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.

This post is a continuation from my previous post, looking at some of the issues in collaboratively constructing documents. There are a huge range of options available for collaboratively producing documents. From sharing a file via USB or file hosting website to online editing and annotation, each method is best suited to different purposes. The main considerations include:

• Control:  Where is the document stored? What happen when services/people are not available?
• Security: How easy is it to control who can access the document? What system is used for authentication?
• Versioning: Are different versions stored and are they clearly organised?
• Document Type: File/desktop app (eg. pdf, doc or odt)? Browser-based (eg. wiki, word processing)?
• Formatting, Layout and Markup Language:
  1. Plain Text (“lowest common denominator”) – no formatting
  2. lightweight markup (WikiText, BBCode, Textile) – simple to compose, easy to read in plain text form
  3. WYSIWYG (MS Word, OpenOffice.org, LaTeX) – document preparation systems with full formatting support

In looking at these attributes it is clear that using a Wiki for a sensitive or critical document may not be the best choice. Similarly, sharing a MS Word document via USB drive will quickly cause chaos through incomplete or confused revisions. It is necessary to determine the above attributes before choosing a method of creating the document.

There are a huge range of options when it comes to online collaborative document editing. How do we choose something that matches the needs and knowledge of an organisation, a community group, or a university assignment group? He’s my first look at some comparisons:

Wiki

The most Web 2.0 way to appraoch document editing. Gains in ease of access and use, with losses in security, formatting and overall structure.

eg. Wikipedia, Confluence, PBWorks, WikiSpaces, WikiMatrix (comparisions)

• are usually intended for on-screen display
• may use a special ‘wiki’ markup rather than WYSIWYG or HTML
• generally put emphasis on recording changes and authors
• can have anything from no restrictions to strict, role-based authentication in company intranets
• have a number of pages and incorporate internal linking as a core feature
• are intended to be constantly evolving
• allow pages to be created and removed with ease
• do not impose structure, relying on links and searching for navigation
• rely on guidelines and undoing actions

Some info from the Wiki Wikipedia article.

Single Document Editing

Applying Web 2.0 ideas and tools to a very common issue. Allows concurrent, direct editing, at the expense of formatting power, often requiring remote hosting or interaction with external companies.

eg. Google Docs, Zoho, Huddle,

• are generally a single page
• usually aim to produce a ‘final version’, when the document will be reviewed or made read-only
• are intended to be edited simultaneously
• tend to have a structure and format
• promote drafting before editing the document
• use WYSIWYG editors

Online Document Sharing

The least effective way to version and edit a document, but allows for the most formatting power, control over access and provides a huge array of features.

eg. Box.net, XDrive, Files Anywhere

• usually using Word or plain text files (may include pdf, OpenDocument, .docx)
• most difficult form of collaboration
• each computer requires a browser and the software to read the file
• are usually in a semi-complete form
• allow for comments or notes
• make more powerful formatting tools available
• can be backed up or moved easily

I’ll do another post in the next few days talking about common issues with document management, and how the three methods above can help or hinder the process.

A common scenario in anything from music to open source,  libraries to large corporations, is trying to implement a new feature, tool or attitude, only to have it waste away in the face of a lack of interest or low usage. Sometimes it just wasn’t meant to be. Often it’s an issue of promotion.

Promotion can be a dirty subject. It brings to mind pop-up ads, newspaper pages full of ‘savings!’ or ‘limited time only!’. Marketing is a very polar industry – if you’re in it, you push for greater exposure, if you’re the target, you want less. But without it, a key part of success in any project is missing. In the age of a thousand possible directions for attention, ‘build it and they will come’ has never been less true.

Obscurity is enemy number 1. To big and small music artists alike,

Obscurity is a bigger fear than piracy

For open source software, obscurity can hit multiple times. If a user tries out an app, and finds that it’s not polished or up to scratch, they’re probably going to stop using it, and never look back. Even if that app later develops into an amazing piece of software.

Someone who tried your app three years ago and found it wanting may not realise that the version she can download today is far improved. Unless she goes out of her way to look, how likely is she to find out?

Even open source applications targeted to enterprise use may get caught out by obscurity:

[It is claimed that] most business-class open source apps have qualified consultants who can provide enterprise-level support. Cool. But how obvious will that be to the casual observer?

Obscurity is not always bad. In fact, an entire area runs on obscurity: security. Securing something is, at it’s core, making the method of getting access or likelihood of unauthorised access so low or obscure that it would take too much time and effort to carry out. Nothing is 100% secure.

So, when developing a cool new feature for a website, or pouring a whole lot of effort into social media, or adding or changing the services you provide, it is essential to know how the change or addition will be publicised. Even if it’s ‘only a trial’, it needs to have good uptake, or the results are worthless.

It is a challenge, and not all projects can easily promote themselves, but it is essential. After all, I could have the best application, restaurant or  services in the world. If no one knows about it, then it’s not going anywhere.

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?

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?