Twitter and the Search Barrier

I am currently reading Collaboration: How Leaders Avoid the Traps, Create Unity, and Reap Big Benefits, a book by Morten T. Hansen of Harvard Business School. It is an interesting read so far: he has laid out some of the key benefits and risks to collaboration, a number of which are quite interesting and potentially useful. However, what I have found most interesting thus far is his take on the four most significant barriers to collaboration. His list:

1. The Not Invented Here Barrier: People not willing to seek input from others outside their unit;
2. The Hoarding Barrier: People not willing to provide information for others outside their unit;
3. The Search Barrier: People are not able to find people, expertise, or information easily, and;
4. The Transfer Barrier: People are not able to transfer complicated knowledge from one unit to another.

All of these points have some validity, and are definitely important and significant barriers to collaboration in the workplace; however, I want to spend some time with the third barrier, the search barrier.

As a side note, I have as yet not read how Hansen proposes to overcome said barriers; I’m only halfway through the book.

What is the Search Barrier?

According to Hansen, the search barrier is the inability of a company or organization to “know what it knows”. This can be due to a number of factors: company size, physical distance, information overload, and poverty of networks are the ones that Hansen cites. The search barrier is one of the most significant hurdles facing large organizations: think about all the expertise and experience that exist in most organizations, and how hard it really is to tap that knowledge (specifically the tacit knowledge). Basically, it’s too hard or too much work to search through your organization to find the support/input that you need; consequently, organizations are inefficient because they are continuously solving the same problems.

So what does this have to do with Twitter?

It's about finding the RIGHT person, not just people.

In the spirit of continuing to treat Twitter as a solution searching for a problem, I think that this is a very real business problem that can be greatly helped by microblogging. After all, this is one of the most appealing, at least for me, uses of Twitter on the open internet.

Twitter actually addresses many of the key problems cited by Hansen as components of the search barrier.

• Company size could be less of an issue, if only because the network of followers (a.k.a. the target audience) serves as the filter of information. So you aren’t searching all the units of an organization for an answer; you are asking people to serve as a filter and pass on information and/or people that they already know.

• It’s clear that microblogging helps with bridging distances. However, it’s also important to note that microblogging enables “weak ties“, allowing for people to maintain relationships that may become more important in the future.

• Though relatively counter-intuitive, microblogging can help with information overload, because your network serves as a collaborative filter. For the same reason, microblogging can help solve the problem of poverty of networks by making it easier to keep in touch with colleagues.

But microblogging is just a technology

In much contrast to the rest of this entry, I do want to emphasize that simply having the technical capability for microblogging does not ensure success: effective deployment also entails organizational and process challenges in order to achieve the desired results. Social media success is only sometimes about tools; most times it’s more about changing behaviors and inculcating more collaborative mindsets.

McKinsey’s take on Web 2.0 – The first in a Series

Perhaps the most read, circulated, and probably influential Web 2.0 publication of 2009 so far has been McKinsey‘s article “Six ways to make Web 2.0 work“, by Michael Chuil, Andy Miller, and Roger P. Roberts. I have read this piece with great interest and feel that I needed to organize my thoughts on this paper. Hence, a blog series is born: Over the next few posts, I will muse about each of the six techniques suggested by the author as important to making Web 2.0 work in the enterprise. First up: Leadership.

The transformation to a bottom-up culture needs help from the top.

I find that this is one of the more hotly debated topics around change management: does change come from the bottom or from the top? Of course the answer is that change really comes from both the top and the bottom. In my mind, change often comes via pressure and innovation from the bottom, eventually requires buy in from the higher levels of leadership. The opposite happens as well: leaders have innovative ideas or see strategic opportunity and begin to sow the seeds of change in the base. Put simply, change needs champions at all levels.

Change, leadership, and Web 2.0

In this case, the article is right on. “Build it and they will come” in Web 2.0 is almost always a failure. And leaders who are willing to be champions for Web 2.0–especially with other senior leaders–are also key to the success of a Web 2.0 implementation. Similarly, the first step towards Web 2.0 implementation is almost always a small, bottom-up effort: everybody needs proof of concept and pilots before jumping in with two feet.

Indeed, a lack of perceived leadership support is often cited (in my experience) as a key hurdle for adoption. However, while the article talks about how senior leadership is important, I think that perhaps leadership at other places in the organization is equally important. This includes everyone’s favorite villain, the middle manager: leaders need to ensure that these folks are in the know about social media initiatives and understand where they fit into flatter organization.

Perhaps surprisingly, I think that Web 2.0 implementations are most dependent on leaders and champions at the working level. Web 2.0 requires that working level people, who are likely to benefit most from collaboration and working transparently, clearly understand and talk about the benefits of Web 2.0 amongst themselves. And for this to manifest itself effectively, working level folks have to take it upon themselves to champion Web 2.0 and share their lessons with their peers. This is mainly due to the inherent credibility with the working level, which senior leadership might not have.

The takeaway is this: success in Web 2.0 in the enterprise is dependent on having leadership through all levels of an organization. It’s not about the top, it’s not about the bottom. It’s about the whole organization.

The Long Tail of Collaboration Value

The Long Tail is of course one of the most popular and notable thoughts/books of the social media movement. From Wikipedia:

The phrase The Long Tail was first coined by Chris Anderson in an October 2004 Wired magazine article to describe the niche strategy of businesses, such as Amazon.com or Netflix, that sell a large number of unique items, each in relatively small quantities. . . . The distribution and inventory costs of these businesses allow them to realize significant profit out of selling small volumes of hard-to-find items to many customers, instead of only selling large volumes of a reduced number of popular items. The group that purchases a large number of “non-hit” items is the demographic called the Long Tail.

Uh Justin…what’s the point?

Well, this may require a logical leap here, but I think that the long tail is a valuable metaphor for the value of collaboration. You see, there may be a few “blockbuster” examples and a lot of less impressive examples of collaboration. But, like those items on iTunes that sells only 10 copies, successful “collaboration events” may only be important/significant to the 3 people that were directly involved. Not something that’s “sexy” or tells a good story.

However, given that, as Rob Salkowitz notes, most knowledge work is a collection of relatively insignificant tasks that ultimately lead up to more significant outputs, these individually insignificant collaboration events add up to generate significant organizational value. So while on an individual level, collaborative interaction may be relatively banal, the sum of these events is significantly higher, if harder to communicate.

Measuring Value

This is another of the unique challenges in measuring the true value of collaboration, especially in knowledge work. Most collaboration yields relatively low value individually; however, when taken in connection with other collaborative activities, the cumulative potential of effective collaboration is remarkable. One of the great ways to make the case for collaboration would be to figure out a better way to measure the value of the tail.

Social Media and Knowledge Management

I’ve been thinking about social media in terms of knowledge management as of late (a common theme when discussing Web 2.0 in a business/organizational setting). In a seemingly only tangentially note, I awoke yesterday morning and this was one of the first Tweets that I saw from @RichardDennison:

“Social media is people telling their stories” – Steve Crescenzo (@crescenzo)

My response was “I like that characterization of social media. I would also say that social media is about adding context”. Seeing Richard’s quote helped me think in a different way about what knowledge management looks like leveraging Web 2.0 technologies.

I think what distinguishes Web 2.0 technologies from traditional hosted knowledge management repositories is that Web 2.0 platforms over a greater window into process. In other words, Web 2.0 offers context, while KM repositories generally only store finished products.

Knowledge Management as a Byproduct

The advantage of working in a web 2.0 environment is that knowledge management comes at no additional cost. However, “working in a web 2.0 environment” is a difficult concept: in an ideal case, this actually requires transferring processes out of closed channels like email, Word, PowerPoint, etc (i.e. comfort applications) into the web environment. If you build your knowledge in the wiki, you can trace a product from the earliest stages to “finished” product.

Conversely, traditional repositories depend on users taking the additional step of submitting finished products for approval and inclusion in an officially vetted database. These products will exist with perhaps only a paragraph of context and a line of contact information (though probably the information of someone 2-3 working levels above the individual who actually produced the product).

An Example: Wikipedia and Knowledge Management

As a bit of a concrete example–that may require only a bit of imagination–we can take a look at the Luc Bourdon article on Wikipedia. Imagine that this article is a finished product sitting in a KM database: it’s a Word document probably accompanied by the opening paragraph as context/summary.

Now, let’s take a look at what we learn because this product is NOT actually in a KM database. You get the same content: that same finished product that can be read in a hurry if you don’t care (or don’t have time to care) about the process. However, there’s just so much more available. For example, I can see how this article started. I can also see it on landmark dates, like the day that Bourdon tragically died. And I can see what’s changed in the month of March. On top of all this, I can also see what was addressed during the Wikipedia Featured Article process by taking a look at the discussion page.

The takeaway

Asking a guy who’s a year away from retirement to sit in front of a computer entering his knowledge into a wiki is not an optimal solution (though apparently does work sometimes). Building products in a wiki is a fantastic way to capture institutional knowledge and a great amount of context around it. Web 2.0 tools–not just wikis of course–are a fantastic tool that allows knowledge capture, public thinking, and tracking the evolution of ideas over time when the work is done in public.

Collaboration, Moneyball Style

In the field of sports writing, few names are more familiar than Michael Lewis. Though Lewis has written quite a few books, he’s best known as the brain behind Moneyball, which tracked a new way to create a successful baseball team without spending a whole lot of money. The poster child of the book and the broader movement is Billy Beane and his early 2000s Oakland A’s teams. According to Wikipedia:

Rigorous statistical analysis had demonstrated that on base percentage and slugging percentage are better indicators of offensive success, and the A’s became convinced that these qualities were cheaper to obtain on the open market than more historically valued qualities such as speed and contact. These observations often flew in the face of conventional baseball wisdom and the beliefs of many baseball scouts and executives.

Recently, Lewis wrote an article that basically called Shane Battier of the Houston Rockets of the NBA. This article argues that Battier, despite being “a marginal NBA athlete” and having a reputation as a “replaceable cog”, was perhaps the reason that the Rockets were a “championship caliber team” and not a “bubble playoff team”. For those interested in the complete argument, I highly recommend it. (And for football fans, one of my absolute favorite blogs, Smart Football, take a stab at Lewis’s latest article as well.

So what’s the point?

The business world loves sports metaphors. Everyone knows that. So how’s this for one: someone who’s good at collaborating can be a clear difference maker in an organization. This is not to say that people who are good at collaborating don’t have skills or value to contribute beyond being a good “collaborator” (a word that I don’t particularly like, but will use it…); rather, it’s that someone who is good at collaborating can really take a project to another level. A star performer who’s great at making those around him/her better is better than a star performer that doesn’t play well with others. The best of the best do both.

The catch-22 in business, as in basketball, is that it’s very difficult to understand exactly what it is about somebody who performs like Battier that makes them so valuable to a team. There’s no stat (other than wins and testimonials) that will highlight that value and there’s not an easy way to figure out who these performers are, except by reputation (or maybe social network analysis).

Moneyball Management

Moneyball was all about creating new ways to measure performance and value created by players. And these new measures were created because the old ones weren’t sufficient to tell the story. Collaboration is one of those other things, that if we can measure an individual’s ability to collaborate, could revolutionize the way we evaluate the creation of value. After all, guys who win (even if they don’t have any one great thing they do) will have a job until they choose not to.

Collaboration as Competitive Advantage

One of the hardest parts of being a collaboration consultant is that quantifying and qualifying why collaboration is valuable, especially in knowledge-creation organizations, is extremely difficult. Everyone knows that collaboration is goodness, but why? What is it about collaboration that is just so great?

A while back, I heard a presentation by Jeffrey Mann and Carol Rozwell (Gartner Analysts), that summed up the (potential) value of collaboration nicely: they presented a collaboration maturity model, and occupying the top line was simply the phrase: “Collaboration as Competitive Advantage”. The slide said that collaboration, in its most mature form, collaboration is so ingrained in an organization’s activity that it gives them a competitive advantage over their competitors.

It’s put so simply, yet so accurately: organizations can best their competitors by enabling smart people to swarm quickly and deliver advantages in cost, quality, timeliness, and flexibility.

Collaboration enables improvement in all of these areas. We can reduce costs by improving efficiency and reducing duplicative effort. We can improve quality by increasing the number of eyes on a target and by bringing multiple points of view to bear on any given problem. We can improve our timeliness by again increasing efficiency, but also by better positioning information for discovery and integration. We can also improve our flexibility by empowering people to work across organizational lines and by not binding them to traditional production cycles (especially if that model doesn’t fit the problem).

So just as Nordstrom derives it’s competitive advantage from top-flight customer service and Wal-Mart from its ability to get low cost items to its stores efficiently, organizations can derive unique value from their ability to effectively and rapidly organize teams of smart people to solve hard problems. If an organization understands its own social networks, people, and leaders well enough, I contend that this advantage can be within reach.

WikiCities

One of the things I’ve learned over the last two years is that how to spot a wiki effort that isn’t going to have any real transformative effects. This is not to say that these uses aren’t “successful” on a micro-level, as ultimately client/implementing organization may just be looking for a simplified way to get content to the intra or Internet. However, I have learned–from others and through my own experience–that groups that see a wiki as a way to get their content out–i.e. build a website–simply aren’t likely to achieve any change that is remotely transformative.

Hosting Organizational Pages

One of the people who has written about this topic before is Chris Rasmussen, a social software evangelist and trainer/knowledge management professional at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Ultimately, it boils down to an organization wanting to use Web 2.0 primarily as a way to publicize their activities. So one common variety of this is to build an organizational website in a wiki. This can be useful of course, but let’s face it: you aren’t trying to collaborate or engage people, you are using the wiki as a geocities service, and if your organization had a geocities-like service, the word wiki probably wouldn’t be in their vocabulary.

So What’s Wrong With This?

At the micro-level, nothing is wrong with this. Websites fulfill a very real need of making information available and searchable. One group’s wiki-website isn’t going to cause any real issues. However, this is precisely the tragedy of the commons: one violation (or bad example) doesn’t hurt anybody, but when every group and team has their own wiki-webpage, the wiki starts to look a lot like the rest of an organization’s intranet: compartmented sites that are siloed from the rest of the organization, which nobody is going to traffic because people don’t know how to look for it.

I think we all know how useful most people find their corporate intranets.

Missing the Boat

The other problem with the proliferation of organizational wiki-webpages is that it makes it much harder to use the wiki for mass collaboration: people won’t often stray from their own turf, instead inviting users to check out their organizational page. As a result, information remains–for all intents purposes–compartmentalized and unintegrated.

The other half of this effect is that groups end up seeing the wiki in the wrong way: As a a faster horse rather than a car. Yes some of the power of the wiki is that it’s web-based, but the real transformative piece of it is that it simplifies mass collaboration for the purpose of creating an integrated network of knowledge. And when groups decide to reproduce a 90s era websites (and that’s really all you can do with a wiki), what it does is suffocate loosely organized, large scale efforts at knowledge creation in the wiki by obscuring real innovation and collaboration . In my mind, this is a tragic outcome.