly full-time, salaried employment (few options for part-time work at the control of the worker)

Standard HR policies

Banning access to online social networks at work

With working life in perpetual beta, it’s time to re-think not just how we work, but with whom we work.

eCollab Blog Carnival

by

The first eCollab Blog Carnival (follow link for details) is set for 12 December 2009 (that’s a Saturday).

If you wish to contribute:

Before:
–    On your blog, via email, twitter or through other means, announce the new carnival ( you create a short post with links, visual, hashtags and short descriptions of Ecollab),
–    feel free to invite others as well.
–    Let us know by registering via the contact form or by sending a tweet to @hjarche with the hashtag #ECOLLAB

The topic to launch our carnival is the future of the training department, and submissions can be made in English or French, in keeping with the bi-cultural focus of Entreprise Collaborative.

ecollab carnival

During LearnTrends 2009 I noticed several back-channel discussions about the usefulness of the ADDIE model for instructional systems design, with some completely opposed and others thinking it just needs tweaking. With training so closely linked to ADDIE, do we need to reconsider training’s role in the workplace?

  • Has ADDIE outlived its usefulness?
  • Can training address complex work?
  • Has training become a solution looking for a problem?
  • Does the training department have a future?

—

In addition, if you’re at Online Educa this week, be sure to take in The Great Training Robbery, presented by the Internet Time Alliance.