As I learn more about social software and how it changes organisations, I am also struck by how much it changes me.
Up to now, the emphasis in business writing has been to make your case. This is usually a process of thinking though an argument or situation, anticipating objections and building your case paragraph by paragraph.
I am finding participatory writing changes this.
Recipients find it more helpful if you put a single idea, situation or risk across in simple, expressive, interactive language, using open-ended questions to inform and spark conversation.
This reminds me of an exercise from art school called Croquis.
Croquis are quick sketches, which don't allow the artist time to capture detail. After a session of ten or twenty, three minute Croquis, you find to your amazement, that you can capture the essence of a the subject with more clarity than in a much longer session. By doing this frequently you develop an eye for the important elements.
While I find it difficult to use short-form social tools like Twitter (tweets) and Facebook status messages, which have a limited number of characters for a message. I am finding that the more I participate, the better I get.
If you have not done so, join a social network, invite your friends and practice.
If you already have, how has it changed your communication style?
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Friday, 23 January 2009
Executives vs. Communities
I was intrigued by a post by Mike Crocker on the Jive Software Clearstep site on “Getting More Executives Using Communities” commenting on another post by Steve Borsch.
This article reminded me of an experience with Lotus Notes, early in its adoption cycle.
Trying to find an application to win over executives, IT applied impeccable logic and decided that Lotus Notes had virtual discussions, executives had lots of meetings therefore executives could use the discussion application to conduct their meetings, saving time and money.
Of course, no executive would swap a meeting for a discussion thread. An executive’s strengths were in people skills, reading body language, non-verbal communication, assessing the person, their character, and their ability to fully grasp and implement a plan.
At the time, this perspective was lost to IT, which saw information more distinctly from its context.
It’s not that those executives were opposed to using technology.
If IT understood these underlying requirements and an application to help schedule, plan, and prepare for meetings was implemented, it would have been far more successful.
Steve Borsch’s article reminds us that different users have different personal as well as professional requirements from applications and the real challenge of communities is balancing these implicit requirements while fulfilling the communities’ purpose.
Executive buy-in is critical to the success of these systems within companies, and it must be made clear how these tools enhance and extend the knowledge and skills within the community, to get things done.
This article reminded me of an experience with Lotus Notes, early in its adoption cycle.
Trying to find an application to win over executives, IT applied impeccable logic and decided that Lotus Notes had virtual discussions, executives had lots of meetings therefore executives could use the discussion application to conduct their meetings, saving time and money.
Of course, no executive would swap a meeting for a discussion thread. An executive’s strengths were in people skills, reading body language, non-verbal communication, assessing the person, their character, and their ability to fully grasp and implement a plan.
At the time, this perspective was lost to IT, which saw information more distinctly from its context.
It’s not that those executives were opposed to using technology.
If IT understood these underlying requirements and an application to help schedule, plan, and prepare for meetings was implemented, it would have been far more successful.
Steve Borsch’s article reminds us that different users have different personal as well as professional requirements from applications and the real challenge of communities is balancing these implicit requirements while fulfilling the communities’ purpose.
Executive buy-in is critical to the success of these systems within companies, and it must be made clear how these tools enhance and extend the knowledge and skills within the community, to get things done.
Monday, 10 November 2008
Yes we did (Social software and the Obama Campaign)
Now that the dust has settled on the US elections, you will find many news articles talking about how the Barack Obama team used technology to manage his presidential campaign. Many of these articles talk about his use of Email, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc.
The fact that the campaign used these tools is quite unremarkable, but they were used superbly, as an important part of a coordinated communication strategy.
Once you signed up to the website, you would receive emails from various members of the Obama team. You would be getting mail from Barack, Michelle Obama, Campaign Manager David Plouffe, and the occasional high profile democrat, each with a different voice and purpose, addressing you as a part of the team, and always with a call to action. The campaign combined management, marketing, and technology in a way that amplified the effect of each.
While effective, this was simply a brilliant communication strategy, nothing revolutionary. Some of the technology was new, and the internet provided new channels, but this was traditional, one to many communication, around since this stump speech and the pamphlet. Technology just makes this quicker, highly personalised, easily accessible and more sustainable.
No, the real revolution behind the Obama campaign was my.barackobama.com.
My.BarackObama, is the heart of an on-line community used by over a million members, providing tools to organise for Barack Obama through social interaction. Behind it is Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, who tweaked social software to coordinate shared goals and meet very specific organisational objectives.
My.BarackObama, supplied the tools that staff and volunteers could use to connect to like minded individuals to organise various campaign activities. To keep activities focused, people would canvas their neighbourhood, and identify friends, foes, and the coveted undecided voters.
The campaign embarked on a 50 state strategy, even though some wanted to concentrate on only friendly and battleground states. A 50 state strategy could not have been possible without the massive fund raising capability, supported by the communication strategy, and local campaign offices supported by My.BarackObama. These two approaches proved to be synergistic, each enhancing the impact of the other.
The final result was an increased percentage of the vote from 2004, across the board, even in areas where they lost, setting the stage for future elections.
So did social software win the day?? Probably not.
Without a coherent strategy, committed workforce, and supporting organisational structure, My.BarackObama could not have become the effective management tool it was. But, in this context, I believe social software was crucial to the eventual ease of the Obama victory.
I doubt we will be running for US President soon, so what does this mean for us?
My.BarackObama proved that, in an organisation prepared to use it properly, social software can allow people to operate more autonomously, while giving central management more reach and greater flexibility. This allows an organisation to adapt to change, as it happens, while maintaining the discipline to carry out core objectives.
I believe the Obama campaign has given us a glimpse into the enterprise of the future.
Exploiting this new class of software, successful organisations will have the majority of it's activities performed by self directed teams, staffed by some internal but many external resources, from both channel and suppliers. While this will allow for a leaner organisation, it will require a higher caliber of management, with strong communication, mentoring and facilitation skills.
For more information, see the Wired article which inspired this post.
The fact that the campaign used these tools is quite unremarkable, but they were used superbly, as an important part of a coordinated communication strategy.
Once you signed up to the website, you would receive emails from various members of the Obama team. You would be getting mail from Barack, Michelle Obama, Campaign Manager David Plouffe, and the occasional high profile democrat, each with a different voice and purpose, addressing you as a part of the team, and always with a call to action. The campaign combined management, marketing, and technology in a way that amplified the effect of each.
While effective, this was simply a brilliant communication strategy, nothing revolutionary. Some of the technology was new, and the internet provided new channels, but this was traditional, one to many communication, around since this stump speech and the pamphlet. Technology just makes this quicker, highly personalised, easily accessible and more sustainable.
No, the real revolution behind the Obama campaign was my.barackobama.com.
My.BarackObama, is the heart of an on-line community used by over a million members, providing tools to organise for Barack Obama through social interaction. Behind it is Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, who tweaked social software to coordinate shared goals and meet very specific organisational objectives.
My.BarackObama, supplied the tools that staff and volunteers could use to connect to like minded individuals to organise various campaign activities. To keep activities focused, people would canvas their neighbourhood, and identify friends, foes, and the coveted undecided voters.
The campaign embarked on a 50 state strategy, even though some wanted to concentrate on only friendly and battleground states. A 50 state strategy could not have been possible without the massive fund raising capability, supported by the communication strategy, and local campaign offices supported by My.BarackObama. These two approaches proved to be synergistic, each enhancing the impact of the other.
The final result was an increased percentage of the vote from 2004, across the board, even in areas where they lost, setting the stage for future elections.
So did social software win the day?? Probably not.
Without a coherent strategy, committed workforce, and supporting organisational structure, My.BarackObama could not have become the effective management tool it was. But, in this context, I believe social software was crucial to the eventual ease of the Obama victory.
I doubt we will be running for US President soon, so what does this mean for us?
My.BarackObama proved that, in an organisation prepared to use it properly, social software can allow people to operate more autonomously, while giving central management more reach and greater flexibility. This allows an organisation to adapt to change, as it happens, while maintaining the discipline to carry out core objectives.
I believe the Obama campaign has given us a glimpse into the enterprise of the future.
Exploiting this new class of software, successful organisations will have the majority of it's activities performed by self directed teams, staffed by some internal but many external resources, from both channel and suppliers. While this will allow for a leaner organisation, it will require a higher caliber of management, with strong communication, mentoring and facilitation skills.
For more information, see the Wired article which inspired this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)