Let Them Talk: Why chatter 2.0 is also valuable in the company
There was a point in the discussion of my last blog post on the Facebook intranet, which is at first glance a rather controversial: goals, track the company with wikis, networking or blogging platforms, are quite different from those one at a coffee cuisine 2.0 can track in the style of Facebook. (This is the way to the discussion above.)
Who would want the company to deny concrete expectations of results? No one would – but still: the question of results is sometimes like a deep dish, on the edges you can not see out.
Informal talk to each other, for example, not one of the activities that are placed directly in connection with value. Fast falls the word of blarney. Nevertheless heard of aimless exchange on social platforms in the business – and there is criminally underrated in my opinion.
Chatter 2.0 – where is his contribution to the company’s success?
Recently I was elsewhere witnessed a disputation on this question, but unfortunately hit in my eyes neither side the point. It was about an activity stream in Facebook style, with multimedia presented content, comments, simple Reviews – just a fairly simple feature that is not much more allowed, each content (response) to present as to raise questions in the round and a little to discuss.
Unfortunately, one of the panelists was happy about it too much and praised the elves information on the application as innovative, efficient and successful cooperation. The critical questions were not long in coming:
What results did the discussions? If it initiatives or actions arise?
What insights have helped other colleagues at work in the company?
How many active participants include the application at all? Commenting and clicks?
So much traction suggest the questions – they were just as misguided as the Bullshit Trinity innovation, efficiency and success in view of the specific functionality of the application.
Why? I would say this:
1 – Results
Results on Enterprise 2.0 platforms and otherwise generated as in the real business practice : by goals are communicated, reached agreements on the way there and as a whole provides a portable commitment is demanded. Finally, a platform must of course also come up with goal-oriented functionality.
All these points not met in the case discussed. There were neither explicit agreements on the platform, still supported the functionality more than informal discussions. Management ideas, streamline business processes or replace, knowledge or experience Platform: None.
Bertrand Duperrin brought it finally to the point : “The more we want to include a community in the operation and want ‘for the business productive’ we ever make it, the more structure it needs.” One should also not denying that this structure because even in direct correlation stands for moderation and with special technical features.
2 – lessons learned
But can deliver pure conversation really useful information? Apparently this is the most difficult question meets chatter 2.0 the core. For here we come actually to the edge of the measurable world.
But the question is a bit redundant. Because people always talk to each other, which now belongs once to do so. Whether something positive comes out is more to the circumstances and to the parties themselves as to the fact of exchange.
Social applications require the conversations among employees in the company, only faster and more transparent. Consequently, they also increase the number of occasions on which this exchange produces positive effects.
Is it possible to measure these opportunities? To put it briefly: no. I should know this, in which readers carry the information to which effects. If a technical note mean? A trail leading to an unknown contact? Information about a meeting with the customer to which the random reader can contribute something of value? Or a contact that would never have come into being without the social platform, but its true meaning turns out two years later?
We do not know all that. This is about the principle of the windfall, or in the language of the social web to serendipity . This is by definition unpredictable, their knowledge is highly subjective and therefore they can not quantify. If anyone knows of a study that measures serendipity – please let me know.
The long answer measurable would be of course that you can try to measure, for example, a survey of participants of the Platform. Methodological reservations can be, however, hard and clear up if at all, only with more effort.
This is but then again not a specialty of Enterprise 2.0 – which leads me directly to the next point:
3 – Activity
Active participants are worth much, no question, for a virtual community exists ultimately only in the moments when something happens online.
Nevertheless, it bothers me when passive participants are small talk on social media platforms.
Business users get up and down explains how valuable the listening and learning when accessing social media, but to fellow readers of their own activities we measure are of limited significance?
Clearly, the effect is difficult to measure, too. What happens with readers in mind what they think they are going to buy or recommend the end? Really can easily measure is only something like the impressions – and are little more than a guess, how many times an entry has touched the retina of a surfer.
Ultimately, we should not do so: Even classical communication is content when measuring with the most easily attainable and the bosses can be presented by their PR people prefer to ten numbers mentions in the media before they even require an expensive, time-consuming methodically image survey to commission.
Reading is about learning – and that takes:
4 – Time
True, the question to this answer has not been called up. But I wanted to talk about it again, that an Enterprise 2.0 strategy reflects a development and a timeline has. On this chatter is 2.0 in the company in my opinion a central role:
Informal talk on social platforms is another not the goal, but it is a good way. The value proposition of a platform may also be that they first of all help the strategy before the company reaps results.
Dion Hinchcliffe has recently distinguished three phases of appropriation of social business applications in the enterprise and has pointed out that each phase requires different approaches.
Phases of Social Business Adoption
So who aims at knowledge management and generation of innovations in an internal community, must first remember not only early adopters to speak, but also to gain a critical mass of members who support the social commitment of the longer term.
Many evangelists look forward firmly on big goals, but forget the people who are still behind them. But also need to be taken, because ultimately works Enterprise 2.0 only as a popular sport and not as a playground for first division.
About all that was not predictable addition (keyword fluke) the value of platforms is simple, intuitive and informal-to-use in its contribution to learning in companies, for cultural change. Such a platform in front of leads, as it can go, it offers opportunities for insiders and greenhorns to learn from each other. It accelerates the adaptation of the Social Web in the company, replacing possibly many training.