Collaborative Thinking

Design Considerations For Enterprise Social Networks: Identity, Graphs, Streams & Social Objects

I've submitted a proposal for the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston. Feedback appreciated on the session and if it's worthwhile, indicate so with a "thumbs up". Thanks...

http://boston2012.e2conf.spigit.com/Page/ViewIdea?ideaid=5069

 

Towards A More Participatory Culture: Enterprise Q&A;

In October of 2011, AIIM (the Association for Information & Imaging Management, a non-profit research, community and educational association), published a survey-based report that examined social business and Enterprise 2.0 trends. I had the good fortune to hear about the results first-hand when I co-presented with AIIM’s President, John Mancini, on a social networking panel at the Gilbane Conference held in Boston last November. John summarized the work and results of the study. One of the more interesting data points and trending analysis I found intriguing was a growing interest in a class of social application AIIM refers to as “Enterprise Q&A”.  Historically, when people ask what the common application use case scenarios are for E2.0, the most frequently cited examples have been: expertise location, online communities, and ideation (innovation).

Why the growing interesting in Q&A applications? Perhaps because it’s a pain point all of us ? from front-line worker to senior executive ? can relate to in our everyday work experience. All of us can recall situations when we’ve had a question about something and have not been able to find an answer through the information and contacts at our disposal. We ask our colleagues. We send out e-mails. We might try discussion forums, knowledge-base applications, and of course ? search engines. However, even if we are fortunate enough to find the content, the information may not be presented in a fashion that addresses our need. Sometimes the “question” is not easily resolved by locating content related to the question. Often, what people are asking for (indirectly) when they pose a question is to have a conversation with someone to “make sense” out of that issue. Connecting co-workers via Enterprise Q&A enables people to reach consensus, collaborate on a response, and co-create a workaround. Beyond “answering the question”, this type of conversation allows participants to contribute personal experiences and share work practices that are not formally documented. Passing along the folklore, the unwritten context around a particular question can be a powerful means for people to learn in a social situation. The insight collectively gained can be more insightful to its participants than simply sending someone off to read a document or wiki.

Are We In A "Post E2.0 Era"?

I just read an interesting report from my ex-colleague Larry Cannel from Gartner ("The Post-2.0 Era: Social in the Context of My Work"). It was recently published under the Burton IT1 Research if you have access. My thoughts - not directly in response to Larry's report, just in general concerning Enterprise 2.0 (which is what came to mind as I read the document)...

Are We In The Post-2.0 Era? 

Yes. And No.

Missing Pieces: The Activity Stream Aggregator

Industry discussions on the value of activity streams have been going on for a few years. The concept is pretty straightforward. Social network sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn in the consumer space as well as many enterprise social software vendors) display a chronological list of human-readable content fragments that describe actions taken by people and applications. For example, in Facebook this capability is referred to as a News Stream. Typically, an activity stream lists status updates from the people in your social graph as well as from applications you have given permission to publish into your stream. That permission might be direct, or indirect (e.g., a “like” gesture results in a subscription subsequent updates).

Promised benefits are many. Some industry experts go as far as to claim that activity streams represent a new type of “inbox” that will replace e-mail. Other experts claim that activity streams enable work to be more “observable” enabling a new type of ambient intimacy (being able to safely watch from a distance without being directly involved in that activity). Industry strategists also position activity streams as an important mechanism for extending an individual’s social graph as well as a means people can leverage to mobile their social network connections (e.g., by posting a question into the activity stream). There is also an argument that activity streams represent a new type of “social presence” that extends presence concepts linked to unified communications (e.g., a person’s activity stream gives people a richer mental model of what someone is doing over time that presence indicators and status messages within IM clients). Activity streams are becoming an integral part of any discussion on the enterprise social graph. Mining the data store containing the sum of all activity stream items is being discussed as an opportunity for organizations to discover interesting work patterns.

What I’ve listed above is illustrative and not meant to be a finite list of possible benefits. What I’ve tried to point out though is that while there are real and significant affordances enabled by activity streams, there is some risk that as an industry, we are portraying activity streams as a panacea to whatever problem ails you as an organization. It also masks discussion of the key architectural component needed, the activity stream aggregator, which will help make the credible benefits of activity streams a reality.

Abstract: Social Capital (Key Ideas)

Field, J. (2008). Social Capital (2nd ed.). Routledge.

 Abstract

John Field is Director of the Division of Academic Innovation and Continuing Education at the University of Stirling. His book, Social Capital, is part of a complimentary collection of essays to the series, Key Sociologists. The author continues to focus on the topic of social capital as it apples to lifelong learning. In this publication, Field adopts a social networking centric view of social capital. The connections people establish through social networks create resources that can be subsequently leveraged (thus the association that this intangible “good” is a type of capital). Field also introduces the role of “agency” and connects the ability to act to social capital.  People will use both formal (institutions and entities of various kinds) and informal structures to mobilize and apply social capital in enabling (positive) and constraining (negative) ways. While social capital is a relatively simply concept, Field concludes that conceptualizations to-date are incomplete, too loose, and even possibly flawed. The lack of theoretical maturity concerning social capital suggests that more empirical investigation needs to be done.  For instance, how participants mobilize their networks to activate their social capital is one topic Field notes. What can be concluded is that social capital is the property of relationships. Also, social capital delivers no value unless its participants possess the agency to leverage it. A more through examination of social capital also enables researchers to gain a better understanding of the “meso level” of social structures that integrates individuals to broader societal-wide structures.

Membership in networks is key for social capital to form and evolve. Field frames the work of Bourdieu and Coleman in the context of their respective era and context. Bourdieu examined social capital in an era where elites and social hierarchy were dominant. Coleman’s perspective was influenced by the field of economics and the theory of rational choice / rational action. For Coleman, social capital was driven by an individual’s desire to maximize his or her own self-interests. Social capital was a means for rationalizing how people managed to cooperate (investing in a future reciprocity rather than an immediate gain). It seems that social capital becomes more of a public good and rationalizes collective action, even though individuals are pursuing their own agendas, according to Coleman. Social capital then is more of a by-product of a cooperative pursuit by individuals to further his or her own self-interests.

In addition to Bourdieu and Coleman, Field points to the work of Robert Putnam and his influence on raising the visibility of social capital. Putnam’s perspective comes from the political and public policy realm. He is best known for the book, “Bowling Alone”.  Putnam focuses on the decline of social capital in the U.S. and attributes its collapse to the decline in civic and social engagement (note: others in the field argue that Putnam ignores new structures and forms of social capital). For Putnam, “social capital” refers to the collection of networks, norms of reciprocity, and the trust that arises within them which enables its participants to act together more effectively to pursue their shared objectives. Putnam also distinguishes between types of social capital: “bridging” (social capital that brings diverse participants together) and “bonding” (social capital that reinforces solidarity within a homogeneous group). Field also notes that Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putman have not dived deeply enough into the negative aspects of social capital.

Field notes the contribution of Pamela Paxton to the thinking around social capital. Specifically, that social capital can have different effects at the individual and community level ? that there can be differing sphere’s of social capital that can act with or against each other. Field also highlights the contribution of Nan Lin who examines social capital and how participants cooperate and gain reciprocity in the context of strong and weak ties (leveraging the work of Granovetter). Lin suggests that certain mechanisms help lead to the type of cooperation and reciprocity necessary for social capital to deliver positive benefits (e.g., information, influence through intermediaries, confirmation of trustworthiness, and reinforcement of promises and commitments). However, Field notes that cooperation that benefits its participants does not always result in a positive benefit to society (which gets back to negative aspects of social capital that can sometimes be a derivative result).

Measuring social capital is challenging and Field points to the work of the World Bank and OECD in this area. Indicators of social capital are often proxies that do not directly measure social capital and can mislead as well as inform. There is also the risk that attempts to measure and adjust policies to influence social capital can come across as attempts at social engineering.

Keywords:  social_capital, social_structures, social_networks, Field

 

Abstract: Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology

Source:

Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual Reviews.

Abstract

Portes is professor of sociology at Princeton University. His primary focus is on economic sociology with an emphasis on immigration and urbanization. In this paper, Portes examines the origins of social capital, concentrating mostly on the works of Bourdieu, Loury, and Coleman. Portes concludes that there is a level of enthusiasm for the concept of social capital that is unlikely to subside.  However, while the formation, evolution, and application of social capital is a dynamic with sound research grounding, that grounding is also incomplete. There is a risk that proponents of social capital will over-reach and see it as a remedy for too many of our major social issues. Portes points out that the processes that underpin social capital have been historically examined in other contexts. There is a temptation to “re-label” some of this prior work as “social capital” to modernize presentation of the information. Portes also infers that there is a tendency for us to celebrate its positive value of social capital without critical examination of its negative effects. A more dispassionate assessment of social capital is necessary in the field to better situate its theories and applications. Overall, Portes adopts a positive position on social capital as a phenomenon and consequence of sociability.

Portes credits the first modern-day analysis of social capital to Pierre Bourdieu. Portes’ interpretation of Bourdieu’s work credits him with focusing on the benefits that accrue to individuals through their participation in groups with the intent of that sociability to create the resource (i.e., social capital). According to Bourdieu, social capital enables people to gain access to a variety of benefits (economic and cultural ? introduction to experts, status, etc). Social capital is fungible and creates unspecific obligations over an unknown time period with no promise of return (that is, there is no guarantee of reciprocity). 

My Note: It seems that Portes and/or Bourdieu seem to agree with Burt (in Neighbor Networks) that benefits of social networks are not a given ? that affordances of any relation need to be accompanied by a strategy at group and individual levels to be in a position to claim that resource (social capital) down the road. This connects nicely to work done recently by Ellison (Benefit of Facebook Friends) concerning her research on the cultivation of social resources (CSR) and other work that examines “social grooming” as a means of gaining future reciprocity.

Portes makes note of Loury’s work but seemingly in passing as a gateway to the work of Coleman (who Coleman acknowledges in addition to Nan Lin and Mark Granovetter). Coleman’s definition is somewhat vague, focusing on social structures and how such structures facilitate actions of its actors as the core elements. With such an umbrella framework, a lot of associated processes can be framed under the social capital label. Portes seems to prefer the more explicit distinctions made by Bourdieu that distinguishes social capital from the resources acquired through it.

Portes seems to be advocating that more research is needed to understand the motivations of recipients and donors of social capital. Portes sees a systematic approach as distinguishing between “(a) the possessors of social capital (those making claims); (b) the sources of social capital (those agreeing to these demands); (c) the resources themselves”. 

Absence of such analysis has led to much confusion in how the term “social capital” is used and its scope when applied. For instance, social capital is often hidden in other contexts according to Portes. A good example is Granovetter’s “strength of weak ties” findings  re: referral for a job by someone with whom you have lost touch with can be viewed as the reciprocity expectation created through social capital processes. 

Portes identifies other definitions of social capital as well:

• W. Baker: “a resource that actors derive from specific social structures and then use to pursue their interests; it is created by changes in the relationship among actors”
• M. Schiff: “the set of elements of the social structure that affects relations among people and are inputs or arguments of the production and/or utility function”
• R. Burt: “friends, colleagues, and more general contacts through whom you receive opportunities to use your financial and human capital”

Portes concludes then that the consensus definition for social capital has become as follows: the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures.

There are negative aspects of social capital such as: its use to exclude outsiders, its abuse by other group members (“free riding”), as a means of control (demands for solidarity with community norms limits personal behaviors). The negative causes and consequences are often overlooked, as we tend to view social capital as only a positive phenomenon.  

Keywords: social_capital, social_structures, social_networks, Portes

Youth & Privacy: Research Shows That They Do Care

There’s an unfortunate myth that persists when it comes to youth and privac (at least in my opinion, based on research and findings I've read). While it’s fashionable to make broad claims that “youth don’t care about privacy”, there are credible studies that have been conducted by reputable researchers that show that youth do indeed care about privacy. Such findings do not mean that youth do not make the same careless mistakes that we all do and it's not too difficult to find examples of people, young and old, making a mistake when it comes to the use of social media or participating in social network sites such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.

If we take the "oops" examples aside, what I've summarized is that there are 

• A lack of media literacies (e.g., skills, competencies) when it comes to using social media
• A lack of awareness of the affordances offered by a social network site to limit one's "publicness" (e.g., not knowing that privacy controls are available)
• A result of actions (or inactions) taken by the provider of the social network site (e.g., provider changes lack notice and consent encouraging the revealing of information not meant for a broad audience)
• Actions taken by a trusted connection to make information "more public" than was originally intended (e.g., a friend tags you in a photo or checks you into a location)

My respectful disagreement with studies proclaiming "youth don't care" is that they promote a certain stereotype and often infer that people knowingly place themselves out there for everyone to see (a typical "Gen Y" caricature) - that there's a willful intent. Studies I've reviewed come to a different conclusion and that has been by position for some time now. 

There are of course always examples of people behaving badly, purposefully disregarding policies or intentionally acting in ways that avoids expected behaviors ? but generalizing that into a trend is a leap of faith that I have not seen supported enough in research. Surveys alone are often not deep enough and often reach superficial results depending on the way questions are phrased and who participates.

For your reference, I’ve read several studies that I rely on to support this line of reasoning re: youth do care about privacy but are not always private for reasons other than "intent":

A recent Pew Research study on Reputation Management and Social Media:

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Reputation-Management.aspx

A Berkman study on Youth , Privacy and Reputation:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588163

Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teen's Attitudes, Practices, and Strategie

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1925128

First Monday, a peer-reviewed research journal published an article on how people struggle with Facebook privacy settings:

http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3086/2589

ReadWriteWeb picked up on the study and summarized the findings:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/study_youth_not_only_care_about_facebook_privacy_t.php

The Office of Privacy Commissioners of Canada has also published information on the myth that youth do not care about privacy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guoyjHMYdrs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Millennials at Work: Reshaping the Workplace: Research From PwC

Interesting research on workforce trends:

PwC Survey: Millennials at work 2011

View more presentations from PwC

 

 

Mock Thesis Proposal: Personal Support Networks During Periods Of Employee Transition, Part 2

This post is Part 2 of my Mock Thesis Proposal. Part 1 is located here. The Abstract is repeated.

Abstract

Social Network Sites (SNS) create multiple affordances employees leverage during their employment lifecycle. In this Masters Thesis, I examine how a SNS helps employees during transitional periods such as: joining the company, moving into a new position, and navigating through organizational disruption. Personal support networks are one type of SNS affordance employees can exploit when seeking information, mentoring, advice, problem-solving help, or opinions on the “folklore” of another group or business area. Output from this work will identify employee personal support practices, the influence media, management, and culture have on such practices, and benefits that accrue to employees and employers.

• Methodology
• Relevant Experience and Expertise
• Research/Production Plan
• Bibliography

Mock Thesis Proposal: Personal Support Networks During Periods Of Employee Transition, Part 1

Abstract

Social Network Sites (SNS) create multiple affordances employees leverage during their employment lifecycle. In this Masters Thesis, I examine how a SNS helps employees during transitional periods such as: joining the company, moving into a new position, and navigating through organizational disruption. Personal support networks are one type of SNS affordance employees can exploit when seeking information, mentoring, advice, problem-solving help, or opinions on the “folklore” of another group or business area. Output from this work will identify employee personal support practices, the influence media, management, and culture have on such practices, and benefits that accrue to employees and employers.

Proposal and Rationale

Description

In this work, I propose to examine how employees can leverage the affordances enabled through an internal SNS for personal support reasons during professional life transitions such as: joining the company, moving into a new position, and adapting to new professional situations as a result of organizational disruption (e.g., a reduction in force, a re-organization, or combining groups of people together from different companies as part of a merger or acquisition). My belief is that personal support networks provide a direct benefit to employees and an indirect benefit to the organization and management.