Posts
In February 2008, Janssen-Cilag Australia & New Zealand launched an internal microblogging platform called Jitter.
The platform won the organisation an Intranet Innovation Award.
Nathan, from the Jannssen-Cilag team, has published a case study, Jitter: Experimenting with microblogging in the enterprise, on how the tool has been used.
This provides some insights into the challenges of using this type of technology inside an organisation - namely, introducing people to micro-blogging, and stimulating it's use as a communications channel.
Thanks to Ross Dawson for making me aware of it.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Case study - micro-blogging in the organisation | Tweet |
Friday, October 24, 2008
French government joins the online conversation | Tweet |
The French government has introduced a Web 2.0 portal featuring a forum, wikis and video to support debate on their digital strategy and encourage ideas outside traditional 'government-think' limits.
As discussed in The Connected Republic, the French site is at http://assisesdunumerique.fr/forum/.
UK establishes digital mentors to reduce the divide | Tweet |
The UK government is working towards the pilot of a 'Digital mentoring' system to support people on the wrong side of the digital divide to cross over.
As discussed in Connected Republic, Digital Mentors, the white paper for the initiative states,
Government will pilot a ‘Digital Mentor’ scheme in deprived areas. These mentors will support groups to develop websites and podcasts, to use digital photography and online publishing tools, to develop short films and to improve general media literacy. The Digital Mentors will also create links with community and local broadcasters as part of their capacity building, to enable those who want to develop careers in the media to do so. Depending on the success of these pilots, this scheme could be rolled out to deprived areas across England.
More information is available at http://digitalmentor.org
It could be an interesting program to consider for Australian communities.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
How does government convince IT contractors to work for less? | Tweet |
One of the recommendations of the Gershon report was that the number of IT contractors be cut by 50% - replaced by full-time staff.
Given the cost of contractors, it makes enormous sense to take this step.
However, with virtually full employment in the IT industry, falling IT graduates and a lack of talented IT people in cities such as Canberra, how does the government go about enticing contractors to shift into staff roles?
Certainly there are perks for being employed rather than contracted - sick leave, security and more of a traditional career path.
However these perks are less relevant for GenX and GenY workers, who have a different view on what are and aren't perks than do older, more established and more security conscious baby boomers.
In the current environment the majority of the benefits for being employed rather than contracted are on the employers' side - a stable workforce, less on ramp (and off ramp) costs and reduced payroll costs.
So I will be very interested in seeing how government will go about meeting this recommendation without high unemployment, a depressed private sector or a surplus of IT workers.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Do collaborative online groups need to be successful? | Tweet |
I have been reading a paper by James Robertsen of Step Two entitled Successful collaboration requires support. It discusses the need for central support and nurturing of online collaboration within an organisation rather than simply a 'build it and they will collaborate' approach.
While I agree with James' points, I do not feel that it is necessary for all collaborative groups to succeed. Sometime failure can be more educational, or can provide an organisation with insights into the actual priorities of staff and management - or can simply be due to changing communities and situations.
Considering an organisation as an ecosystem, with different operational units being different niches, each with their own specific characteristics and environments, over time some groups will thrive, some will survive but with less success and some will fail (particularly as the environment changes).
I see collaboration as an intersection of communication and knowledge, therefore any collaborative community is keenly affected by changes in its composition, the people, the organisational environment and priorities.
For example if a community leader leaves, or is simply not present, a community may fail, or one or more people may step into these shoes and take a community to new heights.
Sometimes the community leaders are not the obvious candidates, those who make the most 'noise' (the most posts or the most controversial). Instead they are often people in the background who provides the 'engine' of the community - as a critical source of knowledge, as a mediator between strong personalities or by asking the questions that make others reconsider what they believe.
Equally when an organisation changes structure, direction or priorities, some communities grow in significance and interest and others will fade. This is a wholly natural progression in the 'life' of an organisation and does not represent failure by the leaders or administrators of collaborative communities. Nor does it imply that the concept of collaboration is flawed.
My personal experience of collaborative communities over more than ten years of operating and participating in them is that they all ebb and flow over time. Often only a few individuals are required at their core, however without a mosaic of participants, who often are transient or contribute little to the discussions, the communities do not provide the knowledge transfer of value to an organisation.
Therefore, in my view, the best way to foster collaborative communities and support an environment where they can be successful (based on their own characteristics and niche) is to expose them to as large a group of participants as possible, thereby enabling others to learn from and share their own experience - even if it is not directly relevant to their current job.
To make communities fail, the best approach is to restrict participation to a small group, avoid cross-fertilisation and suppress active discussion and left-field ideas.
In other words, collaborative communities, in my view, thrive in open systems and die in closed ones, just as trapping two spiders in a glass jar over several months is not conducive to having them thrive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
