Social media is causing a sea change in governance structures at all levels of government, local, state, and federal. Government was founded on principles of deliberative participation, so in some sense the Web 2.0 phenomena is nothing new. But in another sense it is - because it promises to involve more people in public processes. This podcast examines the layers of innovation and guiding framework for making the most out of the information that can be aggregated from networks of all kinds.

[Note: This entry is part of the Inflection series and is also available via podcast here.]

 

Roger Cohen, a columnist for the New York Times, had a great article this week that was titled. “It’s the Networks....” when describing the success of the O’Bama campaign in raising funds. The essence of the article was more true than probably even Mr. Cohen realized.

 

Evolution in government is not so much about how social networks are going to change government. There is a big difference between using social networks for campaign fund raising and using them in participative democracy. Evolution is much more about understanding how to identify networks that can be leveraged for information aggregation in a way to improve the quality and efficiency of specific governmental processes.

 

The United States government was founded on principles of deliberative democracy and the framers of the Constitution debated at length the proper roles of citizens and their representatives as wonderfully described by Cass Sustein in his book Infotopia (recommended reading). So in a sense, the fact of citizen participation is “nothing new”.

 

On the other hand the technology revolution and specifically the Web is changing the calculus of information aggregation for government. The old technology - meetings and public hearings - is being replaced with new technologies that enable participation without physical presence.

 

But the way that technologies are used, the framework of reason, network, and method is the linchpin to successful aggregation of information for government. As Sustein accurately reasons, deliberative communities can be very powerful for the good, but they can also go very wrong. When technologies are used in the wrong way, or maybe with the wrong expectations, they can actually exacerbate problems in deliberative processes where citizens and network participants are exposed to social fear and information biases.

 

This podcast examines layers of innovation for how government aggregates information, and further considers, very broadly how government agencies can develop a framework for leveraging networks that they have taken years to build and support. Some of those networks may be with citizens, others may be with stakeholder groups, or professionals, knowledge experts, or perhaps other jurisdictions.

 

The layers of innovation include:

The framework includes consideration of reason for public participation:

It also includes an identification of network support and engagement to serve the governmental purpose. Networks that will yield the most value will be different in both nature and scope depending upon the nature of the challenge. The method used to reach into and support, or participate in each network will vary and depend upon the reason that your government agency is trying to leverage the network.

 

Finally, when government agencies authentically believe in the value of engagement, in other words, they believe that they can reach out and gather information that will make a difference in their decision making processes, then those agencies will have to consider behaviors that are very different than historical behaviors - many of the new behaviors learned social networking and social media companies.

 

They will consider what it takes to achieve social attention of citizens, including the inclusion of novelty, habituation, creation of clear expectations, building trust, and all of those behaviors that encourage and invite engagement. These are not within traditional skill sets of many government institutions - but they could be.

It really is about the networks as Roger Cohen suggests. And we are just getting started!

Listen to the podcast here.

[This post is also available via podcast here.]  Many businesses and public sector organizations and their executives are under pressure to join the social networking trend. The buzz has become deafening. But as in all new disruptive trends there are thoughtful behaviors that will position your organization to improve its opportunities for success.

 

Networks are simply connections between people in all forms.

 

John Mahoney of Value Networks expresses a simple way to think about the challenge:

 

This is among the frontiers of the relatively new science of networks.” [end quote]

 

The point is that communities, social networks, partner, employee, and customer networks, and citizen engagement are all part of the same challenge - building networks that drive value.

 

What are 5 success factors that will help your organization realize value from network investments on purpose - we call them inflection blocks? These are things that you want to consider before investment in support for your networks. Let me suggest several:

 

Without executive sponsorship the network (community) will be viewed as experimental which will limit buy in by those whose role would change if the network is successful.

 

Network impacts cross lines of business and require executive authority to manage your involvement.

 

There are tremendous benefits and risks in building networks. They represent your brand and your customer and partner perceptions in the market. So getting it right is very important and executives should stay close to network implementations in their inception to understand and address risks as they are discovered.

 

 

Networks are also viewed as meaning change - and they do. But most organizations are simply doing what they have been doing for years - building relationships with their customers, partners, and employees - only better and faster. So rather than presenting community building as change - it might as easily be presented as leveraging existing investments in existing networks that have often taken many years to build.

 

 

Skills of network builders - the ability to accept ambiguity and to concurrently identify opportunity - are not necessarily the same as skills that maximize success in traditional organizations built on linear value chains and hierarchy. It is important for executive teams to identify network participants who enjoy outreach, engagement, who listen and can be empathetic, while at the same time having the ability to think strategically. Those are the people who should be charged with building and supporting network value. Knowing your organization and how your networks flow, and who is responsible for network communication is very important (see the work of Value Networks which has a core discipline in this area of expertise).

 

 

To be successful organizations must be willing to make investments of intellect, professionally produced content, intellectual property, people and finance to help build the total network value. Only by investing in and supporting networks with customers, partners and employees can they maximize network value.

 

 

On a continuum there are 3 possibilities: Toolboxes, Net Native SaaS models, and Enterprise Custom Builds. Toolbox strategies are appropriate for experimental implementations or when cost is the prominent consideration. Enterprise custom builds are appropriate when control is critical and cost is not an issue. They are generally expensive and time consuming and require significant and ongoing investment.

 

Net native SaaS models provide significant advantages of cost and time yet share some of the most important characteristics of custom builds to provide security and reliability. They also provide a flexibility to create a variety of user experiences as communities evolve. SaaS models also provide the opportunity to share in best practice learning with other similarly situated customers. They spread the fixed cost of learning and system delivery, infrastructure, and support among many customers.

 

In implementing technology strategy, successful organizations also have clearly developed business, community, and configuration plans.

 

These are the 5 success factors which in our experience help organizations best plan community participation and design for success.

Web 2.0 is dead – at least it’s on its way out. That was brought home to me this week when I attended the 2008 Supernova conference in San Francisco. This executive conference had a great mix of corporate executives, the usual Web 2.0 valley crowd, and a very strong mix of academics. The experience reminded me of the experiences I had back in the dot com days in about 2000 when I attended the Brand Value Strategy Conference. I’ll never forget watching the 'expert' panelists that included Cyndi Crawford and Whoopie Goldberg, advising the audience on how many millions it took to build a brand. I knew right then and there that the dot com days were going to be over…and they were.

You get a very similar sense with the current Web 2.0 discussion. I encourage you to listen to the podcast to learn more…but here’s a summary:  

 

Web 2.o has served its purpose - it has created an expectation of interaction on the part of consumers, partners, employees, and citizens. But the Web 2.0 paradigm is changing - and fast, as engagement is now becoming a part of business and organizational processes.

 

In “the bowling alley” described by Paul Weiffels in the Chasm Companion, business and public sector organizations are requiring clear measurement and well defined purpose. They are finding that purpose and apparent value by leveraging their own pre-existing networks - networks that it took them many years to build.

 

Existing organizations are starting to understand that Web 2.o is simply about connecting people in a variety of ways, something that they have done for years. So what are commonly referred to as Web 2.0 tools are actually enabling technologies and methods to energize existing networks and to build new ones.

 

One of the fundamental premises of pure Web 2.0 companies and some of the analysts who are following them is that existing organizations can only capitalize on engagement from the outside looking in - that they will not be able to earn trust as network participants. This logic is silly. Organizations in business and the public sector are slowly learning how to be “in network” participants. I would argue that they are necessary participants to the sustainability of key industry networks.

 

There is an emerging class of thought leaders who are ready to lead the next wave of innovation in the engagement industry. People like Verna Allee and John Mahoney of Value Networks who specialize in mapping networks and identifying the tangible and intangible value of networks; Shawndra Hill (UPenn) and Raisa D’Souza (UCDavis) who are actively modeling business networks and network behavior; J.P Ragasami, who is a thought leader in Network Competition; Bernardo Humberman, who heads HP’s social media research and who leads a new discipline of studying “social attention”, habituation, recommendation, and novelty; Susan Crawford (UMich Law) who sponsors One Web Day and is actively involved in establishing governance theories, and Catharine Hays, who is the project leader for the University of Wharton program that studies the Future of Advertising.

 

There is a sea change in industry dialogue. The polite (and trite) arguments between Google and Facebook about their ability or inability to play nice together are not the drivers behind the next evolution of Web enabled engagement.

 

As the industry evolves we have to get it right. Capital from the financial industry needs to be allocated to minimize failures. We don’t need and can avoid a repeat of the .com era with intelligent and thoughtful industry leadership. This is also true at an organizational level where we need to ensure the opportunity for successful engagement by business and public sector organizations.

 

There are surely challenges as the manner of network communication transitions from a top down to flat bottom up communication structure - from a world of experts to a world that includes non-experts in participative dialogue. Roles change, people change, skills change, measurement changes. But the bottom line is that it is time to move beyond the venture capital fueled hyperactive social network dialogue to a more reasoned (yet still disruptive) discussion on how to best create and measure value through engagement.

And yes I do get it. We all get it. Web 2.0 is going...going...gone! Listen to the full podcast.
 

How do executives decide how, when and why to invest in enterprise social networks for their business or public sector organization? What is the business logic?

 

This is the first episode in a 3 part series produced for business executives who are considering the role of enterprise social networks in their business or public sector organization.

 

It begins by addressing the 5 questions that every executive should ask:

 

(1) How can my organization best use a social network?

 

(2) Would we create value with a social network - what are the expected returns?

 

(3) What would it cost to build, implement, and maintain a social network?

 

(4) Does my organization have the skills necessary to be successful in managing a social network?

 

(5) How will one or more social networks drive results in my profit and loss statement and balance sheet?

 

The next episode is going to define the building blocks for value creation in enterprise social networks, and the final episode will describe value metrics by which we can measure the results of implementing enterprise social networks.

Listen to the podcast.

Listen to the podcast.

But the proliferation of social media tools leads to “network confusion”. Most of us belong to many networks - some personal, some business. And all of our personal information is not right for all networks. So whether it is Facebook, Myspace, You Tube, Linked-In, Twitter, or a corporate network, all of our information does not need to be shared in all environments.

 

Some of us are going to benefit from a singular persona and become very proficient at being very open. I use the example of colleague Paul Greenberg as someone who does it well, and almost by second nature. Openness is truly Paul’s persona. Others are not going to naturally share personal information as easily.

 

Today none of us really knows where this new world of engagement is going to take us and how we best decide what to publish about ourselves. One thing is for sure - the shelf life of personal information on the internet is infinite. So what you say about yourself today will influence other’s perceptions for a long time to come.

 

This podcast explores the world of personas. It comes to few conclusions, but shares some thoughts and some of my personal experiences to get you thinking about your identity - Who are you and who should know? Listen to the podcast.

Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? (Dr. Edward Lorenz) The point is that simple changes in systems often drive complex and unpredictable results. And so it is with community and engagement. Almost identical uses of technology can create very different user experiences.