Posted by Sean Lew on Tuesday, 28 April, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Web 2.0, social media |
I spoke to an Asian friend recently regarding social networking in the Asian region and I am pretty surprised that places like China where internet is being censored and freedom of speech is unheard of, there are approximately 220 million just on the QQ’s network. These statistics are for early 2008. TechCruch also reported that there were 376 million QQ users as of April 2009 and just over a year it grew about 70%.
In Korea, with a population of approximately 47 million people, Cyworld, a Korean based social networking site has 22million registered users. This is quite a shocking number of people. In Japan, its a similar case too.
Even though the penetration rates are not as high as Western countries, the dynamics of using social networking in each culture and sub groups can be quite different. For example, mobile phone usage is much higher in Asian countries like Japan, Korea and Singapore and I suspect that there will be more users that would be accessing social networking sites via their mobiles. This changes the way people use such tools for communication. Also in these countries, wireless broadband speeds (3G or free wifi in most parts of the city) are extremely high and streaming videos into mobile devices is a common thing.
I am sure we can learn alot from these countries just by understanding the infrastructure differences, cultural differences and tools differences.
Posted by Sean Lew on Sunday, 26 April, 2009 under Academic, Blue Sky Thinking, Enterprise 2.0 |
This is the description of Attribution Error from Wikipedia
Attributional biases typically take the form of actor/observer differences: people involved in an action (actors) view things differently from people not involved (observers). These discrepancies are often caused by asymmetries in availability (frequently called “salience” in this context). For example, the behavior of an actor is easier to remember (and therefore more available for later consideration) than the setting in which he found himself; and a person’s own inner turmoil is more available to himself than it is to someone else. As a result, our judgments of attribution are often distorted along those lines.
Within a group, this could be in a similar case as well, when the group collectively have a view of the world in a certain way which creates a bias during decision making time. This could lead to groups making less than optimal decisions. Groups could also based on their collective benefits, make decisions in order to benefit themselves.
I am no expert in this area and I have to spend more time understanding the details of this theory. What do you think? Enterprise 2.0, wisdom of crowds and collective intelligence aims to help groups make better decisions. However, attribution errors might explain why some groups can’t make correct decisions. How can we prevent this problem? Can Enterprise 2.0 solve this issue?
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 22 April, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy |
I have never agreed in the way unions do collective bargaining and conduct strikes and all. Its bad for the economy, the employees and the company. There are better ways to get to a similar end point many other ways.
In many industries nowadays, a job is no longer a job, its a career. The economy has become so dynamic that employees come and go easily. Internet has made it easy for people to search and hunt for jobs with tools like LinkedIn and Online job boards with RSS feeds. To stay competitive, companies must work to retain staff and keep them happy. Employees on the other hand should constantly upgrade and update themselves to keep themselves valuable in the workplace and the industry. Its the survival of the fittest and forceful fighting doesn’t work anymore. If one doesn’t want a job, in such times, the employer will have a queue of others waiting to take on the position.
However, there are some characteristics of a workers union we can learn from. Collective bargaining, in its true ideal form, collects and aggregates the wants and needs of their members and negotiate with the employer on those terms. However, the information is filtered and aggregated before it reaches the management of the company and its done in the self interest of the aggregators.
In the Enterprise 2.0 world, this can be better managed by having a live discussion with the senior management and understanding each others point of view. Open and transparent information exchange will put all interested employees on the same plate. Argument is based purely on logic, business benefits, personal benefits and reasoning. Other users can also “vote” or support either parties. Employers also understand that they need to keep valued employees happy and employees can have an open communication platform with employers and raise concerns.
I feel that Enterprise 2.0 in this sense not only improves the personal benefits of an individual employee but also provides one of the most valuable feedback channel for senior management to help understand other than from statistics and reports – the softer side of the organisation. This is a win win situation for both employees and employers.
Posted by Sean Lew on Friday, 17 April, 2009 under General Ranting, software |
I had this question for a really long time and even until now, I am still not sure. The technology is out there waiting to be deployed but are the people ready to embrace it? There are many somewhat successful Enterprise 2.0 stories floating around in Australia where companies in the banking, IT and resources sector are starting to embrace it. But still not at the full (not even close) extent of the power of Enterprise 2.0. More companies are also slowly monitoring what others are saying online about their companies. However these are small groups of people driving this change. What about the general public?
Recently, I emailed some builders in the Melbourne region with regards to quotes and pricing. Out of the five emails I sent, one responded with a good response. The other four did not respond even after a week. When contacted, one of them said I had to pay to get a quote as well!
I was just thinking, responding to online communication is a basic thing that all employees have to do. When you are contacted, respond within 24 hours. If you can’t give a satisfactory response, let the customer know and let the customer know what is the course of action you will be taking to get them their answer. Standard information should also be published – open and straight forward. The last thing consumers want is to feel that there are hidden costs and unexpected spending. I feel that there is alot of secrecy around businesses and I understand the reason why but there are certain information that needs to be out there in the public so that the basic consumer information is provided. No point saying that this and that can be done without other critical information like materials, administrative charges and price.
If someone cannot even respond to email, Enterprise 2.0 and web 2.0 is for sure not ready. I can’t say if Australia is ready but from my experience with five of the most popular builders in Australia, I can say that four of them are not ready.
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 15 April, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Enterprise 2.0 |
This might be my skewed view of the world and how Enterprise 2.0 enthusiasts operates. I might be very wrong but recently I made a observation about Enterprise 2.0 creators (according to the social technographics ladder). It seems like people who post content online and give comments are people who are generally 1) quite hardworking, 2) comfortable with technology and 3) loves to share and teach. However, I am NOT saying that anyone who doesn’t create content online is lazy, not comfortable with technology and doesn’t love to share.
This observation fits well into the concept of Enterprise 2.0. It takes time to create content and continually contribute to it and sometimes within an organisation it could well mean take on additional responsibility. Enterprise 2.0 is enabled by technology and being comfortable with technology is surely needed. When a person shares and explains stuff to others, its somewhat a form of teaching and my observation is that Enterprise 2.0 enthusiasts are generally good teachers.
What do you think? Is this a valid observation? If yes, what does it mean?
Posted by Sean Lew on Tuesday, 14 April, 2009 under Academic, Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, Innovation, Statistics, social media |
I have been researching the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 for a while now and there are not alot of statistics out there to show the benefits organisations are achieving. This could be due to a whole myriad of reasons –
1) No two Enterprise 2.0 implementation is the same
2) Enterprise 2.0 is still quite new
3) Lack of understanding of Enterprise 2.0
4) Lack of companies implementing Enterprise 2.0
Having said this, alot of the success stories so far are case studies and not mentioning any names, I must say some of these “success stories” are really not that successful. Its been over hyped.
So which companies have really made Enterprise 2.0 successful and managed to gain competitive advantage, cost savings, innovation and so? There are not many strong Enterprise 2.0 case studies (like P&G’s Connect and Develop and Lego) that really delivered value to the bottom line.
So does Enterprise 2.0 deliver value? I truly believe so. I have experienced the benefits of it before. If this is the case, how can we measure it? I feel that a framework of understanding the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 must be created. Its not as simple as just connecting people together or just posting videos online and sharing it or collaboration with others. It has to be looked at from a holistic angle. This is my study and this is what I hope to achieve.
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 8 April, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking |
When I was younger, I had the craziest ideas around on how the train system would work, how computers can turn into robots and how electronics can help me iron my clothes and vacum the floor. I would like to share abit about my crazy train fantasy.
Many might not know this but I personally do not like to commute on a daily basis. Its a waste of time and its stressful fighting with everyone just to get home. Moreover, Melbourne’s train system is no where close to satisfactory. So I like to be close to work. In fact, I walk to work. Good exercise and I do not have to wait for anyone other than the traffic lights.
Anyway, when I was younger, I always thought that trains were a silly idea. It comes once every so often, it cost the government heaps of money to build the network, buy the trains and everything else in between. I had a dream that everyone would own their own ‘trains’. Its like a section of the roller coaster ‘train’ and you drive it to the “embarking station” and wait for your turn to embark onto the rail network. Once there is an available spot, you speed off to your destination. On the network there are thousands of “trains” running and everyone sets their location and off you go – minimal waiting, high speed access and once you get there, the train becomes a car again and you drive off to you location.
Okay, I shall stop here. This is my crazy idea, probably doesn’t work in real life and has huge economic, financial and social impacts. =)
Posted by Sean Lew on Monday, 6 April, 2009 under Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, Innovation, social media |
Dean from Infovark wrote a very real and truthful story about “the empty wiki problem“. I can really related to everything he said. In a nut shell, Dean discussed a failed Wiki implementation and how to defeat the “empty wiki problem” –
“either decrease the individual effort needed to maintain the system, increase the value that each user gets from the system, or — ideally — do both things at the same time.”
Interesting enough, I had a chat with another Enterprise 2.0 enthusiast last night and he had a similar problem as well. This is my personal point of view on how one can increase adoption of Enterprise 2.0 should work.
1) Quick wins – solve immediate problems or pain points users are experiencing. Make them happy by making their life easier straight away.
2) Integrate the Wiki (or Enterprise 2.0 platform) into the current business processes and reduce any kinds of redundant work. Remember, if it means more work, it means it won’t work. Sharing and knowledge management will always take back seat when it comes to mission critical priorities.
3) Unless its three times better, its not better. I use this simple rule of thumb from a change management article I read previously. Also three times better should be measured according to what the user’s definition of “better” not the skewed understanding of anyone else.
4) Long term strategic benefits – the CEO, CFO, CIO needs to know Enterprise 2.0 will deliver value to their bottom line. May it be tangible or intangible, value should be somewhat measurable and there are abstract ways to do that. Remember, we are in business not in a playground. Anything that doesn’t directly or indirectly make more money or save some money will be canned and make sure stakeholders can see and understand that clearly.
Posted by Sean Lew on under Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0 |
Enterprise 2.0 and all is fantastic. Collaboration, social networks, knowledge sharing are huge benefits. However, recently I have been quite frustrated by it. Let me describe to you my headache.
Collaboration on tasks is done on the Enterprise 2.0 platform. All is great, everyone chips in and get it done. However, alot of my deliverables are in Word format (sometimes powerpoint). At the end of the task, someone has to sit down and churn the stuff that was generated into a word format. Some might argue, which I totally agree with, is that if collaboration is done online, it allows users to just focus on the content and not the crappy stuff like formatting. Formatting is done at the end of the process and possibly, collectively, lesser time is spent of formatting.
However, when the deadline is tight, formatting is an additional time spent at the end of the process which little real work could be done. Also, why do we even need to do formatting? Can’t we have a template, collaborate based on the template and one click of the button and the page becomes a word document.
From where I am standing this is one of the reasons why employees are not embarking on the Enterprise 2.0 platform to collaborate on it. There is an additional step in their view that is needed to get to the destination. I think there will be value if such a functionality exist.
Posted by Sean Lew on Thursday, 2 April, 2009 under Academic, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy |
Technology is complex. Many say its a marriage of People, Process, Technology. I believe its even more than that. It should also include policies, economic structure, environmental factors and people people (and more people).
It takes time for people to explore and understand a technology. Something that is cool might not be economically viable or people friendly. Enterprise 2.0 is the same too. We need to understand from all angles how it will benefit people. More importantly, within an organisation, there are people in different communities across the hierarchy in different geographical locations speaking different languages. How would Enterprise 2.0 benefit all these people? Benefits are seldom across the board – it depends on adoption rate, style of usage and so on.
Benefits should also be studied from different angles. For example, it doesn’t mean that a well connected company is efficiently sharing knowledge and capturing it in the right places. Adoption rate doesn’t necessary reflect increase in productivity and reduction in communication cost.
Academic theories could be a way to understand some of these benefits – Social network analysis, IT portfolio theory, transaction cost theory are just some examples of previous work we can use.
