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.

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.

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?

Well, I think everything that needs to be said about Twitter has been said.

You’ve got beginner’s guides galore.

Then you have advanced guides coming out of your ears (not literally, I hope).

There’s a bunch of apps for every platform under the sun. And you can make your own using their API.

I find Twitter very useful to keep up to date with friends. It’s kind of a “they use it a lot, so I will too to keep up with what’s going on” thing. It’s also good fun to discuss random things, like TV shows, the weather or copyright. Kind of like being able to text message a whole bunch of people, and never have to worry about the cost!

As to business use of Twitter, I see a few things that need to be addressed.

1. Twitter is not a broadcast medium. It is two-way. If you aren’t going to respond, don’t bother posting.
2. Post useful things. This will depend very much on the business’s audience.
3. Keep it relevant to the business. The personal stuff can go on a personal account.
4. You might not want to use Twitter to troubleshoot, but people will complain, and people will ask questions you can’t answer. Be ready to find out.
5. Investigate the use of complimentary websites (get satisfaction, for example).
6. Finally, treat everyone as your peer. Twitter puts the biggest company and the shyest child on equal footing.

There are many other takes on this.