Behind Glass Walls

Here we go! I’m involved with a student consulting team at QUT. Our task was to create a Business Proposal to encourage the QUT Library to genuinely adopt Web 2.0 technologies and techniques. The team consists of:

• Sarah Killey,
• Darren Cann,
• Sean Marshall
• Donald Gee
• and me!

We’ve really tried to cover a wide range of areas, and think we really can show solid reasons for the uptake of Enterprise 2.0. As part of our report, we produced a video, detailing the content of the report in audio and visual form. Enjoy!

By ToniVC from Flickr under CC BY-NC-ND

Enterprise 2.0:

• Where did my Time go?
• Generic Toolbox or Specific Solution?

Dion Hinchcliffe‘s article on 14 Reasons Why Enterprise 2.0 Projects Fail provides some insight into the current effectiveness of the QUT Library’s initiatives, and some lessons that they could take on board. There is a a definite road bump in the form of governance (point seven), as well as islands of participation surrounded by inaction (point ten). I’m going to talk about “Pushing Enterprise 2.0 as a generic toolbox instead of the solution to specific problems” (point eight), which can lead to “Not waiting long enough to let critical mass build” (point fourteen).

There are a range of issues in the area of pushing Enterprise 2.0 as a generic solution, rather than choosing solutions that best fit specific problems.

For example, the Library does have a twitter account, which at the moment is almost exclusively used for announcements and Library news. This is an old point, but Twitter usually works best as a social platform, not a broadcast platform. It can be used that way, but I think this could be partly due to seeing Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 as a hammer, and treating everything as a nail.

A central issue for the Library is one of time. Staff time. Student time. Students have little time to spare, and adding to that load through extra features on the Library website may not be the best path. Instead, some specific issues should be addressed.

For example, rather than incorporating rating functionality that requires extra work, a recommendation system could use the number of visits, visit lengths, and time of stay to calculate ratings for each resource. This would utilise a core element of Web 2.0 – data is important, and can be used for a huge range of things. Essentially, the ratings are already there, just waiting for an algorithm to extract them, and a method of displaying them.

Finally, in the course of using tools that might not fit the purpose or building functionality that requires more user input, there is a very real risk that these errors will not be seen as the cause. Lack of adoption might be blamed on promotion or issues from lack of strict governance. Finding tools that fit a specific problem is only the first step – how the tools are used, and the extra time required is an important consideration.

For the Enterprise 2.0 Proposal, our group has been using Google Groups to coordinate tasks, meetings and information. We’ve also got a Google Doc going to build the actual report. Combining Google Groups and Docs provides one location for discussion, planning and comments, and a separate place to construct the report. Some of the features I’ve found most useful in Google Groups is the mailing list facility to contact all group members. The messages are also stored on the group, which is great for referencing the conversation later.

Image of the front page of our Google Groups page.

I can see some of this functionality being very useful for geographically separated businesses. The usual issue of control over the storage of the data applies, but for travel planning, recording meeting minutes or project groups, Google Groups might be just the thing to keep organised.

The idea of libraries moving away from being simply storehouses of knowledge, and becoming more dynamic, collaborative and allowing greater customer interaction is not new… Library 2.0 was discussed in the the LibraryJournal in 2006. While the ideas involved in Enterprise/Library 2.0 may not be new, there is one aspect which is constantly updated, and is rarely, if ever, kept up to date: technology. There are so many tools available (and foundations to build new tools); yet many libraries retain interfaces that are outdated, and do not incorporate (or worse,  hide) collaborative elements. This is an issue that requires institutions to be more nimble and adaptable, which is quite a challenge to many of the universities and city councils that run libraries.

Even if the technology is up-to-date and enticing, a more pressing issue is what the technology should allow. It is a cruel irony that many of the people that could most use the help of libraries – high school and university students, scientists and researchers and professional staff – are often the people with the least amount of time to spare to interact with the library.

For example, a few university libraries offer online chat – University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology offer synchronous chat on their websites. I do not know how often these services are utilised, but it would seem that very few people would have the inclination to use these services. It can also be difficult to access services offered on corporate websites.

Some deeper analysis is required:

1. Which services make sense to offer? Will these services be utilised by time-poor clients?
2. How should these services be promoted? What existing services should they be associated with?
3. Are there ways to incorporate or improve other services? (It is usually better to go to where the people already are, than build something new and wait for them to come.)

Some things to think about…

On Thursday, 3 September four staff from the QUT Library presented during the Enterprise 2.0 lecture. The topic was how and where the Library was using Web 2.0 tools and techniques to better engage and aid the QUT community (students and staff).

I was pleasantly surprised that not only is there quite a bit being done to move the site forward, but the tools also seem to be applied somewhat in the spirit of collaboration and sharing. There was evidence of a “broadcast” mentality for things like Twitter and Study Guides, but for a corporate website that is to be expected, and may be the best apporach. In other areas, real-time chat is incorporated into the website, ‘ePrints’ integrates QUT academic articles into Google Scholar search, a number of staff members have blogs and the majority of new or recent additions take advantage of the foundations of Web 2.0.

Our task from here is to investigate the current website and services, and create a report detailing future directions and changes that could be made to further integrate Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 ideals. The staff attitude is open but practical, which is a great way to approach this investigation.

The most interesting, and perhaps most difficult part about increasing  collaboration, network effects and data value is that the best way of doing this, by relaxing restrictions and/or going where people already are inevitably decreases QUT’s control over the interactions, services, software and hardware. Hopefully we can strike a balance.

It seems there are two key changes required for successful adoption of Enterprise 2.0 within a company. The first is using the right tools for the job, and having staff knowledgeable and trained in how to use those tools effectively. Training is nothing new to companies, and can be incorporated into professional development or taken up by human resources as a subproject. The second, and usually more interesting and difficult change is the atmosphere and attitudes.

Companies of any decent size tend to be run very much in a top-down way. Enterprise 2.0 involves giving some control back to employees – a bottom-up model. This does not mean that the entire business should shift to user-generated content and management. As Mike LaFleur points out in his response to Dennis Howlett’s post about Enterprise 2.0 being simply a label:

Enteprise 2.0 is much more than merely enabling community; it has the potential to solve myriad business issues and provide an solid return on investment. [...] Enterprise 2.0 is not merely allowing for user-contributed content; it is also enforcement of corporate governance on this content. Where Web 2.0 is bottom-up, Enterprise 2.0 is bottom-up AND top-down.

While Dennis Howlett’s post does seem to concentrate on the aspects of Enterprise 2.0 that are already mainstream, there is still a long way to go in the concept and attitudes. In this area, giving up even a little control does not come easily to middle management. The executive level may see aspects of Enterprise 2.0 as ways to share the load of policy formation or take advantage of new technologies that employees would use no matter what. Non-managerial staff might see Enterprise 2.0 as just an extension of personal activities, applied to business processes and problems. Managers unfortunately tend to see just a loss of control, as more powerful technologies allow things that in the past did not need to be considered, or were restricted.

I’ve read quite a few detailed discussions about the wonderful things that Enterprise 2.0 can allow. Sometimes, it gets a bit hard to take in all the abstract concepts. So let’s try to break it down:

• Enterprise 2.0 is not a ‘thing’. It might be best described as using new and existing tools to more effectively allow information to be communicated and gathered. This can be internally, externally, or allowing a level of free flow between the two.
• There are many tools, such as wikis, blogs and portals, that can be used in an ‘Enterprise 2.0′ way, or a more traditional way. It depends on the engagement of the staff. A wiki full of word documents is no different from a folder on a document server. The differences show and the platform comes into its own when wiki pages are used instead, allowing efficient drafting and stream-lined access.
• It is quite easy to over-do Enterprise 2.0, or to end up with negative effects. It is not straight-forward to take up. Due to this, it may be that for some areas and businesses, the risks outweigh the benefits. Critical business processes require workflows, require some control to be exerted. It is possible to transition, and end up with a more efficient, yet effective model. It is a delicate balancing act.

There is no one way that will work for everything. Successful use of Enterprise 2.0 seems to require a more down-to-earth approach that ignores the abstract ideals of Web 2.0, and instead looks at how improved tools and changed attitudes to work can result in getting more done with greater knowledge. Isn’t that just a good way to run a business?

Wow, is it really week 6 already? This semester is going so quickly. It is certainly a busy one. It’s been quite an experience blogging about Enterprise 2.0. At this point we need to summarise where we think we’re up to with regard to the criteria for this assessment. Here’s where I think I stand:

Practical ability to leverage off web 2.0 to enhance personal branding.

To me, this involves building up profiles on the social networks, web apps and blogs that I use, to allow others to find me. It also let people know who I am, so that there is a person to associate with the articles and comments. I’m an irregular user of a number of social networks – Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter; I have a personal blog in addition to this one; and I read and comment on a range of technology and web development websites. These activities establish my web presence, and give me avenues to express my self in different ways: from short, sharp tweets to longer blog posts and comments.

Manner and consistency of participation in weekly workshops activities and your contribution.

Consistently posting blog articles for a uni subject is a bit of a challenge. I’m not used to doing uni tasks so often outside of contact hours. Having said that, it’s not a bad way of doing it. It allows work to be done at any point, which certainly helps. Thus far I feel I’ve been going pretty well, although I probably could do to post a bit more often than the 2-3 times a week I’m doing now.

I hope I have contributed something to the community, as I do have some experience in the area of web applications and development. From the comments, my post about Ways I promote my blogs was well received.

Ability to appraise Web2.0 strategies and solutions for organisational and personal success.

There are a huge number of web apps and tools around, with many of them failing and appearing each day. Picking the ones that are worth investing time in is difficult, let alone picking the ones that will last. It is even more tricky to choose Web 2.0 platforms and applications that will be successful in enterprise situations.

While I haven’t had a large amount of experience in using tools that might be considered Enterprise 2.0, I do tend to think in that mindset, and look to software and strategies that might make tasks simpler or easier. I’m of the opinion that Enterprise 2.0 is about both the software and the attitude, rather than just the software. It is not possible to simply replace a software package and have things work smoothly without some changes in approach.

Ability to engage successfully with the wider community (including people outside of QUT) using Web 2.0 tools and techniques.

Engaging with the wider community can be difficult when you’re just getting into discussing Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0, even though I’ve been using the tools and technologies for quite a long time. In fact, since I’m a web developer, I’ve built some web 20-esque tools. Discussing the issues is a new area, but one I do have some interest in. I’ve commented on a couple of external blogs, on things such as including both software and attitudes in the definition of Enterprise 2.0. My blog as of yet has only received comments from QUT students. I need to be more proactive in not just reading other blogs and articles, but commenting as well. In the area of using Web 2.0 tools to interact with companies, I’ve found getsatisfaction to be quite useful. LinkedIn is also very helpful in researching jobs and engaging with other professionals.

Over the past few weeks I’ve been very busy with my other units – I’ve neglected Enterprise 2.0 somewhat. I hope to mend that in the next week, as I should hopefully have some more time now.

Company blogs seem to fall within one of two broad categories.

1. The companies who have an online or tech product as their main focus.

I’m thinking the big, well known companies, like Google, Twitter or Flickr. They tend to be all about what the company is doing with their product(s). There are also some smaller, more local companies with blogs -

• Kogan, a Melbourne-based tech goods company
• Techdirt, a technology and business analysis company
• Digital Pacific, an australian web host
• even the Australian Government has a number of blogs (the Government 2.0 blog is worth a visit).
• here’s a pretty good list of Aussie companies on Twitter

2. Companies that have a web presence because it is required.

These companies tend to be in a completely non-Internet-related area, and do not have much knowledge about maintaining a web presence. A Web Manager or “new media”specific roles are more likely in these companies.

Increasingly, it is being noticed that blogs are not the only method of interacting with customers. More and more, if you want to go where the people are, it is most useful to be active on a number of social platforms. Some businesses taking this path include:

• Bleeding Heart, which runs public benefit projects
• Good Old Games, offering cheap older games for download
• QPAC, Qld Performing Arts Centre
• Translink uses Twitter for broadcast (but replies occasionally)

This path can be more straight-forward and practical when regular large chunks of information are not really applicable.

No matter where a company falls, there are some common pointers for company blogs, in addition to ideas for personal blogs. The most important thing to remember is that on the Internet, nothing is done in a vacuum. If you want to have some influence on customer sentiment, you need to interact and converse.

I’ve often heard people say that they see a lot of crap on such-and-such a website. Or there’s only very little useful information on the Internet. Or the classic: much of Twitter is ‘pointless babble‘. You know what? They’re probably right. So does that mean we need to do something about all the useless stuff?

Nope.

Here’s what you do: you find communities,  you follow people on Twitter, you read websites that, wait for it… have content you’re interested in. If it’s crap (to you), ignore it.

This idea links back to the Long Tail – when you remove “shelf space” from the equation, everything can be “stocked”, anything can be “sold”. In other words, if there is a market for something, even a market of one, that market is viable. Applying this to Twitter, or any community, the Internet provides a home for any discussion. If the person viewing it does not think it worthwhile, then it probably was not intended for that person. There is someone out there who will appreciate it.

The Internet has made conversations that used to be private into public affairs. So when we come across them, we assume they were meant for us, since they’re public.

Some people who do some very good work in this space are Clay Shirky, Chris Anderson and Malcolm Gladwell.

This is Stephen Dann’s major complaint about the study (and mine is that most mainstream newspapers dutifully reported without any further investigation). As he discusses, depending on the way you name your categories, you’ll end up with 40% pointless babble… but change around the name and

Suddenly Twitter is the most vital thing ever if you want community  since it’s so vibrant if you take Rheingold (1993) “collective goods of value” as the interpretation of the statement about what you’re having for lunch, along with the existing massive conversation structure.

Just like the Long Tail: all you need is a better filter or search. The content is

entirely in the eye of the beholder; there are no absolute measures of content quality. One person’s “good” could easily be another’s “bad”; indeed, it almost always is.

So, next time you think you’re being beset by crap on the Internet, think about this. Was it meant for you? Or do you just need to adjust the filter or search you’re using?

When businesses are getting into Web 2.0 tools, and looking to adopt some progressive thinking, there is still “an albatross around their neck” in the form of IE6. It’s not like they can miss the fact that IE6 is hated by developers. That message has been around for years. There are so many options for browsers now:

• Mozilla’s Firefox
• Opera Software’s Opera
• Apple’s Safari
• Google’s Chrome

And word is that there will soon be another entrant: RockMelt. All these browsers are in active development, and support a much broader range of technologies. With all these options, you’d think business could find something to use? Apparently, so many businesses have web-based apps that are tied to IE6, that the reason IE6 is still floating around is because users just don’t have a choice. And there’s no solid reason to upgrade (apart from a few security issues). There’s also the issue of management – IE is by far the easiest to deploy to large installations. This begs the question – why not IE8?

This seems to go against the whole idea of implementing and incorporating Enterprise 2.0. How can modern, complex web interfaces that usually use some very advanced JavaScript and styling run on IE6, an eight (yes, count them, 8!) year old browser. In the world of tech, where applications are evolving every few months, if not faster, that seems ludicrous. However, there is not an easy solution. Any further ideas out there for how companies can at least move to IE8?