CivieBlog

I'm hoping you can help a reader with thoughts and likely help others of us …

A medium size nonprofit and lobbying organization is working on a designing and creating a social / work network for experts, students, volunteers who are willing to help through campaigning, lobby, sharing knowledge, working on solutions (writing documents).  They currently don't have any kind of solution.

Via the network people will be able to communicate with employees, organize activities, collaborate on documents, communicate with each other, etc.

They are considering a variety of solutions but are willing to balance functionality vs. cost.  In other words, they could live with a lesser solution if they can save a lot of money.

• Document sharing and collaborative editing
• Custom branding / image
• Ability to create groups and control access to those groups
• Shared calendars
• Invite other people into the network
• Moderation of content
• Exports (users, content)

Some questions:

1. What do you call this kind of solution?
2. Given this high level description, what would some initial questions/criteria that might differentiate what solutions to consider?
3. What do you think some of the safer choices would be in terms of solutions, i.e., who will have the biggest market share in the future?
4. What tools might be on your short list for them to consider?

Interesting post by Jane Bozarth - The Myth of "Best Practices".

A "best practice" is best only in the precise, specific context in which it exists. …

What works in my marriage won't necessarily work in -- and may even damage -- yours.

Even if moved from one situation to another very close one, the odds of transfer being made with practice intact is nil.

How do we address those who pressure us to produce a list of, or abide by, "best" practices?

The comments are also interesting but focus primarily on the word "best" vs. "leading" or "better" … overall the suggestion was to be very careful about assuming because something works in one situation it will work in others.

So, the first thing I did was to quickly search my blog for any mention of "best practice" – whew, I don't use the term much.  Dodged that bullet. :)

Patterns and Knowledge Work

I understand the concern that when you share best practices, you may come out with very different results.  That said, I also understand exactly why people ask for "best practices" and why our organizations ask us to help "share best practices".  

In Rethinking Knowledge Work, Kirby Wright describes Gary Klein's model of decision making:

Studies of health workers, executives, military, firefighters, pilots and others have found that sense making, pattern recognition and mental models are essential components of decision making.

As an individual encounters a situation he/she makes sense of the issue. Making sense generates cues and allows one to recognize patterns, both in the nature of the problem and response. Through pattern recognition, the problem solver identifies actions to address the issue. As one begins to act, they are also assessing, in real time, the potential impact of their actions. In particular, highly skilled workers demonstrate the ability to reflect-inaction (Schön, 1987), to conduct mental simulations as a way of imagining possible outcomes. As problem solvers do this, they adjust their actions on-the-fly.

This really rings true to me.

And this suggests that there is big value in providing knowledge workers with ways to assess a situation, to find the cues which link to possible approaches and actions.  I think that we all somewhat inherently know this.  It's why it's so great to go to sessions where you hear what other people have done when faced with similar situations.

Patterns Defined

While Klein uses the term "pattern", there is another definition of Patterns (or Design Patterns) which is a great example of the kind of information that we can produce which is valuable and maybe is not a "best practice" but is close.  From the above definition, a Design Pattern is defined by:

• Pattern Name and Classification: A descriptive and unique name that helps in identifying and referring to the pattern.
• Intent: A description of the goal behind the pattern and the reason for using it.
• Also Known As: Other names for the pattern.
• Motivation (Forces): A scenario consisting of a problem and a context in which this pattern can be used.
• Applicability: Situations in which this pattern is usable; the context for the pattern.
• Structure: A graphical representation of the pattern.
• Participants: A listing of the classes and objects used in the pattern and their roles in the design.
• Collaboration: A description of how classes and objects used in the pattern interact with each other.
• Consequences: A description of the results, side effects, and trade offs caused by using the pattern.
• Implementation: A description of an implementation of the pattern; the solution part of the pattern.
• Sample Code: An illustration of how the pattern can be used in a programming language
• Known Uses: Examples of real usages of the pattern.
• Related Patterns: Other patterns that have some relationship with the pattern; discussion of the differences between the pattern and similar patterns.

I often use less formal patterns and you can see examples of patterns in Using SharePoint or at the WikiPatterns site.  But the goal of these definitions is similar.  Look across examples of practices and abstract out the common structure of solutions.  Define where it might apply and what it is.

Going back to the "myth of best practices" … yes you still need to evaluate if this pattern will work for you, figure out how you might need to modify it.  But what's the alternative – start from scratch each time?  I don't think that's what is really meant, but I would claim that:

Patterns are extremely high value and we should look to produce patterns whenever we can.

Better Patterns

Taking this even further, in Data Driven (one of the few posts that uses the term "best practice") I talk about a model where we take data (e.g., customer satisfaction data) and provide knowledge workers (e.g., store managers) with specific possible actions that they can take to try to improve.  We allow them to modify how they will apply these actions as we know that it often is best to have it modified to better fit the store.  We also allow them to use alternatives.

This is something that certainly would be called sharing best practices in many organizations.  I guess we could also say that it is Patterns that we have identified and we have tied them to specific situations based on metrics.

We have the added benefit in this case to measure the impact of applying these patterns to determine the impact.  This means that we are able to determine better and worse performing patterns.  While the organization involved used the term "best practice", I can understand an argument for not using that term.  But, I do think that finding, distributing and helping to apply better patterns is an incredibly effective approach to performance improvement.

Stewart Mader points us to Sarah Denman's look at the four groups most likely to be involved in a wiki or other enterprise 2.0 implementations. The list is:

• IT
• HR - and no it doesn't include learning or training - it's more the compliance side of HR.
• Business
  
• Executives
  

Obviously, I'm posting because most people reading this will say that learning or training is missing from this list. The responses to Lead the Charge suggested that we should be leading this, but we don't seem to be even involved.

From Masie's recent social learning survey it appears that there is a lot of adoption by learning professionals.

Do you use any of the following technologies in your organization? Choose all that apply

Technologies Used	Percent %
Corporate Collaboration Portal (eg. Sharepoint)	57%
Peer Coaching/Teaching	52%
Media sharing (images, videos)	48%
Collaborative Spaces - Wikis	47%
Blogs	45%
Learning Systems for Social Learning (LMS/LCMS)	42%
Social Networks	41%
Employee Profiles	33%
Content Ratings and Reviews	13%
Twitter and Mobile Content	12%

So I'm not 100% sure I get the disconnect. Why are we not seen as a player when it comes to Wiki or Enterprise 2.0 ownership? How come Stewart and Sarah left us out?

I recently did a presentation in Los Angeles on Web 2.0 for Professional Services for the Institute of Management Consultants. The focus was on the two main things that management consultants do with their time: Reaching Prospects and Serving Clients.

Serving Clients

In terms of serving clients, I covered parts of Tool Set, specifically Work Skills Keeping Up, Better Memory, Information Radar, Processing Pages with Links, Networks and Learning Communities, Collaborate, and Twitter as Personal Work and Learning Tool.

I didn't really have time to go into, but wish I could have covered: Search and Browser Short Cuts.

The reality is that management consultants are very much concept workers and as such have to shift how they perform their work and how they serve their customers.

I went through examples similar to LinkedIn for Finding Expertise and Searching for Expertise - LinkedIn Answers to show the basics of how LinkedIn works. This was more about getting help with questions. I also discussed being more or less open as a LinkedIn Networker: My LinkedIn Open Connection Approach.

Reaching Prospects

By far, the more interesting topic to the audience was how to reach prospects. The earlier presenter had talked about LinkedIn and someone in the audience asked for a show of hands for people who have got business through LinkedIn. Mine was the only hand raised. Great set up for my presentation.

Prospecting vs. Conversations

Here was the fun part – I asked:

If I could put you into a networking event where there were 100 people who fit the profile of your prospects and they had their resumes taped to their chests so that you could pause at any time to read the resume, what would you do?

One of the participants said that they would ask questions of the person about how they are dealing with issues that relate to their services. Ask interesting questions and get them to talk.

That's what I think of as the right answer and fits with what I learned about effective networking 20 years ago. Other people would suggest more social conversation, but that's not my style nor the style of the person who answered. I don't think anyone would suggest trying to hard sell at a networking event.

People are interested in interesting conversations not in prospecting.

Engaging in Interesting Conversations

Let's get back to the room full of prospects who you are trying to engage in interesting conversations. Well, first that never actually happens. Even if it did, it would be really tough because you often don't get past the resume level in a networking event. You also have to weed out people who are not prospects. Live networking is incredibly inefficient. The good news about the networking event is that by being there, participants have signaled a willingness to network according to the cultural norms of the networking event.

Let's compare that to LinkedIn. It does contain many more than 100 prospects. Most people on LinkedIn have signaled their willingness to network according to the cultural norms of LinkedIn. And you have their resume right there. You can pause the action to read it. It's much more efficient than live networking. Think of it as the biggest networking cocktail party in the world.

But the challenge is that there are subtle differences in the networking culture. I personally find that people on LinkedIn are Hungry to Connect around interesting topics just like the rest of us. But you have to make sure that you are engaging in an interesting (to them) conversation.

Ask them for help on something that's challenging you with a client. Are you running into X? How are you handling it?

When I was thinking about this during the presentation, I realized that I've almost completely stopped prospecting. I don't think about the person that I talk to in terms of whether they are a future prospect. I think of them in terms of their ability to engage in an interesting conversation. The natural byproduct: I meet and talk to interesting people about interesting things.

Business has and will continue to result from this over the long-term.

Oh, and this provides high value to my clients who are getting the benefit of these conversations.

For more discussions on networking and LinkedIn see Networking Events in Los Angeles and Southern California, Secret for Networking at Events – Prenetworking, Pre-network with LinkedIn, Local Event Organizers Need to Adopt Social Media.

With a focus on service professionals such as accountants, attorneys, consultants, take a look at Social Media for Service Professionals and Social Media to Build Reputation and Reach Prospects – More Ideas.

Nancy Devine has been really helping me recently with comments on my blog on posts Topic Hubs, Good Writing, Search, Corporate Training.  But it was a twitter comment (side note: Twitter Forces us to Transmit the Big Idea) that really made me pause and go – wow, I need to think about that:

@tonykarrer people are hungry to connect w/others, to talk about things that matter to them, to learn.

This is so very true.  Look at the speakers in SharePoint Update who came and willingly pitched in and helped.  And most thanked me for the opportunity to spend 3 hours plus preparation and time in discussions.  Why – because it's a topic that matters to them and they could connect with others to learn.  Nancy nailed it!

As Learning Professionals, we should be constantly thinking about creating opportunities for people to connect and learn. 

When I think about the SharePoint Micro Virtual Conference, that's what it was all about.  Creating connection points for myself.  Inviting others to join.  It was really a set of conversations that I wanted to have on my own.  I just included others.  And they wanted to have that same discussion.

I'm hoping I can get the total effort down a bit to continue to put these things on.  It was a huge help to have Kim Caise, Steve Tuffill and Scott Skibell.  If we get this figured out, I think we are onto something.

Give them opportunities to connect – as Nancy says – they are Hungry to Connect.

Using various social signals we came up with the following as being the hot items during February 2009 via eLearning Learning. You can find a bit more on this capability in the post Hot List. Enjoy.

Top Posts and other Items

• The ‘Least Assistance’ Principle
• eLearning is not the answer
• Multi-Generational Learning in the Workplace
• Here’s How I Built That PowerPoint E-Learning Template
• Informal learning - what is it?
• What Goes in the LMS?
• Blogging in a Walled Garden
• Sacred Training Cows
• What is Informal Learning
• Design elements - a graphics style manual
• Mathemagenic " PhD conclusions in a thousand words: blogging practices of knowledge workers
• Why Doing Things Half Right Gives You the Best Results
• Pedagogy – MoodleDocs
• How to Find the Right Wiki for Your Project or Organization

Hot Keywords During February -

• Social Media
• Business
• Conversation
• Twitter
• MindTouch
• Scuttle
• CourseMill
• Tools
• Sample
• Pinnacle
• Adobe
• TechSmith
• Atlassian
• Apple

I had just finished posting about Networks and Topic Hubs when I saw the announcements around the launch of MyAllTop (1, 2, 3).  The reviews are somewhat mixed, and I'm certainly sitting here scratching my head.

I always perceived Alltop as a way to build Topic Hubs.  This is a similar, but limited, form of what we are doing around sites like eLearning Learning, Mobile Learning, Informal Learning Flow, Communities and Networks Connection.  The goal of a topic hub is to bring quality content together around particular topics to make it more accessible to people who are not familiar with the bloggers and other information sources in the space.  If you look at AllTop itself, that's the value proposition they talk about as well – but using the magazine rack – casual browsing – metaphor.

But why MyAlltop?

What's confusing to me is the value of providing a means for person oriented topic hubs and the limitation to only feeds that already exist?

Are people going to adopt this as their new start page?  Doubtful – there are much better tools for this.  And MyAlltop forces everything to be public.

Instead, this is definitely a way for you to broadcast your interests.  But, there are also lots of other ways to do this.

I really don't get this.

It must be on a trajectory towards something more like what's happening with Topic Hubs.

Thoughts?