Work

business & working

Ridiculously easy group-forming

by

The title of this post comes from a quote by Seb Paquet in the book Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky. This book is situated somewhere between the simplicity of Wikinomics and the complexity of The Wealth of Networks, which makes it a welcome addition to the field of social networks. Shirky’s analysis is excellent and is not just a repeat of the echo-chamber of the blogosphere. For example:

When we change the way we communicate, we change society. (p. 17)

You can think of group undertaking as a kind of ladder of activities, activities that are enabled or improved by social tools. The rungs on the ladder, in order of difficulty, are sharing, cooperation, and collective action. (p. 49)

It’s when a technology becomes normal, then ubiquitous, and finally so pervasive as to be invisible, that the really profound changes happen, and for young people today, our new social tools have passed normal and are heading to ubiquitous, and invisible is coming. (p. 105)

I saw social tools in action this week, when a parent/lawyer in Saint John, NB, was interviewed on the radio concerning the abolition of the early French immersion program in the province. The interviewer asked her what was the best way for other concerned parents to get involved. Her answer, “Facebook”. We now have tools for ridiculously easy group-forming, and these are being used at the local level by non-techies. Indeed, social media are getting close to “normal” even for those who are not so young.

Update:

Two groups on Facebook concerning EFI in NB (what Shirky would describe as “sharing”) have over 2,000 and 3,000 members respectively. The EFI Day of Protest has 104 Facebook members registered at this time (what Shirky would describe as “collective action”). As you go up the ladder, it requires more commitment, and you don’t get as many members. It’s interesting to watch this phenomenon and I’ll update the stats as time goes on, as well as confirm the actual numbers on the day of the protest.

efi-demo

Business social networks

by

Social networks are everywhere and the “monetization” word is becoming part of the discussion, as this recent RWW post shows. I’ve used several of these networks, such as Spoke which I haven’t accessed for a couple of years. For business, the leader in North America is LinkedIn, while Xing has a solid presence in Europe. What I’ve found, though are that these networks that are focused on business don’t do much for my business.

View Harold Jarche's profile on LinkedIn

XING

So far, LinkedIn has been good for asking questions, as I received some excellent advice on enterprise wikis in very short order. My Xing profile gets more hits than LinkedIn, even though I only have 6 connections on Xing versus 98 on LinkedIn. I joined Xing (just the free account for now) to see if the connections or conversations would be different. Not much to report back yet, but I may upgrade to see if that makes a difference.

In terms of business return, my blog ranks the highest, probably because I’ve invested the most time in it. I have had a few cold calls for consulting work directly from my blog, as well as several requests for speaking engagements or journal articles. If you’re a member of ASTD there should be one of my articles in April’s edition of T&D, and for Atlantic Canadians, check out the piece on blogging for business in the Feb/Mar edition of Progress magazine. Blogging has been good for me. I’ve even had a client find me indirectly through Craigslist.

I’d be interested in knowing if anyone finds these online business networks of much value, especially if they also have a blog.

“Monetization is an ugly word”

by

At EdgeGeneration, Umair says that “monetization is an ugly word”:

Let’s put that a little more formally. Monetization is ugly because it blinds us to the truth that value must flow in many directions. That’s the essence of edge strategy, in fact.

That’s why businesses that aren’t deeply, durably connected to people are already falling apart (hi, Facebook, Gap, and Microsoft).

Just ask yourself: how many firms industries has “monetization” already killed?

I’ve used the “M” word, as at some point in time I have to make money to pay the bills. However, money is usually secondary to doing the right thing or getting involved with the right client or project. Right in terms of being aligned with my principals or ethics. I have turned down work for ethical but not monetary reasons.

Having just shipped a proposal for an online learning strategy gig, I’ve been thinking deeply about workable models in higher education. Umair’s point is quite relevant for academia. Universities did not start as money-making ventures, they were a “self-regulating community of teachers and scholars“. So will monetization kill universities?

The next few years will be indicative, especially in North America; with a recession, a demographic crunch, increasing tuition and a growing disconnect between societal needs and degree programs. The value will have to flow before more cash flows.

Universities will have to do more than just say that they are about promoting learning, but they will have to show it in everything they do. That could mean courses built around student schedules instead of faculty availability. It could mean higher salaries for teaching staff than administration. It will have to mean reinforcing the areas of real value to the learner, because it’s all about learning. One challenge will be to ensure that the VP Finance or CFO understands this. By the way, when did universities move the money counter to the executive level?

More platforms

by

platform-alteration.jpg

Photo: Platform alteration by harryharris

Continuing the platform theme from my last post, I’ve come across two relatively new Web content sharing platforms – Scribd and LearnHub. Both allow for easy uploading and sharing of content that you own. Scribd has unlimited space available while LearnHub is free but will be charging a transaction fee in the future for testing and tutoring. Where LearnHub differs is that it is based on an information presentaion/testing/tutoring model, while Scribd just lets you put stuff online. Both have a rating system built in and Scribd so far is a much larger community, with 350,000 registered users.

Check out The History of Tim Horton’s [had to get some Canadian content, didn’t I?] on Scribd or the Cooperative Learning community on LearnHub.

Is this the future of online learning?

Platforms versus Programs

by

Jay Cross discusses an interview with John Hagel at FastForward and sees that a move from programs to platforms is necessary in a web-centric world:

The way out of the squeeze is to move from programs to platforms. He’s not talking about media. Rather, programs are push, content, and structured (as with software). Platforms are frameworks, networks, flexible, and loosely coupled. It won’t be an easy transition; many companies will die along the way. (The lifespan of an S+P company is already down to 15 years, an 80% drop from historical levels.)

Meanwhile, on the FastForward Blog, Rob Paterson shows how Wikipedia and YouTube have greatly surpassed both NPR and PBS in number of viewers. What is interesting is that both Wikipedia and YouTube are platforms, while NPR and PBS have been pushing programs.

I can see the same change happening in education. The successful institutions [if we use that term] in the near future will provide the best collaborative platforms. Those with only programs to offer will be sidelined.

Zero Training

by

Via Green Chameleon, I came across Nathan’s blog post on his project methodology of Clarify, Simplify, Implement – great advice, and so simple. Later in the same post, Nathan gives some more advice that should have anyone in the training business questioning their value proposition:

Zero training

Every user is time poor. They have no interest or time for attending training sessions. Training is the first and biggest hurdle to adoption of your new system and process. While complexity exists and training is required, users can always reject or work around the process with a politically acceptable excuse – “It’s too hard”.

Our aim, through simplification, is to make people’s life easier, reduce the burden on their time and remove all the excuses. The reward is adoption, engagement and relief that that finally it’s been done the way everyone always thought (individually) it should be.

Training is the last resort, and usually the most expensive solution, when all other performance support options won’t work.

Self-determination

by

There is almost an arms race quality to the way in which we are trying to save our current education and health care “systems”. I am coming around to the notion that the system is the problem. Much in the same way that The Support Economy diagnoses managerial capitalism as the primary cause of the disconnect between corporations and markets, I am seeing that [Ivan] Illich had it right over 30 years ago – we have seen the enemy, and it is us. Through our large, corporatist systems we have created self-perpetuating monopolies in both health and education.

I wrote this statement in 2004 and I haven’t changed my mind on our need for systemic change. Jon Husband recently reminded me of the book, The Support Economy, which I read several years ago, and his favourite quote:

Psychological self-determination is expressed in three different dimensions. In the first dimension people want to live their lives the way they choose to live it. This is the sense of sanctuary. The second way people express their psychological self-determination is in the widespread desire for voice: we want to be heard and we want our voices to matter. The third way we want our psychological self-determination to be expressed is in our desire to be connected: we want to be part of communities.

Our current corporate, educational and health care systems stand in the way of self-determination. We want to be part of something bigger than ourselves (community) but we also need to have control of our own lives. In our health, our learning and our work; self-determination is the key to resilience. We see this with the successful anomalies in the business world – W.L. Gore; Google; Semco – which allow more self-determination than their competitors.

I asked myself, which system has the best potential to change first? For those who agree that change is necessary, would it be better to concentrate on the creation of new business models and then let education and health care follow suit? I think so. Leadership seems to come from, or at least is deferred to, those who have the money or the means of production. So if you’re reform-minded, perhaps business reform is the most pragmatic avenue for your energies. Change the business models, change the world.

Middle of the Road or the High Road?

by

I was asked this week to do some instructional design work; something I haven’t done for a while. As we discussed the work, and of course the monetary compensation, I confirmed what I had written in So you want to be an eLearning Consultant? for eLearn Magazine.  This Pedagogical Design/Development work will pay within the range I described in the Table of the article. On the other hand, I’ve just finished an evaluation of an LMS and the work figured within the remuneration that I described for Technological work; about five times the rate of the development work.

Of course, you have to balance the compensation with the potential work available in that field. However, if you’re interested in this business as your vocation, and making a decent living, you may wish to consider what end of the spectrum you decide to focus on.

Worker Networks

by

I’ve been reading The Future of Management, recommended by Jay, and would say that it’s one of the better management books I’ve read in several years. The book’s major premise is that industrial command and control organisations no longer work and explains why they don’t work, as well as giving examples of companies that refute parts of the established industrial models – Google, W.L. Gore, Best Buy, Semco.

The authors show how innovation at the operational, product & service and strategic levels only yield incremental results, but Management Innovation has the potential for much greater change. Henry Ford’s management innovations created the successful 20th Century automobile industry.

As I sit on the sidelines of corporatism, having some as clients but not as employers, I see an increasing wave of adventurers jumping ship and becoming free-agents. As much as working as an independent may be exciting and liberating, it doesn’t scale up very well. With an increasing number of free-agents, I think that one area of future management innovation will be the creation of models (and laws and regulations to support them) for networks of independents. It took a while for The Corporation to become the dominant model and the network appears to be the next logical step. Independents now have access to knowledge as well as the same information productivity tools as corporations. They lack easy legal tools to do the equivalent of incorporating, as was necessary in order to get limited liability and access to investment for physical capital. As cooperatives and credit unions changed banking, worker networks may change capitalism.

Business Consulting for Beginners

by

Mark is from the UK and asked for my advice about getting into business consulting. He’s 24 years old, is completing a Master’s in International Relations and has some work experience teaching in Asia.

My own suggestion would be that when you lack experience in consulting, your should first try working for a larger organisation. With a Master’s degree you might qualify for entry-level work with one of the larger consultancies (e.g. PwC, Ernst & Young) . These are great places to learn from others and in larger companies you’ll see all aspects of business and management. These companies also offer training and development. Another option, especially for Canadians, is the Public Service, which is looking to rejuvenate its workforce and has a Post-secondary recruitment campaign,.

Two blogs that I would recommend are:

Brazen Careerist

Consultant Journal

Any other suggestions? [Mark – feel free to join in]