by ThunderChild the Magnificent
Square One: The Knowing Doing Gap:
[Via Creativity Central]

Let’s go back 1999. Crown Prince Abdullah becomes the ruler of Jordan on the death of his father, King Hussein. Lance Armstrong wins first Tour de France. And most importantly Family Guy airs its pilot episode.

It’s also the year that Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton wrote The Knowing-Doing Gap. Nearly a decade later a significant number of companies have amnesia. A lot of mangers read the book. A lot of managers ignored what they learned.

Their preface does a masterful job of setting up the premise. “We wrote this book because we wanted to understand why so many managers know so much about organizational performance, say so many smart things about how to achieve performance, and work so hard, yet are trapped in firms that do so many things they know will undermine performance.”

In a nutshell: There are more and more books and articles, more training programs and seminars and more knowledge that, although valid, often had little or no impact on what managers actually did.

Nothing has really changed.

[More]

In my rubric, knowledge allows decisions to be made and actions to be taken. Data interacts with humans to gain context and become information. Information interacts with human social networks to become knowledge. While knowledge allows decisions to be made, widsom permits the correct decision to be made.

Knowledge, by itself, does not guarantee that the decision will be the correct one. It does permit a decision to be made, even if the decision is to collect more data. Wisdom often requires several false starts to be taken before the right path can be found. In many settings, groups actually learn more from their mistakes than from a success.

P.S.

If you want to dig a little deeper, here are a few lines in an interview that Pheffer did with Fast Company

“If companies genuinely want to move from knowing to doing, they need to build a forgiveness framework — a tolerance for error and failure — into their culture. A company that wants you to come up with a smart idea, implement that idea quickly, and learn in the process has to be willing to cut you some slack. You need to be able to try things, even if you think that you might fail.

The absolute opposite mind-set is one that appears to be enjoying a lot of favor at the moment: the notion that we have to hold people accountable for their performance. Companies today are holding their employees accountable — not only for trying and learning new things, but also for the results of their actions. If you want to see how that mind-set affects performance, compare the ways that American Airlines and Southwest Airlines approach accountability — and then compare those two airlines’ performances.

American Airlines has decided to emphasize accountability, right down to the departmental — and even the individual — level. If a plane is late, American wants to know whose fault it is. So if a plane is late, what do American employees do? They spend all of their time making sure that they don’t get blamed for it. And while everyone is busy covering up, no one is thinking about the customer.

Southwest Airlines has a system for covering late arrivals: It’s called “team delay.” Southwest doesn’t worry too much about accountability; it isn’t interested in pinning blame. The company is interested only in getting the plane in the air and in learning how to prevent delays from happening in the future.

Now ask yourself this: If you’re going to be held accountable for every mistake that you make, how many chances are you going to take? How eager are you going to be to convert your ideas into actions?

So the final point from Square One is that a learning culture driven by creativity and innovation must allow mistakes to be made. The goal of mistakes is to learn from them, not to assign blame. People must be recognized for the attempt, not always for the solution.

One of the strong points of Web 2.0 tools is that they create much more openness and transparency. This makes it much easier to tell identify someone who pushes the envelope in order to help create knowledge that is useful to the organization. If the only way to succeed is never to fail, then the organization will eventually find itself with only followers and no leaders in creativity.

Technorati Tags: Knowledge Creation, Social media, Web 2.0

by makelessnoise
Innovation Development:
[Via InnoCentive]
This site uses new tools to solve problems. It essentially acts as a broker between organizations that need problems solved and the large external community that may be able to find a solution.

The rewards can be pretty substantial if someone can become a successful solver. The site not only has problems in specific areas, but there are pavilions sponsored by single entities for directed solutions. The Rockefeller Foundation Accelerating Innovation for Development is one such organization.

So the possibility exists that external investigators could solve internal problems, and make a reasonable living at it. It will be interesting to see if this does become a form of livelihood.

Technorati Tags: Open Access, Science, Web 2.0

by krisdecurtis
Why Twitter Matters:
[Via Business week]

It’s easy to laugh at nonsense on Twitter, the microblogging rage. “My nose is leaking,”writes someone called Zapples, “so imma go to sleep now.…” But I’ve heard lots of similar drivel (and even produced some myself) on the phone—an important technology if there ever was one.

The key question today isn’t what’s dumb on Twitter, but instead how a service with bite-size messages topping out at 140 characters can be smart, useful, maybe even necessary. Here’s why I’m looking. In the last few months, the traffic on Twitter has exploded, growing far beyond its circles of bleeding-edge tech enthusiasts and hard-core social networkers.

Businesses such as H&R Block (HRB) and Zappos are now using Twitter to respond to customer queries. Market researchers look to it to scope out minute-by-minute trends. Media groups are focusing on Twitterers as first-to-the-scene reporters. (They were on top of the May 12 China earthquake within minutes.) Loads of new applications and services are growing around the Twitter platform, leading some to suggest that the microblogging service could become a powerhouse in social media.

[More]

Lots of information in here about Twitter. I’m not sure how effective it might be in a research organization but then it was hard to see 6 years ago how a wiki might be useful.

This is definitely something to keep an eye on. One of the interesting aspects is its almost instant access to experts. Think of it as just-in-time answers. Beth Kanter discussed an interesting experiment she performed.

She wondered if Twitter or Google was faster at retrieving facts. She wanted to know the atomic number for radium. She twittered the questions and as she turned to her keyboard to Google it, she got 5 responses from her twitter friends.

So Twitter can be used to get simple answers rapidly. However, as the comments displayed, not all questions are equal and many will not get an answer. I’m more curious about finding answers to more difficult questions.

One of the really nice qualities of a  research library is that the librarians are very good at finding such answers. What if there was a Twitter group that was designed to help answers that were in immediately searchable on Google. Would that work better than trying to do it by yourself?

Have to think about it.

Technorati Tags: Knowledge Creation, Web 2.0

by ThunderChild the Magnificent

Social Software: Freestanding or Layered?:
[Via A Journey In Social Media]

Had an interesting phone interview the other day, and we got into the topic above, which I found interesting.

We both agreed that we were going to see far more social software in the enterprise in the coming years.  The question was more about architecture — would these software packages be purchased and deployed as free-standing entities, or would they be thought more in terms of a “layer” over something else already in the enterprise.

And, if you’re aspiring to be a social media proficiency practitioner (as I am) — or a vendor that’s selling to people like me — the answer might matter to you.

Enterprise Buying Patterns

If you listen to software vendors who are trying to sell in the enterprise, they’ll usually make it sound like all sorts of large, important companies are buying their software.

However, if you dig down a bit, the truth is more usually that some group or another within that large organization made a purchasing decision. It wasn’t what I’d call a corporate decision.

As an example, let’s take SAP — a large, enterprise ERP platform.  No single group or department within a corporation will go out and deploy SAP — it just doesn’t make sense.  100% of their customers are probably “corporate decisions” rather than “group decisions” within a large company.

To take the opposite to an extreme, I happen to use SanDisk USB memory sticks.  Does that mean that EMC Corporation - a Fortune 500 company!! — uses SanDisk USB memory sticks?  Technically yes, but I think you get my point.

Why does this matter for social software?

Because I think there’s a big difference between some engineering group putting in a wiki for their team, and a large corporation making a strategic decision for all their employees.  Trust me, the buying criteria will be very, very different.

If I’m selling to a small group, I’d want an offering that’s focused on price, ease of installation, price, ease of management, price — and maybe price.

If I’m selling to a large enterprise, though, the list is very different.  If I’m a large enterprise, I’ve already made many, many investments in existing infrastructure software.I want my new social software to work with everything I have — not as another free-standing entity, but as a “layer”.

And I’ll pay extra for that capability.

[More]

An interesting discussion of the needs of a large company vs. a small company. The large company wants something that will act as a social layer over what it already has. It will not want to reinvest in calendaring, directories, etc.To a certain extent, this is software lock-in. The choices of the company are limited by what others have decided to add on to previously purchased software. It is certainly a way to go but will reduce the types of tools the users can access.

As an example, if a company waits until Microsoft provides a social layer over Outlook, it could be a while. Even if a third company provided this solution, its updates may not be timely, hurting the company’s competitiveness against companies that can utilize new software more rapidly. They are tied to the develop cycle of the vendor, not the technology.

Web 2.0 technologies can change very fast. Twitter was hardly anywhere 6 months ago. Now it is being used by millions. So there is a trap for large organizations, especially ones on the innovation train.

Also, the tools need to meet the needs of the users to be successful.

That is one thing not addressed in the post. People will really only take advantage of these tools if it makes their work flow easier. A group at the company may need and utilize Web 2.0 tools in a very different fashion than others in the company. How does the company deal with this?

Trying to use a tool that may be ‘best’ for the needs of HR may not mean Research is happy. The best tools may be the ones that resemble Swiss Army knives, with multiple attachments, than simply a layer over Outlook. They may need to be almost infinitely customizable.

I do agree that the user needs to have a single point of entry to the social web. But there has to be a recognition that new tools are being developed and that they may have to be implemented someday. A real worry should be that a large enterprise may not be as nimble with the successful recognition of vital new tools. This flattens the playing field with those companies that can utilize the new tools.

Technorati Tags: Knowledge Creation, Social media, Web 2.0

by Bitterjug
Is knowledge hoarding all about your pay cheque?:
[Via Library clips]

The other day I posted on, Participation is the currency of the knowledge economy.
The word “participation” can be interchanged for “social captial”, “conversation”, “contribution”, knowledge sharing”, but I chose “participation”, because “conversation” cannot happen without “participation.” And “participation” sounds more involved, sustained, or perpetual than “contribution” or “knowledge sharing.”

Anyway in that post I mentioned that the way companies currently operate is driven by each worker building their “intellectual captial” to get ahead, and to differentiate themselves. The more “intellectual capital” you have the more you are worth something or unique to the company. This kind of means workers compete with each other, or at least try to have unique power that will make them an asset to the firm. In this environment “knowledge sharing” would be the worst thing you could do, as you would be giving away your “edge”, giving away what makes you a unique asset to the company.

Of course we all know the “wisdom of crowds”, and an open and transparent participation model leads to ideas and conversation, which leads to discovery and collaboration. The act of sharing and finding saves others from re-inventing the wheel, saving money and project cycle-time.
A company that runs on a social captial model runs on the notion that “two minds are better than one”, so why not have a culture where these minds have open dialogue. In the end this opportunity for access to knowledge to help you with your work and to find new work brings the company closer to innnovation, and more honest client relationships.

No matter how simple the tools, and no matter even if people understand the benefits of “knowledge sharing” it just won’t happen if the company culture is about “intellectual captial” rather than “social capital.”
[More]

Organizations that depend on the creativity and innovations of their employees will not be as successful if they utilize knowledge hoarding when compared to those that have learning, collaborative communities.

The diffusion of innovations has been well studied. It is an outgrowth of human social networks. The rate at which information traverses the network will determine how rapidly a new idea gets accepted and used.

If certain people hoard information, they prevent this flow. In hierarchical companies, this hoarding can be useful to the hoarder, since they can position themselves as the node through which the information must flow. Knowledge is power.

In the highly networked world found in many companies today, however, this is more difficult. Preventing information flow along other routes becomes harder. The hoarder loses all power if someone else spreads the knowledge.

Just as the Internet routes around damage when a node goes down, so do well-connected human social networks route around knowledge hoarders, diminishing their power.

Companies that lessen the power of hoarders will have more rapid and successful diffusion of new ideas that can have huge impacts on the bottom line. Organizations that fail to deal with hoarders will not be as adaptive or as responsive to innovation. And, if the hoarder takes their information elsewhere, the organization is left with much less than it had before.

Technorati Tags: Open Access, Social media, Web 2.0

Well, Science 2.0 must be the next full release after Science 1.5.b13, right? Not quite. It takes its lead from applying Web 2.0 approaches to scientific research. So, what is Web 2.0?

In 2005, Tim O’Reilly described in detail what he meant by Web 2.0. Since then, there has been a lot of discussion on just what this means, if anything. So, I am going to add my own two bits to the mix. There really are not many technical differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0. The differences come from how they are used, and how usable they are.

Web 1.0 is static. Web 2.0 is dynamic.

As mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Web 2.0, Web 1.0 was about displaying information. Web 2.0 is about conversations, about participation in the flow of information.

Web 2.0 uses many new approaches for dealing with information including wikis, weblogs, syndication, aggregators, RSS, podcasts, forums and mashups. These often require the active participation of users. They have been used to create hugely popular social media sites, such as Facebook and YouTube, where the very content seen by all is created totally by the users. User-generated content.
(more…)

by Clearly Ambiguous
Work-in-Progress Culture:
[Via Transparent Office]
Michael Idinopulos makes a great observation - Web 2.0 is collaboration in public. Fewer closed doors and more open hallways.

The real paradigm shift in Web 2.0, I believe, is the blurring the line between publication and collaboration. In the old days, people collaborated in private. They talked to their friends and colleagues, wrote letters. Later they sent emails. All the real thinking happened in those private conversations. Eventually, once the key insights had been extracted, refined, and clarified, they published: books, articles, speeches, blast memos, etc.To me, the really exciting thing that’s happening in Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 is that more and more of those private “pre-publication” interactions are happening in public (or at least semi-public). I think of this as the dawn of the “Work in Progress” culture. We no longer think that something has to be finished before we let strangers into the conversation.

[More]

It will be a difficult transition for many people, since it may be harder for them to totally ‘own’ a work but the pathway that was taken will be available for others to follow; the nooks and crannies. It will be harder to end up in a dead-end when others are there to help you out. And, because of the Long Tail, there will be someone available to help.

Technorati Tags: Knowledge Creation, Social media, Web 2.0

This is pretty hard to believe. 65 slides! And there are so many things wrong with each slide: horrible colors, too much clutter on slides, fonts too small. Just to name a few.

Each slide would have to take several minutes to get through, by which time everyone is zoned out and does not get the message. And, with no context, the slides can not be understood by anyone who was not present.

These are nice examples of what not to do.

Your moment of (slideument) Zen:
[Via Presentation Zen]

Three sample slides for your contemplation courtesy of a 65-slide PowerPoint deck from the world’s biggest brand.

Source: Coca-Cola Japan. Go to the site (investor relations page) and download the presentation slides (1.5MB pdf) and enjoy the journey yourself. The slide deck is ‘the real thing.’ H/T Samuli.

• What’s a Slideument?

Technorati Tags: General, Knowledge Creation, Social media

by NASA /Hubble Heritage Team

Justifying Social Software:
[Via A Journey In Social Media]

It’s true that most organizations won’t move forward with significant investments without some sort of justification.

And it’s also true that the category of “productivity software” is perhaps the most difficult thing to justify.

So, I thought I’d spend this post on the flavors of business value we’re seeing from our internal environment.

How People Think Of Justification
[More]

Chuck’s blog is getting to be one of my favorites. His metaphor about boulders vs. sand is absolutely right. It is a nice way to describe a power law curve with its Long Tail. The boulders are the big hits at the left of the curve, what everyone has been used to dealing with applying old style approaches to things like distribution costs. But, various web technologies, especially Web 2.0, have brought the Long Tail to innovation and social networks.

Now, instead of a few big boulders, companies can harness the huge amount of sand present in their organizations. This can be done in ways that not only help employees do their jobs but can also save the company money, enhance its IP portfolio and make the company a better place to work. As Chuck noted, employees really appreciate what the interactive web provides, viewing it as a major company benefit.

If done right, an intranet built on Web 2.0 technologies becomes a way to retain employees as well as attract new ones. Pretty good for something that can be built on OPen Source and could be launched in an afternoon.

Technorati Tags: Knowledge Creation, Web 2.0

by m o d e

This site will be coming alive over the next week or so. We have a lot to cover and want it to be done without overwhelming anyone. SpreadingScience will make it easier for researchers to deal with the tremendous amount of information that threatens to overwhelm their efforts.

We do this through a teaching approach dealing with both Science 1.0 techniques to transmit information (papers, oral presentations and posters) as well as Science 2.0 ones.

What most scientists know about Science 1.0 comes from on the job training. We have developed some areas of good practice which permit much more effective use of their time for transferring information.

Science 2.0 approaches using online collaborative tools (wikis, blogs, podcasts) hold the promise of lowering many of the barriers to effective information transfer.

However, these tools must operate in a social network, even if it is online. Without an understanding of how the social networks of researchers are similar to those of other groups, and how they are different, the tools of Science 2.0 will not flourish.

This is where SpreadingScience has its greatest impact. Contact us to find out more about what we can do for your research organization.

Technorati Tags: Social media, Web 2.0