The three components of Learning 2.0 are social, formal and informal. Social learning, through Social Media applications, has, seemingly overnight, become the “holy grail” for learning professionals as more and more organizations go in search of a way to capture knowledge from departing Traditionalists and Boomers. Why the urgency? Simple: In less than 10 years, Generation Y (Millennials) will make up the majority of the workforce.

To date, while intuitive, there is little proof that Social Media is a successful model for learning within the organization. Most current illustrations of the power of Social Media describe improved communication with customers or collaboration among teams. Almost all case examples focus on the use of specific tools. Learning 2.0 through Social Media is not about a particular set of tools. Rather, it’s about implementation and maintenance, which ultimately must be dictated by your company’s culture. While the start-up costs are low, and initial participation and enthusiasm can be high, the fall off rates can be staggering.

The key to social media for learning is participation. Social media models for learning do not function when few produce and many consume. This is for two reasons:

1) Learning is greatly increased when participants engage by producing content rather than just consuming it, and
2) The longevity of a social media platform is often dictated by growing participation rates.

And participation is about cultural fit and perceived value. For many, value comes from being perceived as a valued contributor. For others, incentives are required.

Regardless, one thing is certain, the use of Social Media to promote knowledge capture as Traditionalists and Boomers depart the workforce will only be effective to the extent that these older generations become active producers of content. Since these generations are the least likely to be familiar and comfortable with these new technologies, we find ourselves in a bit of a conundrum. Many experts believe that the path forward will require the Millennials, who already identify with these new technologies, to draw this content out of the older generations with threads of question and answer.

Intuitively, Social Media as a means for knowledge capture and learning makes sense. Blueline’s approach is to consider all tools and technologies that will help us create engaging and immersive learning experiences for our clients.

At Blueline, we are actively researching thought leaders, and to date have come across one of note: Marcia Conner. She is a fellow of the Society for New Communications Research and the Batten Institute at the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia.

Learn more by going to MarciaConner.com

Share this:

Since I wrote Part 1 on this topic, the dust up about Facebook’s change to its privacy settings got so loud that Mark Zukerberg, Facebook founder and CEO, published an editorial in the Washington Post saying “We missed the mark.” And, last Wednesday, Facebook rolled out a new “simpler” interface to control your privacy settings. While I’m sure many people are pleased that Facebook has responded to users concerns, these new developments do not negate the lessons that we can learn from this situation.

In the first post, I explored the caution on changing the implicit user agreement when implementing social tools, including knowledge management systems. In this post I’ll explore a second caution that arises from Facebook’s phenomenal success that results in them having over 500 million users.

As I mentioned last time, having such success has led to a situation where it is difficult not to be on Facebook. While there was a move on Facebook itself to make May 31st “Quit Facebook Day,” with a goal of getting 200 million users to cancel their Facebook accounts all on that day, quitting Facebook presents a real dilemma.  If all of your friends, family and network are using Facebook to share information, organize class reunions, post the latest baby pictures, etc., and you are not on Facebook, you are left out.

So what’s the caution for corporate social learning and knowledge sharing? The more successful your system becomes, the greater the likelihood of creating two classes of corporate citizens — those who are engaged, contributing and valued in the social learning network, and those who are not. In a previous post, I talked about what research is discovering about the power of your network to influence your behavior and success. It is very powerful stuff.

The dynamic of those who are in the “good-old-boys (or girls)” network having access to better opportunities and support is probably as old as human beings. However, when the interactions that build those “good-old” networks are face-to-face, there are multiple ways to contribute and develop standing. At least with current social media technology, those who can most easily contribute and develop credibility and standing in a business setting, are those who are most capable of clear, concise writing. Now that is an ability that’s certainly important to develop in business today, but as an only means of establishing “network-value” it will rather limit or skew the network, meaning some will be left out.

I’m clearly not advocating that we avoid building social learning and sharing tools for our organizations. I’m just raising some cautions that we need to be aware of as we do. Just as with any change or technology, there is the Law of Unintended Consequences. As leaders in implementing these new tools and technologies, I think we have a responsibility to anticipate some of those consequences, and think about how to mitigate them.

Share this:

If you’re not a frequent user of Facebook or plugged into the stream of technology buzz, you may not even know there is a Facebook Brouhaha. Though recently, even mainstream media has picked up the story.  I think the situation bears watching because it can be instructive for building and deploying your own social learning or knowledge management systems.

So, just what is the fuss all about? The long and short of it is that, Facebook has, over the past several months, been changing the way it makes the information you post on Facebook available to others. When Facebook started out, one of the things that separated it from MySpace and other internet-sharing sites was that anything you shared on Facebook was private and could only be seen by people you had agreed to let view your information as a “Friend.” This created an environment where many people felt comfortable posting pictures, videos, and updates about themselves and their family.

Now that Facebook has over 500 million users, it is looking to expand how it uses that information you share. Now from a business perspective, Facebook is looking for ways to generate more revenue from your content. It also is making it the default setting that everything you post is now public, unless you dig through the privacy settings and manually make things private. Just how convoluted is this process to protect your information? Well, all facebook.com recently published a post on the 10 Privacy Settings Every Facebook User Should Know. That’s right TEN settings you have to manually review and adjust to keep control over who sees your content!

These changes have created quite a stir (or brouhaha) among the technorati, some going so far as to start online campaigns to get people to cancel their Facebook accounts. (This, by-the-way, is not an easy feat to accomplish and even if you cancel they keep an archive of the content you have shared.) Two senators have even called for Senate investigations into Facebook’s privacy practices. And four enterprising young New York University students have raised over $100,000 for their plan to build an open-source Facebook replacement.

Now the problem with these calls to cancel your Facebook account, or switch to another platform, is those 500 million or so Facebook users. These create a nearly overwhelming pressure to use Facebook. If all of your friends, family and network are using Facebook to stay up-to-date, share the latest baby photos, and organize events, then if you aren’t on Facebook, you are out in the cold. This social network pressure probably will allow Facebook to blissfully continue on with its practice of unilaterally changing its social contract with its users with impunity.

So what are these cautions mentioned in the headline?  Well, there are probably a number of them, but as it relates to developing and deploying social learning tools inside organizations there are two that I would like to suggest. I’ll discuss one here and the second in a follow-up post.

Caution 1: Be careful with the social contract that you create with contributors and users of your system. Unlike traditional classroom training programs or even elearning or mobile learning programs, the success (and possible failure) of a social learning or knowledge management system lies in the hands of the users and contributors. In traditional or even cutting edge training programs, the designers and developers carefully craft the content and experience to maximize the likelihood of achieving the course objectives. This means that, while a learner may value and even use the material taught, they don’t develop a sense of ownership for it. The ownership lies with the developers, and possibly a small group of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). Contrast this to the social learning environment where the contributors of content have a real sense of ownership.

This ownership of content is where the caution lies in changing your social contract with users. Facebook’s original distinction was “your content belongs to you and you control who you share it with.” Their recent privacy setting changes have stood this implied contract on its head, and that is what has generated such a fire-storm.

The lessons for us in the social learning space?

a) Think carefully about how the system you are developing not only is going to be used today, but also what it might evolve into in the future.

b) Be sure to let your users know up-front how their contributions will be used now and possibly in the future.

c) If you do make a significant use change, give the user some control over how this use change impacts their contributions. (One of Facebook’s big mistakes is that the new “share publicly” setting is the default setting unless you manually go in and change it.)

d) Make opt-in rather than opt-out the norm. For example, after six months you might decide to implement an emailed digest of contributions to groups at the end of each day. If I am a member of eight different groups, I just got eight new emails (that I didn’t specifically ask for) in my inbox. Rather than have this type of thing “just happen” and require actions on the users part to avoid, make it opt-in. Again, give the user/contributor control.

Changes to the user contract is just one of the cautions that this Facebook dustup has brought to mind. In my next post, I’ll explore the ones that Facebook having 500 million users bring to mind.

Share this:

As computer technologies became an integral part of running a modern business, executives created the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) role to develop strategy, oversee implementation and ensure the business was leveraging appropriate technologies to enhance results. Will the increasing recognition of the power and importance of social networks, in everything from learning to innovation, lead to the creation of a Chief Social Officer (CSO) position? One whose role is to develop strategy, oversee network creation and ensure the business is leveraging social networks effectively to drive business results? After reading Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives by Nicholas A. Christaki and James H. Fowler, I think it just might. In Connected, Christaki, a Harvard University professor, and Fowler, a professor at the University of California San Diego, explore how our networks impact our lives in a variety of ways. Their conclusion is that your network impacts everything from your health and happiness to your career and financial success.

Connected examines research about and provides examples of the 5 Rules of the Network:

1. We shape our network: Not only do we make choices about whom we connect with, but also about the size and diversity of our networks. The characteristics of the networks we create play a significant role in a variety of aspects of our life.
2. Our network shapes us: This goes beyond being influenced by those with whom we associate, it also includes where we lie in the network topography.
3. Our friends affect us: Not surprising, as any parent of a teenager will tell you, one of their major concerns is who makes up their teen’s peer group. And as some wise person once said, “emotionally, we really never get out of high school.”
4. Our friends’, friends’, friends affect us: Christaki and Fowler call this the Three Degrees of Influence Rule. Research studies show that “your friend’s, friend’s, friend has more impact on your happiness than an extra $5000 in your pocket.” Not only that but that same friend of a friend of a friend can impact whether you gain or lose weight, find a job, and whether you choose to vote in the next election or not!
5. The network has a life of its own: Christaki and Fowler make the case (and I’d say a pretty good one) that we can not really understand the behavior of the individual without looking at their network and its structure.

And importantly organizations, they also examine how networks impact creativity, innovation, and the adoption of new ideas. In Connected, Christaki and Fowler show that it’s not only who is in your network, but the topography or structure of the network that has a huge impact. It turns out that who is connected to whom and in what ways they are connected are both important.

In a separate paper, Watts and Strogatz went deeper, examining the effect of network structure on creativity, by analyzing the impact of social networks on the success of Broadway musicals. Their study of the collaboration among producers of 321 musicals that premiered on Broadway over a 44-year period, led them to conclude that a particular type of network structure, which they call “small-world type,” leads to the greatest financial and critical success. This type of structure, they conclude, facilitates easy communication, but also encourages greater creativity through new ideas and synergies.

Given how significant the research shows networks are in influencing not only individual but also group behavior and performance, and the proliferation of networking tools, like Facebook, Yammer, etc. it may well be that large organizations will soon see the need for a Chief Social Officer.

Now I’m off to review my Rolodex!

Share this:

Many people predicted and blogged that 2010 would be the year that Social Learning and other Web 2.0 technologies really take off in the training space. And it may turn out that they are right. Certainly the technologies are maturing, and gaining more widespread acceptance by vast numbers of people outside the workplace. I find myself wondering however, is now really the time?

Now you may rightly ask, how could this not be the time? After all if Facebook were a country it would rank as one of the top five largest countries in the world. And you can rightly point out that even local TV newscasts, much less CNN and Fox News, are constantly urging you to follow them on Twitter. Good points, I admit.

What’s got me wondering is a recent post by John Cook, math professor and programmer, on “just in case” learning versus “just in time” learning. He makes the argument that programmers are generally more interested in just in time learning, or finding the knowledge or solution to a particular need right when you need it. Certainly, Twitter, Yammer, social networks and other Web 2.0 technologies can help provide this type of learning, often very efficiently.

Cook makes the case that “just in case” learning is equally important. He uses algebra as his example. If you never learned it, you would never seek to learn it “just in time” because you wouldn’t recognize the need. I know that many of the programs that I have designed have a large “just in case” component. Take Emotional Intelligence as an example. Until you are exposed to the concepts and the resulting shift in your worldview, how do you ever recognize the potential need to learn it “just in time?”

And here’s where I get worried about the excitement and drive to Web 2.0 technologies as “the answer” for cost effective training — many of these technologies require the learner to take the initiative to engage in the dialogue, develop a learning community, explore the network, etc. In other words, it asks more of the learner than more traditional classroom or even elearning sessions. Not in terms of engagement with the material, but more to initiate the learning in the first place.

Many of the people I talk with are working with a fearful and even disengaged workforce due to concerns about the economy and actions their company is or has taken because of it. This is not an atmosphere that seems very conducive to asking them to take more responsibility and initiative to engage in new learning opportunities and methods. This is especially true if the learning will be more developmental (or just in case) rather than “here’s how to accomplish the task in front of you” (or just in time). Most people are already taking on additional responsibilities as organizations are running lean. And while they may find it relaxing and even refreshing to use Facebook and Twitter to keep in contact with friends and family, are they willing to take on more in the workplace?

There are many examples of great technologies becoming available that failed for lack of a market. Is the market of corporate learners ready to buy these new ways of learning?

What do you think?

Share this:

The short answer is “no” or better “not yet.”

When Google WAVE was first announced there was a lot of excitement and buzz about the possibilities. Now that the developer preview is out and we’re getting a chance to work with it, I’d say WAVE is still about the possibilities.

If you’re not familiar with Google WAVE, it’s from the same two brothers who developed the Google Maps framework, Lars and Jens Rasmussen, and was announced as the next generation of email. Invented over forty years ago and based on the Postal Service model, email was never intended for the widespread and varied ways that it is used today.

There are a number of inherent problems with email as a primary means of communication — which it has become for many people. (The over use of Reply to All, being just one annoying example.) The Rasmussen brothers set out to redefine email as a real-time as well as asynchronous conversation in Google WAVE.

When Google first announced WAVE they released the news conference as an 80-minute video on youtube.com: http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html#video

If you’d like a bit more succinct overview here is Google’s 10-minute introduction to WAVE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6pgxLaDdQw

Having played with the developer preview for a few weeks now, I’d say that WAVE is not the next-generation of email so much as a framework for collaboration. The fact that it allows multiple people to work on, review and comment on a document at the same time makes it a natural for teams working to create material. One of the coolest features is the ability to Playback a WAVE, basically to review the comments, replies, etc. in the sequence in which they happened. This allows someone to join the work mid-way through and still see the historical picture of how the team’s progress has evolved.

he WAVE framework allows you to easily drag-n-drop all types of media into a wave (wave with a small “w” refers to an individual conversation/document). This means that the wave can become a container for documents, images, web-pages and videos that relate to the conversation. This aspect of WAVE could easily support Social Learning applications.

The other part of WAVE that has me excited is its extensibility using Gadgets and Robots. Basically, this is a plug-in architecture that will allow developers to create a variety of additional functions and interactions that you can use within a wave. Some of the current ones available, such as polling and maps, already suggest possibilities within a training context. The real proof will be in seeing what developers create.

The biggest challenge with WAVE is the signal-to-noise ratio. Currently, there are no tools (that I’ve discovered) to easily filter the conversations in order to hone in on particular areas or content. Yes, like all things Google, WAVE does feature fast and robust search, but since replying and commenting are real-time, (similar to Instant Messaging, but from everyone in the wave) it really doesn’t provide enough useful filtering. From a Social Learning stand-point, the ability to quickly filter and access the knowledge that you need is critical to the usefulness and success of any framework.

The other stumbling block is the User Interface (UI). It’s just too confusing for widespread use in its current form. As I stated in a previous post (put link here), one of the lessons learned from Twitter and Facebook for widespread adoption and use is “make it simple!” Google WAVE certainly can be powerful, but it is not simple, or at least not yet.

WAVE has a lot of potential. The Google WAVE team is undoubtly learning from the experiences of the early adopters and improving WAVE prior to its wider rollout. The real magic of WAVE though, will be when independent developers begin to create their own UIs and special applications using the WAVE framework. Once developers begin to understand the power of the framework, and begin to create Gadgets, Robots and User Interfaces that make the powerful collaboration and communication aspects simple to use, it just might become that next-big-thing in Social Learning.

Have questions about developing Social Learning within your organization? Contact Blueline Simulations.

Share this:

The social media tools of the tech-savvy have gone mainstream in the last year. CNN and many other news organizations now encourage us to follow them on Twitter for the most up to date and breaking news. And not just follow them, but share news stories as they are happening!

Facebook has gone from a way of connecting with other college students on campus, to an international community that includes not just students but mothers, fathers, and even grandmothers and grandfathers.

These new ways of connecting, communicating and sharing information are now making their way into the corporate world as organizations look for ways to capture, share and manage the knowledge and expertise that exists within them. Social Learning is quickly becoming a new catch phrase in the corridors of HR.

So what can we learn from Facebook and Twitter as we examine how to develop knowledge or learning communities in our companies. I think there are several lessons to keep in mind.

1. Some people will take to it naturally and some won’t. – Just like any other media, the social media approaches will naturally fit some people’s learning and communicating styles better than others. Some people enjoy the conversations and interactions that social tools encourage, while others find this type of sharing and discourse uncomfortable. Social media tools should not be viewed as the answer for knowledge sharing and information, but be part of an overall strategy that includes a variety of options. These new tools have not replaced the telephone, email and face-to-face contact. They have augmented them. In the same way, they will not replace classroom sessions, online training or reference sources, but provide new ways to enhance them.
2. Plan for organic growth rather than mandated use. – Okay, I will admit it. The first time I checked out Twitter about a year ago, I didn’t get it. Now I consider myself a pretty tech-savvy guy, who enjoys being on the cutting edge of technologies, but I really didn’t care what my friends had for lunch! However, as more people I knew began to use Twitter and use it to share important news, ask questions, and crowd-source needs, I found that it did have a place in my communications toolkit. While both Facebook and Twitter have grown exponentially in the last few months, it has not been through a strong marketing push, but rather an organic pull. Friends ask “Are you on Facebook?” and in online discussions “What’s your Twitter handle?” Sure once CNN and Oprah got on-board they took off, but the initial success was built by individuals sharing: “Hey this works for me, check it out.”Successful implementations of knowledge management/sharing communities within organizations will grow the same way. As people start exploring and sharing with their friends, co-workers and network, the value they are getting, and ways they are using the tools, growth will happen. So plan your roll-out strategy to build off of this organic growth.
3. The greatest power will come in ways you won’t anticipate or expect. – The founders of Twitter had no idea that it would become a means for people to share breaking news during times of crises (like the riots after the Iran elections). It was simply a way to stay in touch with other tech friends – quickly and easily. But as people started using it, they found their own ways to make it valuable.When Facebook opened up to third party developers all types of additional possibilities were created. Now, I don’t really need any more Mafia Wars or Farmville invitations, thank you! But the variety of applications and ways of interacting that are being created means that there can be something for everybody. Again, not what Mark Zuckerberg had in mind when he started it, but certainly a big part of Facebook’s appeal for many people.Now if you are a corporate IT person, this probably scares you to death. But the more open and adaptable you make the tool, the more ways people will find to use it to add value to the organization. The more locked down it is, the less it will get used and the less value it will create. Remember the folks who created the Internet never imagined it would become the ubiquitous tool for commerce, communication, and sharing that it is today.
4. Don’t try to think or plan too far out. – Before there was Facebook, there was MySpace and before that Friendster. Soon there will be something that replaces Facebook. (Some think it could be Google Wave, but that’s for a future post). The technologies are evolving and creative people are developing new ways to connect, share, collaborate and work. And the pace of this evolution is accelerating.Three years is probably a good horizon for planning for any social media/communication tool. To plan beyond that is likely a waste of time and resources. And again, as more people begin to push on the capabilities of whatever you implement, there will be a demand for more, better and faster ways to share, organize and access knowledge.
5. Finally, make it simple and easy to get started. – One of Twitter’s greatest advantages for growth is similar to one of Google’s, it’s dead simple to use. It’s just a single text box. How intimidating is that? And while Facebook is a bit more involved, the main use that most people start with is simply answering the “What’s on your mind?” question.Of course, there is a lot more you can do with Twitter once you start learning about hash tags, direct messaging, retweets, etc. The same goes for learning about the various features and options available on Facebook. But you don’t need to understand, or even know about those, to get started using them. In fact, go back to point number one, most people learn about these more advanced methods organically. They don’t need a “Here’s how to use Facebook” guide.

There are many platforms or technologies that you can use to implement a learning community or knowledge-sharing infrastructure in your organization. (In fact, we have recently rolled out our own platform Boost!,) Regardless of what platform you choose, following the lessons of Facebook and Twitter can help make your implementation more successful. I’d love to hear what you are doing and what you are learning.

Share this: