Governments are looking for ways to leverage Web 2.0 communities and social networking within their organizations, many looking to do so based on their commitment and interest in Microsoft SharePoint.  Based on nine years of experience working in this field, there are a number of principles organizations can apply to successfully deploy communities in social networking.  In this three part series, I will outline 11 principles for social networking on the SharePoint platform, or more generally.

This week, I’m going to tackle the four more principles for government 2.0 –  the importance of design, status updates and follow the data  

Principle #5: Nurture Content Addiction

Successful sites are those active enough to maintain the attention of even the busiest people.  Novelty and change are one big reason for people to keep coming back.   The ongoing success of FaceBook and Twitter illustrate how “content addiction” creates a reason for visitors to continually engage with the site.

From an enterprise perspective, this “content addiction” can be achieved by applying the practice of content aggregation across the social learning community.  Aggregating content across all topics and areas provides pulse on the project, or even the entire organization.  Social filters are key to making this information meaningful to users.   A good public example of this Digg.com. 

Personalized aggregation, which continues to grow in popularity, is another important strategy where users collect all the feeds from topics or colleagues to see in one location.  This Facebook or Twitter style aggregation when applied within the government provides a broad view introducing users to new information, while the personalized view trims down the information.  An important piece of content production is revealing both implicit content [content as revealed user activity such as ‘Ted marked document X as helpful’] and explicit content [content that is added by typing].  

Principle #6 – Use Play and Gaming

Enterprise learning professionals are increasingly relying on play and gaming as a key element of corporate training and development programs.   They are doing so with good reason, as play and gaming are engaging in a very deep way.  For those people who are into gaming, their games and communities are very consuming, and keep them coming back.  A good example of this is the popularity of online gaming communities such as World of Warcraft or the interactive components of gaming consoles like Xbox Live.

These same principles can be applied to social learning applications.  Taking the principles of gaming and applying them to a training scenario offers a very compelling and engaging way for enterprises to keep users active within a community. 

For example, the Army relies heavily on play and learning in its MilSpace community in helping members develop critical decision making skills.  Users watch a real-life scenario on video and are asked what they would do in a similar situation.  When respondents answer, they can then see others’ responses as well as how the real-life person decided and what happened in the end.

Principle #7 – Keep Users Connected

Social and web 2.0 approaches rely on continual participation.  Continual personalized hooks and calls to action keep people coming back and keep people addicted.  The trick is to let the application do the work.  Think of the emails that you may receive from Linked In (Someone has added you to their LinkedIn Network) or FaceBook (Bob has sent you a new message on FaceBook). 

Traditionally, within the community setting, a newsletter or similar tool was used to engage users on a weekly, biweekly or monthly basis.  Applying the successful approach from social networking of continual updates throughout each day encourages ongoing interaction with the community, which keeps users both connected and engaged.

Principle #8 – It’s a Service

A major difference of intranet communities versus social media or social networking sites is that users come to the communities because they want something.  Users are likely looking for information or need a solution to a specific problem. As such, the organization needs to keep in mind that the community is a service and the community’s goal is to provide the best possible service to users.  For example, if you include questions and answers as part of your community, you need to ensure that people are successful by treating it as a true service.  Mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that unanswered questions are addressed, questions are routed to the right people, and new answerers are enlisted.  That many questions get answers, how many are “good” answers, and how long it takes for users to find answers.

Watch this video by Andrew Chambers on how service is important for communities at the Federal Reserve Bank and Northern Lights.

Check back next week for the final three principles for communities and social networking  as part of Government 2.0.

Governments are looking for ways to leverage Web 2.0 communities and social networking within their organizations, many looking to do so based on their commitment and interest in Microsoft SharePoint.  Based on nine years of experience working in this field, there are a number of principles organizations can apply to successfully deploy communities in social networking.  In this three part series, I will outline 11 principles for social networking on the SharePoint platform, or more generally.

This week, I’m going to examine four principles for government 2.0 – simplicity, crowdsource relevance, appropriate calls to action and measurement matters.

Principle #1 – Simplicity

Call this the Google lesson.  The popularity of sites like Google and Twitter are based on the simplicity of their interfaces, and a clear path for participation.  Even new users can quickly and easily comprehend the steps they need to take.   To increase adoption of government 2.0, organizations need to ensure that they practice simplicity and not make things overly complicated.  A clean user interface, with a specific path for participation from the first visit engages users instead of intimidating them. Furthermore, it is important to understand that much of simplicity is about layering; you can achieve the same outcome in terms of activity or desired activities by just not showing everything up front.

Principle #2 – Crowdsource Relevance

Most social networking sites and communities have so much content, that it can be overwhelming to  users.   These sites, to varying degrees, make use of crowdsourcing, where users essentially do the work of “classifying” the information.  For enterprises, crowdsourcing is a powerful tool that enables the organization to take mountains of information and connect users with only the best and most relevant content. 

Just a few examples of crowdsourcing in action include when users bookmark information (which is an implicit endorsement), users mark something as helpful, users visit something (implies popularity), users tag or classify something (when you upload the content) which provides important meta-data.  Crowdsourcing, when used in conjunction with social filtering, becomes a powerful tool for government 2.0 initiatives as the information is classified and aggregated for users, enabling them to get the most valuable information fast, sorting information by what their peers find most valuable.

Principle #3 – Appropriate Calls to Action

The unique value of government 2.0 is engaging the voice of community members, but in the beginning it can be difficult to get people talking within a community.  There may be a lot of lurkers, but not a whole lot of people participating. Often, new users aren’t clear on what actions they could be taking – whether it be uploading a video or making a comment on a piece of content — so they end up doing nothing.  To get users participating from the inception of the community, and new users engaged from the day they join, there needs to be appropriate calls to action throughout the community.

A strong example of appropriate calls to action are found within FaceBook.  With each user`s status updates, there is the opportunity for their friends to indicate that they like the item, or to comment on that item.  It is clear to users what steps they can take with that content to participate, and this principle offers an immense amount of value to enterprises as they work to build thriving communities.

Principle #4 – Measurement Matters

To truly ensure the success of your government 2.0 initiatives, metrics need to be clearly defined and measured on an ongoing basis. Metrics are central to being able to plan and strategize efforts and activities in a project. This enables users and community managers to have tangible metrics so they can know what is working/what is not, who is participating/who is not,  and setting targets for growth of the project.  

Social networking sites are driven by metrics, numbers of friends, followers and so on.  Enterprises need to take these metrics much deeper to identify short, medium and long term goals, manage and nurture top contributors and determine what is most successful within the community.   A project without substantiated ROI is not a project for long, so measuring items like page information and overall community information can make a critical difference in the adoption and success of the community.

Watch this video by Andrew Chambers of Northern Lights (and formerly of the US Federal Reserve Bank) on how measurement matters in communities.

Next week I’ll tackle four more principles for communities and social networking  as part of Government 2.0.

Some of the most interesting challenges facing the Federal Public Service can be found in the growing communities of public servants using external social media tools. You don’t have to look too far to see that public servants are actively using Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter – and not just as private citizens. If you look at any one of these tools, you will find broad and vibrant communities of public servants: citizens debating, discussing and meeting to talk about things they are passionate about – and often it is their work.

On the surface, this social phenomenon offers significant opportunities for government institutions struggling with public service renewal. What better way to harness the passion and inventiveness of employees than to give them the tools and the freedom to engage outside the bureaucratic firewall? And it takes only a small step further to see the deeper benefits, the potential to engage with stakeholders and citizens. Imagine the creation of policies and the design of programs in a world where employees are able to discuss, debate, and capture ideas from thousands or even hundreds of thousands of citizens.

The traditional approach is often unidirectional: good communications plans are designed simply to get the message out. Interaction and input from citizens is limited to the channels of surveys, focus groups or portal Web sites. Focusing on official and unidirectional channels is still effective in many contexts, but how long will this remain the case? In short, will traditional methods be sufficient to engage citizens of the next generation, when already they are furiously debating and discussing issues they care about, on their own terms and using their own tools?

Asking these communities to come to us to provide their input is like asking loud and boisterous partygoers to leave their party and come over to your house for tea. Reception will be much better if you just go over and listen – and ask important questions. The idea of an open government bureaucracy that engages citizens at all levels has some very obvious challenges, such as the impact on traditional decision making, privacy, and accountability. I think that the most important challenge can be found in how the core values of the public servant (neutrality, anonymity, fairness and most importantly supporting elected officials) interact with the values engendered in social media (openness, equality, and community). At one time, the political affiliations and opinions of a public servant were only discussed privately. But in today’s world of YouTube and Twitter, where what was once private is increasingly – and willingly – made public, the idea of anonymity goes out the window.

The bottom line is that public servants are a part of an increasingly interconnected, open and accountable world. And frankly, governments need to develop guidance for them, because public servants have already been using social media for quite some time, trying to make Canada a better place. And we must support them.

Afterthought 

You might be wondering why I am treating the broad use of these tools as a fait accompli. We could simply build internal systems or mandate that public servants don’t use external tools except through very controlled channels. We are already setting up internal tools, and they will have an impact. But I don’t believe they can replace the true value of external systems. Also, employees have great latitude to discuss their work interests as private citizens. In doing so, they are generating a wealth of information and knowledge that could be lost to the organization, if the split between private and public servant personas is institutionalized. Accepting the use of external social media tools embraces a public servant as a whole person, and embraces all they have the power to contribute.

(Thx 2 blog pixies)

As a consultant focused in the Employee and Organization Performance space, I came across an interesting Reuters post linking enhanced productivity in employees who use Facebook and YouTube at work. The article noted a University of Melbourne study that showed people are about 9% more productive when using the Internet for personal reasons while at work.

In today’s widely accessible, internet-based collaborative environments, one could question the ability for employees to maintain focus on their day-to-day activities. To this point, I have seen countless private and public sector examples where tools such as Instant Messenger apps or community collaboration sites were locked down or blocked.

With the entrance of a new generation in our workforce comes the increased adoption of on-line social networking and collaboration tools. Taking away the ability of this generation to work and interact within these environments limits channels for enhanced connections both personally and professionally. 

I’d be considered a Generation X employee, joining the workforce around about the time when email became mainstream. When I joined Accenture in the mid-90’s, voicemail was the chosen vehicle for broadcasting Corporate messaging to our global workforce. Email quickly followed as the channel of choice for connecting employees, which was made possible through laptop enablement (note: I recall the strong policy and leadership messaging that email was to be strictly used for business purposes). We then brought the intranet online and provided the ability for employees to share knowledge, messaging and ideas via websites and collaboration rooms.

Thinking back to the technology we used when I joined, I’m fairly certain that in 1995 I used to get 2 voicemails per hour (which admittedly a number of them were from friends lining up plans for the weekend or suggesting menu items for dinner).  These days I’m getting about 2 voicemails per month, and most of my networking is via email, some of which are understandably social (and “unproductive”) in nature.

I can’t speak to the vehicle of choice for staying connected before this technology stuff. However I can only speculate from newspaper cartoons and TV shows like Madmen (set in the 60’s) that there was a time where the water cooler was the collaboration tool of choice for work and non-work related topics. People stayed connected and engaged with colleagues and friends. They shared ideas, topics of interest, lined up dinner plans, arranged socials and followed up on work projects. Out of interest, check out Wikipedia where it can be duly noted that the water cooler is called out as a social networking tool.

I have to wonder, how much productivity was actually lost by keeping the water flowing? Were employees who had daily water cooler social interactions more or less productive than desk-chained colleagues? Seeing as how I have yet to come across an example of a water cooler “lock-down”,  I can only un-scientifically speculate, backed with some methodological research thanks to University of Melbourne, that social networking technology is in fact a useful tool to maintaining a more productive workforce.

With government trying to figure out how to deploy the tools and applications of social networking – the likes of Facebook, wikis and such – it’s at least interesting to stumble across a suggestion that social networking itself could turn out to be just another fad.

A survey of 13,000 people in 17 countries by the research firm Synovate (www.synovate.com) found that fully 58 per cent of them were unfamiliar with social networking.

Plus: More than a third – 36 per cent – were losing interest in online social networking. That included 47 per cent of Canadians polled.

Steve Garton of Synovate acknowledged the universal truth that social networking is by and large keeping youth on board. But overall, he said, “It turns out social networking is not taking over the world. Well, not yet anyway.”

In the short term, the findings merely suggest that “not everyone is pokable,” as e-Marketer put it. At a higher level, though, they also point to a plain requirement for more research by the public sector on the potential of social networking applications: Can they become part of the fabric of routine community consultation, as some e-government apostles preach, or will they merely become a series of behind-the-scenes intranets for assorted tech types?

You will no doubt be familiar with the breathless tone to much popular discussion of various social media tools. They’re everything from “transformational” to “revolutionary” and beyond, everywhere from Big Business to Big Government..

There is of course something to that. Wikis are routinely fuelling all manner of leading-edge tech development in most orders of government, and communications managers everywhere are trying to figure out to use these applications to engage their various communities.

Still, a little perspective is in order. Facebook, for example – the best known of today’s social networking brands – has clear roots in Usenet, which attracted hundreds of thousands to cyberspace before flame wars scorched that good earth.

As for the popular deployment of wiki projects, U.S. writer J. Davidson Frame, an astute writer on technology in a public sector setting, finds origins everywhere from ancient Athens to the Oxford English Dictionary. (It was propelled by Wikipedia-like contributions from thousands of volunteers – 3.5 million contributions, as a matter of fact).

Frame notes those and other parallels for the U.S. newsletter NextGov and then takes it up a notch:

“When thinking about introducing social networking concepts into government, perhaps the most interesting question is: How far can we go in this direction? Obviously, we face Constitutional constraints on how we govern the USA. But this shouldn’t stop us from raising intriguing thought questions: Can self-regulating social networks replace Congress and the President? In creating regulations, does it make sense to develop them in the same way that Wikipedia entries are created? Should policies be created by communities of interest comprised of people who are most heavily affected by them?

“Given the growing force of social networks, it is time to start – in the words of Herman Kahn – thinking about the unthinkable.”

Transformational indeed, you could say.

One of the sticking points for Web 2.0 in a public sector context has always been privacy and security. It’s a notion crucial to both the mission and mandate of all orders of government and the general confidence of cybercitizens in online government.

There are signs, however, that such concerns may be needlessly overstated.

A recent U.S. survey by Mintel Comperemedia, for example, found that two-thirds of Americans were more concerned about security than they were five years ago. But in nearly same breath, Mintel analysts noted that identity theft is actually declining.

“The actual risk of having your identity stolen online is not as high as many people think,” eMarketer quoted Susan Menke, senior analyst at Mintel. “Financial services companies are trying to reassure consumers, but their marketing messages aren’t sticking. Companies need to find innovative new ways to convince Americans that their identities are secure online and when using e-mail.”

The most recent data from the U.S. Department of Justice indicated that less than 9 per cent of identity theft is a result of online scams. Rather, most identity theft is perpetrated through stolen mail and other low-tech methods.

In one sense, such findings support the laissez-faire approach to privacy and security which characterizes Web 2.0 tools like Facebook. In the longer term, however, what e-government managers could be looking at here is the very thin edge of a wedge that leads to new views of privacy and security issues in a public sector context. Not exactly plus ça change, maybe. But worth noting.

For all the churn around Web 2.0 in the public sector– can we? should we? how much would it cost? – it turns out that there’s a much more prosaic possibility than the conversion of Facebook into a focus group gizmo. And it’s one with built-in appeal to government

In emergencies, according to a report prepared for the University of Colorado, people are more likely to turn first not to traditional media but to social media sites, blogs, instant messaging and other staples of the 2.0 world.

Twitter and Google mashups in particular are useful, according to the study.

A related study of wildfires in southern California last year found that people used Twitter to keep friends informed of their condition, minute by minute. They also used Google Maps to track the progress of the fire.

e-Marketer Daily said the study found mass media unreliable “as they struggled to access remote areas from which Web site users with an Internet connection could easily report.   Media sites also focused on the ‘sensational,’ such as fires close to celebrities’ homes, which distorted the overall picture, the scientists said.”

It’s an intriguing finding; shouldn’t require too much in the way of Deep Thinking to weave 2.0 into the array of emergency management tools that are standard everywhere these daysl