I've come to the realization that running multiple blogs in an attempt to compartmentalize my thoughts is akin to herding cats.
Of course it was a good idea, but in order to do such a thing effectively, at some point the brakes have to go on and the shift into organization must be intentional. That said, I have posted recently on the educational retrofitting blog in response to a post by Jason Alba (and elsewhere on the academic side of my life).
Christmas time (sorry, we don't call it the Holiday Season here in the South -- that will happen long after the second amendment gets changed :-) was good, and I just learned that it was good for publication as well. Our book The Emergence of The Relationship Economy (more here & here) apparently sold well in December. I must say I wonder whether it was more for enlightenment or necessity.
It took most of 2008 for much of what we were suggesting to catch on and be (slightly more) mainstream, so that could have been part of it. The other possibility is that we as a society, especially after the tactics used in the election, are realizing that social media doesn't just have a place in the world, it is a huge opportunity for many people who are stuck in the void between having time to reach out to established friends and making new ones and the need to maintain a massive productivity level.
Not being able to determine which is more important, I'd like to get your opinion(s).
Is social media "catching on" in your life and the lives of those around you? Do you still get that look from people when you mention Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter, and the like?
What do you think?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Like herding cats -- what was on your Christmas List?
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Is it copying or collaborating?
Copying or collaborating?
In school, it’s called copying, and it’s wrong. In business, it’s called collaborating, and it’s expected and rewarded. When two people work together to submit the same work product, how should it be received? It depends on the 1) assignment, 2) agreement between the parties, and 3) recipient's expectations.
Individuals are moving more and more toward collaboration, especially in the business community. We’ve seen team-building become almost an art form in business, and the focus on forming short-term business teams appears to be a foregone conclusion during negotiations. So where do we draw the line?
If we can’t monetize it and ensure we get our share, we aren’t likely to go for it!
Knowledge in organizations is (rightfully) treated like it has value. But, as with other things of value, the usefulness of knowledge depends on how we process it. There are apparently two perspectives, or schools of thought, on the handling of knowledge in organizations.
One perspective is that knowledge consists of objects that can be created, collected, stored, retrieved and reused. This model suggests that knowledge needs to be codified in order to be effectively managed. This model can be understood using a "conduit" model of communication (Heo & Yoo, 2002).
The second perspective is that knowledge in organizations is socially constructed and collectively held. It is malleable, uncertain, and embedded in work practices and social relationships. This model is more in line with the “communities of practice” model (Heo & Yoo, 2002).
Many organizations are still concerned about getting an immediate return on investment for the knowledge they create, maintain, and share. The Relationship Economy won’t work that way, so now would be a great time for us to learn to get over this antiquated business practice. We may all agree in the importance of fostering a collaborative culture within our organization, but just how do we go about doing so?
Tapscott and Williams, in their book Wikinomics, identified four steps we can take.
•Encourage and reward openness in networking for all members of the organization.
•Create peering environments that foster self-organizing human connections for collaboration and innovation.
•Allow radical sharing to expand markets and create new opportunities.
•Think and Act globally as an individual, team and organization.
(Tapscott & Williams, 2006).
To achieve Openness means ensuring a culture of candor, flexibility, transparency and access. How many of today’s workplaces can accurately be described by these words? Openness means making your organization’s boundaries porous to external ideas and human capital. It means being open to the talent pool that lies outside your walls and sharing access to corporate performance. Moreover, it means seriously participating in the global knowledge economy (Tapscott & Williams, 2006).
Peering is also important in the establishment of a collaborative culture. Peering results in the creation of a horizontal organization that is often unrivaled by hierarchical organizations in speed of solution deployment. Looking at some examples of peering may give us an indication of how it can be accomplished.
•Marketocracy is an organization that uses collective intelligence on virtual stock portfolios. Marketocracy is a research company whose mission is to find the best investors in the world and then track, analyze, and evaluate their trading activity. They claim to have beaten the S&P 500 Index in 8 of the 11 quarters since inception http://www.marketocracy.com/
•Wikipedia is a free multi-contributor online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. Unlike a paper reference source, Wikipedia is continually updated, with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
•Linux is a Unix-based operating system with shared infrastructure and resources. It was originally created starting in 1991 by Finnish programmer Linus Torvalds with the assistance of developers from around the globe. Linux runs on a wide variety of hardware platforms, from huge mainframes to desktop PCs to cell phones. http://www.linux.com/whatislinux/
Peering succeeds because it leverages self-organization. The natural self-organizing behavior of humans suggests that self-organization should be expected in our society. Self-organization can provide a platform for a decentralized, distributed, self-healing system, protecting the security of the actors in the network by limiting the scope of knowledge of the entire system held by each individual actor (Self-organization, 2008). Usually the growth of such networks is fueled by an ideology or sociological force that is adhered to or shared by all participants in the network.
Radically sharing Expanding markets
As any business model demonstrates, expanding markets create new opportunities. These opportunities are beneficial, and often require insight into the local business culture. They are also likely to require the sharing of duties among people who haven’t worked together before. In order for these relationships to work, there has to be an agreed upon comfort level between the participants.
Technology has brought us a couple of excellent examples of sharing that we (as humans) might try to replicate in our endeavor to “get radical.”
Computing power sharing allows companies to harness the processing power in a multitude of computers and combine that power to accomplish tasks that before required expensive supercomputers (Kessler, 2003). Shared computing also lets companies, or researchers, shift computing power via a network to where it's needed, cutting costs and increasing computing productivity.
Sharing bandwidth (neighbors or neighboring companies) can also keep costs down. Talk to any (honest) telecom sales representative and they’ll tell you it’s rare (like with streaming media) that all the bandwidth is needed all at one time. Those office buildings who treat bandwidth like electricity or water and pick up the tab for their average tenants have the right idea.
Content sharing is becoming more and more useful on the Internet. Many of the once-stagnant websites we mentioned previously are now dynamic because of shared content.
The sharing of scientific and medical knowledge is how both communities got to where they are. The research may go on behind closed doors, but the results are only useful when they are shared with the community. How many other communities do you know that freely share their findings?
Thinking and Acting globally
Thomas Friedman was right - The World Is Flat. The only way that today’s companies will be able to maintain a healthy balance sheet tomorrow is if they focus on staying globally competitive. That means they need to devote time to monitoring international developments. They will have to begin (or continue) tapping the global talent pool. They will have to get to know the world.
The International Labor Office provides us with Eight Dimensions of Knowledge Sharing. Contemplate these as you decide whether you are prepared to engage:
- Create a supportive culture
- Gather internal experience
- Access external learning
- Expand communication systems
- Use creative mechanisms for drawing conclusions
- Develop an organizational memory
- Integrate learning into strategy and policy
- Apply the learning
(ILO, 2007)
Examine your tradition of knowledge sharing to see how many of these dimensions you use.
Tomorrow’s successful companies will need to find ways to Think and Act globally, even if their budget and management has them stuck with legacy systems and processes. They will need to become true global companies, with no physical or regional boundaries. They will have to learn to treat the world as if it was one company, run by truly global individuals. They will need to see remote as if it were local, and realize that we don’t need to be in the same room to collaborate (Tapscott & Williams, 2006).
Michael Powell, then Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said that change is inevitable. He made this statement after using Skype (Tapscott & Williams, 2006).
What do you think?
References:
Heo, D. & Yoo, Y. (2002). Knowledge Sharing in Post Merger Integration. Case
ILO (International Labour Office), (2007). Results-based management. Available at http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_084822.pdf
Kessler, M. (2003, January 8). High tech's latest bright idea: Shared computing.
Self-organization. (2008, February 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:43, February 5, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-organization&oldid=188631462
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Knowledge Sharing in The (networked) Relationship Economy.
The way we share information has changed. We have transitioned from what was never called Web 1.0 to what is now called Web 2.0. We have partially transitioned from a reliance on printed material to the (at least partial) use of digital publication. Our organizations have transitioned from the industrial age use of Quality Circles to the Information age use of Communities of Practice. Many of these concepts are becoming keys to success in the knowledge-based economy (Tapscott & Williams, 2006).
But there’s a problem. With the ready availability of information comes the incentive to use the information for your own benefit without compensating the creator. We’ve seen the initiation of digital rights management in one form or another to assist those in the audio and video business in collecting royalties. Colleges and Universities have seen a variety of software tools that comb the Internet to check originality of material. All this leads us to ask the question, “How does knowledge sharing work in The Relationship Economy?"
What edition of the web are we on?
The previous era was never called Web 1.0 because no one realized there were going to be so many drastic changes that would so dramatically alter the engagement paradigm. In a relatively short period, we transitioned from the “surfing” of websites to get information to the practice of immersion in a collection of interlinked computing platforms that serve us in a way not dissimilar to software on our local machines.
The Web 1.0 period ranged from about 1994 to 2004. Websites were characterized by the requirement for designers (webmasters) to provide all the updates. Guestbooks that worked a lot like a physical bulletin board, were about as close as these static sites got to interactive. These sites were a place where we could go to get stored information.
Web 2.0 came up on the radar screen about the time the phrase was coined by Tim O’Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media to describe “the web as a platform.” Webmasters now have shared content update responsibility with their readers and users. Instead of static pages, these pages have dynamically generated content, and provide a place where people can meet and interact. This space is typified by social-networking sites with interactive posting areas, wikis, and blogs. Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information.
Traditional knowledge sharing medium
For many years, we have shared knowledge using the written word. This is often seen as a reliable method, and is usually preferred to passing on information verbally. In recent years there has been a transition (in some areas) from printed media to digital. Though preferences for one or the other are as unique as the individual, there are some clear benefits in both cases.
The Print publication era is still with us, though it has undergone many transitions since the invention of the printing press. It is characterized by places where information is gathered, sorted and disseminated -- libraries and other information warehouses. The process of searching for printed material is a rather cumbersome and slow process. In many cases, it requires more physical action than actually accessing the material. We have to plan for time to read, and we are inclined to uni-task – just read, with very little else going on.
The Digital publication era provides a much different experience. Whether on the public Internet or in a local database, the process of searching, retrieving, and accessing material is limited only by the speed of our connection. Digital publication has redefined what we used to call bookstores and libraries. We are able to read whenever and wherever there is time and opportunity
Quality assistance
Groups of people have always collaborated to assist each other. In recent years, we have seen a transition of this practice from physical meetings to assist the organization to virtual meetings to further the profession. Quality circles and communities of practice epitomize these different approaches.
Quality Circles are a group of workers who meet to discuss improvements and make suggestions to management. The intent often focuses on the quality of output, in the content of organizational performance. Quality circles are known to motivate and enrich the work lives of employees (Quality circle, 2008). These groups are usually limited to a specific organization, and rarely focus on extra-organizational issues.
Communities of practice describe the process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in some subject or problem collaborate over an extended period to share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations (Community of practice, 2008). Communities of practice are usually formed within a single discipline in order to focus efforts in sharing knowledge, solving problems, or innovative ventures, but multidisciplinary participation provides an advantage in these efforts because of the expanded focus and even holistic goal that can be achieved (Community of practice, 2008). These groups often look to challenges common to many organizations.
Quality vs. Quantity
As we have mentioned previously, there are limits to the number of people we can effectively manage and communicate with. When building networks for knowledge sharing, we will see more of a communities of practice design, where a larger group of people converse with the group. It is important to keep the intent for building in focus, and to share the intent with those we invite to join us.
Though little research has been done in this area, surely there is a limit on how big we can build and still have a useful network. Robin Dunbar, an
But there’s likely a cap on the effectiveness of our networks when we add people just because we can. At some point, people feel used (as just a “number”), and word gets out in your community. Nonetheless, if done right (and for the right reasons), it is possible to build a functional network of hundreds of people. The key is on learning the basics of networking, where very encounter is an opportunity to:
•Add connections
•Strengthen existing connections
•Connect your connections
That said, we should make a habit of regularly auditing our connections
•As they affect the individual
•As they affect the larger organization
•As they align with objectives
These audits may result in additional connections, or they may result in a form of “culling” of our network. In any event, we should build our networks as a place where knowledge is freely distributed and treated with the respect it is due.
What do you think?
References:
Bialik, C. (2007, November 16). The Numbers Gut: Sorry, You May Have Gone Over Your Limit Of Network Friends. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. B.1
Community of practice. (2008, February 1). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:18, February 4, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_of_practice&oldid=188459226
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything.
Quality circle. (2008, February 2). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:19, February 4, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quality_circle&oldid=188527357
Monday, February 04, 2008
Share and Share Alike in The Relationship Economy
•The development of new technology doesn’t just happen, it depends on initiatives.
•Development begins with the recognition of a need, and it results in change
- Change to the way we do things.
- Needs are often recognized when a few people get together and discuss their wants and desires.
- This happens often when people network.
•Self-organizing networked social systems generate shared knowledge
•This shared knowledge can benefit many of the network members. The only thing that limits knowledge dissemination is the method used to transfer the information and the limitations or restrictions placed on it by those who hold the knowledge.
•The Internet circumvents imbalanced relationships by removing restrictions for those who seek information.
•How many industries have we seen opening up since the Internet became an integral part in so many people’s lives?
•Automobile sales were one of the first to experience the infiltration of informed customers, thanks to Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book
•The insurance industry has likewise been affected
•Mortgages and other loans, stocks and other investments, even simple banking transactions can occur with an institution we never physically visit.
•The medical field is experiencing an increase in informed patients with companies like WebMD
•And there are many more, and more to come.
In The Relationship Economy, the sharing of knowledge (like the sharing of many other factors) will produce revenue. Another way of saying that is by sharing knowledge you are engaging in economic development. Let’s examine economic development from a two different perspectives.
Personal economic development benefits the individual, who must acquire and implement the knowledge, and their family, who benefits from contributions by all of its members. We are all part of an organization of some kind, so let's look at it from a wider perspective. Organizational economic development benefits the smaller groups, like one’s team or section, which also benefits the individual (and their families). Economically benefited individuals and groups ultimately benefit the whole organization.
Community economic development starts at the local level, where projects including workforce education and development are launched and nurtured so they can raise the income of those (individuals) in need. At the state level, economic development includes a variety of cooperative projects and strategic expansion initiatives. Sometimes there are regional developments that engage in economic stimulation – often these are cooperative operations with private and public organizations. When economic development occurs on a national scale, there are multitudes of players involved. Projects at this level take a significant amount of planning
But we don’t like to change!
It’s difficult to get people to change – even if it is in their best interests. It can be even more difficult to get groups of people to change. Ultimately, in order to provide an environment for change there must be an identified need.
Some examples of needs (or wants) resulting in change include:
•Open Source software
Open source is a software development method that uses distributed peer review and transparency of process. The need that brought about the The Open Source Initiative (OSI) was better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.
The OSI is a non-profit corporation formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of open source and to link different open-source community constituencies. http://www.opensource.org//
•Creative Commons licensing
•Creative Commons provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. Individuals can use private rights to create public goods: creative works set free for certain uses.
•Creative Commons can clearly identify copyright terms from "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved." http://creativecommons.org/
•Voice over Internet Protocol
•Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), allows you to make voice calls using a broadband Internet connection instead of a regular (or analog) phone line. Some VoIP services are proprietary, others allow you to call anyone who has a telephone number, and some services allow you to use a traditional phone connected to a VoIP adapter. http://www.fcc.gov/voip/
•Video creating and sharing
•A variety of new technologies, websites, and social network domains like Facebook and MySpace, has motivated large numbers of individuals to create videos and post them on the Internet. This trend crosses the individual and corporate space, and is expected to continue to grow. Current examples include YouTube, MySpace, and Google Videos.
•Blogging
A blog (web log) is a website where entries are commonly displayed in reverse chronological order. Many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs.
Network Power
The power of a network is related to the amount of knowledge held by the individual members, how much they share with others (and re-use from others), the number of others with whom they share and the capability of the network to generate new knowledge.
For an organization, the network power equation requires.
•Hire and retain people who have a high level of expertise (and therefore a large amount of knowledge).
•Hire and retain people who are natural sharers.
•Hire a diverse population of people so that the knowledge they have is varied; i.e., there is enough similarity so that they can understand each other, but not so much that they all know the same things.
•Put in place a work environment that encourages and enables knowledge sharing.
The bottom line is power is knowledge shared. Through knowledge management, you can increase the power of your organization exponentially to solve problems, to invent new methods, and to overcome physical distance.
(Smith, 2001)
Technology-Enhanced Synergy
Synergy happens when a group of diverse individuals gets together and collaborates. When forming a strategic team, it is important to find a variety of personality styles, backgrounds, and experiences. Only by interacting with a heterogeneous group can we experience the real power of collaboration. The results of these collaborations often contribute to the overall knowledge base. Previously established networks can also be used to disseminate this collective knowledge.
There have been many recent examples of technology-enhanced synergy. Though many of these exist in the software world, their application in similar models in the “real world” can be easily accomplished.
•Wiki is software that allows users to create, edit, and link web pages easily. Wikis are often used to create collaborative websites and to power community websites. Wiki is from a Hawaiian word for "fast." A defining characteristic of wiki technology is the ease with which pages can be created and updated. Wiki technology and style has been used to create
Encyclopedias
Dictionaries
Textbooks
News
Quotes Listings
Search Tools
Learning Resources
(Wiki, 2008)
•Open Courseware is a free and open digital publication of “high quality” educational materials, organized as courses. The OpenCourseWare Consortium is a collaboration of more than 100 higher education institutions and associated organizations using a shared model. The consortium includes:
Harvard Law
Johns
MIT
UMass Boston
UC Irvine
Notre Dame
. . . and many others
Topics come from a variety of academic subjects, including Philosophy, Biology, Calculus, International Relations, Adolescent Health, and Statistical Reasoning are offered – completely free. (http://www.ocwconsortium.org/)
So where do we start?
What do we need to do to create a Knowledge Sharing Culture? We need to start with making knowledge sharing the norm in our life and the life of our organization (Gurteen, 1999). We need to regularly encourage people to work together more effectively, to collaborate and to share. This will help instill the habit in the lives of others in the organization, and will go a long way toward making organizational knowledge more productive
But remember:
- We are talking about sharing knowledge and information – not just information.
- We share knowledge to help the organization meet its objectives. We are not doing it for its own sake.
- Making knowledge productive is as important as sharing knowledge.
- Changing a culture is tough. It means seeing the world in a different way, and revealing hidden paradigms like the tacit acceptance that “knowledge is power”.
It starts with you!
- Knowledge sharing begins with the individual. Each of us has his or her job, objectives, and sphere of influence.
- Sharing is about being more open in your way of work and in your relationships with other people.
(Gurteen, 1999)
We can get there from here!
The most effective way to create a knowledge sharing culture is to start at our level. The higher up we go in the organization the more effective we will be in changing the knowledge sharing culture, but we have to start where we are. We must implement knowledge sharing and show others the results.
An organization’s knowledge assets include explicit knowledge (concepts, procedures, and routines) and tacit knowledge (experience, relationships, and know-how) (Chun, Williams, & Granados, 2007). An organization’s knowledge assets develop over time, and can be difficult to manage. Quite often the knowledge needed to solve a given problem already exists within an organization, but locating the person, document, or server holding the knowledge is challenging. Many of us have our own methods for knowledge management. Is your desk covered with sticky-notes? How do you retain knowledge that you know you will need some day? Hopefully some of the ideas you have seen here will help you in your quest for knowledge sharing!
What do you think?
References:
Chun, M., Williams, M., & Granados, N. (2007). Managing Organizational Knowledge: Insights offered from the
Gurteen, D. (1999) Creating a Knowledge Sharing Culture. Available at http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/Creating_a_K-Sharing_Culture_-_Gurteen.pdf
Smith, R. (2001, May 9) Knowledge Management – The Road Ahead. Presented at "Unleashing the Power of Partnerships", the 2nd Conference & Expo of the Staff Exchange Program of The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.. Available at http://www.rgsmithassociates.com/Power.htm
Wiki. (2008, January 30). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:38, February 1, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki&oldid=187815038
Friday, February 01, 2008
Can relationships help you turn back time?
If you are old enough to remember cassette tapes, you probably remember her.
She used only one name - legally - to identify herself.
She sang with the Righteous Brothers' for the recording of 'You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling'.
She holds the record for the longest time between number 1 hits: 1974 (Dark Lady) to 1998 (Believe).
She was the "babe" that Sonny referred to when he sang, I've got you, babe.
And she brought us the song "If I could turn back time."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OR0U87mRsY
So can you? Is it possible to turn back time? Is there a possibility that anything or anyone (other than God) will ever be able to go backwards in time?
I don't think so.
But I do know that as our technology advances, we are sure finding ways to try to minimize the time we spend on a variety of things. Everyone in the universe has been to a time management seminar, and many of us have tried the "proven" methods of many a time-management expert.
And yet we still have no time . . .
Here are a couple of examples:
CPA
In 1997 Nat Torkington (O’Reilly Media) coined the phrase continuous partial attention. He noticed that continuous partial attention had become a way of life to cope and keep up with responsibilities and relationships. When we've stretched our attention bandwidth to upper limits, that’s a sign of “continuous partial attention.” We think that if our computer networks have a lot of bandwidth then we do, too.
Torkington (2005) proposed three sets of (relatively) contemporary Attention Cycles that address how people in our society have interacted with each other -- both personally and professionally.
He noted that between 1945-1965, we focused on an organizational center of gravity. We paid attention to that which we served.
From 1965-1985, it was all about me and self-expression. We trusted ourselves.
Then from 1985-2005, it was all about our network as the center of gravity. We trust network intelligence.
Torkington suggested that we are now in the time for committed full-attention focus. In this new era we feel alive by feeling engaged attention. We will use trusted filters and protectors to remove distractions and manage our space, so we can have meaningful connections.
TADD
Jay Deragon tells us that time and attention are the only factors that are becoming scarce. As we engage in techno-enhanced relationship building, we find new functions and features aimed at facilitating faster, more meaningful reach, proposed new efficiency and a host of other value propositions. These integrative technological breakthroughs will ultimately enable us to better manage our time through one interface by segment of use.
Jay calls this “TADD”, Technological Attention Deficit Disorder. With The Relationship Economy, we will be better able to balance our time and use it wisely for whatever personal and professional aim. Until then, a few of us will bear the burden that comes with learning new technology. Once lifted, the burden will become the value we can pass on to the masses so collectively we can gain more time to create more value.
So what can be done? What can we accomplish in The Relationship Economy that positively affects our time?
CIO magazine (online) provides an A-Z listing of professional and personal social networking sites (as of Jan 23, 2008). From Advogato to Ziggs each provides yet another niche and a variety of benefits, but none promises to give you more time!
So how exactly are we going to find time for networking, much less being social? And how are we going to accomplish anything in more than one place, on more than one network?
Networking, especially Social Networking, can be used to leverage time. Jay Deragon often refers to the leverage of social media as the ability to communicate one-to-one-to millions.
But we have to be careful! In many cases, our convenience in social networking may inconvenience others. Think about how we get "connected" in the networked world. We join a new network, complete a new profile, and then email everyone we know asking them to (take a wild guess . . .) join a new network, and complete a new profile. Just as Torkington (above) pointed out, Morgan (1998) observed that in The Relationship Economy, all of us will become dependent on the intricate network of impersonal relationships that possess many of the characteristics of personal relationships. These relationships are fueled by technological advances, and are a phenomenon that, going forward, we should understand, especially if we are truly dependent on them.
It's easy for network building to become a huge time vacuum -- building networks inherently appeals to our competitive nature. We find that anything (or anyone) new in our networks can grab and keep our attention just like the first time we discovered we could play solitaire, hearts, ScrabbleTM, or minesweeper on the computer. Taking the time to find our way around social networks can be just as big a time investment as the time it takes to learn our way around a new city -- and rightfully so. Many of the activities in these networks are similar to those we find in the "Real World." We can (or soon will be able to) meet people, engage in discussions, browse books, read magazines, try on clothing, drive cars and fly airplanes (at least virtually).
If we are doing these things at work, it's possible (probable) that we are wasting valuable time, and if we are on the clock, that time isn't all ours. If we are at home, it's possible that we are avoiding other things, like cooking, cleaning, watching television, helping with homework, cutting the grass, walking the dog, and any number of other parental or spousal duties (no, I won't be expounding on those for you).
So what's the fix, you ask? As with engaging in these activities in the "Real World," when we engage in these activities in the virtual world, we need to focus the majority of our actions on the results we hope to achieve. In other words, we need to make sure that what we are doing contributes to what we want to achieve.
These techno-assisted relationships are needed to combat the direction our relationship-building strategies have been heading in of late. In a previous post we addressed the business response with Customer Relationship Management, but let's focus a bit more on those business relationships. How can the technology we now have available help us save time and avoid the limitations of sound-byte communications with those who provide us with products and services?
If we can trust these relationships (which we can and will find a way to do), we can learn to rely on those with whom we have dealt with (in a satisfying transaction) in the past. Amazon, eBay, and many other e-commerce sites use this model to help us make decisions about buyers and sellers with whom we transact business. As Morgan (1998) noted, human behavior depends on our perception of risks, not (perhaps unknowable) the actual risks we are facing (p. 53). The relationships in the marketplace of old were built on trust, built up over time. The relationships in the marketplace of The Relationship Economy are built on trust, as well -- technology-enhanced trust, but trust nonetheless.
So how can I limit the time I spend on networking and still be effective?
Perhaps the best contemporary guidance available on this topic comes from David Teten and Scott Allen, in their book The Virtual Handshake: Opening Doors and Closing Deals Online. In the book, the authors describe several ways you can apply the concept of leverage to your networking time. Here are a couple of quick summaries.
Crossing the Action Threshold
The authors observe what many of us intuitively know - people will respond if you ask them for a favor. In case the request is worth more than your relationship with the person of whom you are asking the favor, there are other incentives available.
The Power of Many
Another example they give is public speaking -- a powerful way to reach more people. When addressing more than one person, you are exposed to, and connected with, a large number of other people, all for the same amount of effort -- plus you get the added benefit of the other people in the community sharing their experiences.
(Teten & Allen, 2007)
Separating business from personal
As with anything business-related, it is healthy to be able to separate your professional (business) life from your personal life. Though there are countless examples of successful people who lived, ate, breathed, and slept with their work, for those of us who really want to "get a life," here are a few pointers. If networking helps us save time, we have to find something to do with it, after all.
Examine the role or roles you are filling at a given time. Is that role primarily one related to your professional life, or is it more personal?
Examine your recent actions, responses, and interactions. Could they benefit you professionally? There's something to be said for being able to monetize every minute of every day, but at what point do you live to work and when will you start to work to live?
Intentionally engage in activities that are strictly personal -- for you as an individual, with no possibility of professional benefit. Sure it can be difficult, but force yourself. You'll feel guilty for a while, but you can learn to enjoy yourself.
Here's the tough part -- asking for help. Get with some of your trusted friends (yes, they can be people you work with if you are still in that rut). Tell them what you want to do. Explain to them that you want an honest evaluation of your ability to separate your professional life from your personal life. If you are able, get them to write down a few indicators that you are or are not able, and then (only after they have written them down) discuss what they see with you. Ask them to make suggestions to help you. If they give an example that you don't agree with, shut up and listen. Remember, you asked them.
Then take their advice. You do this by implementing the suggestions you got from your trusted friends. Try it for an hour, a day, a week, or (if you are really bold) as long as you can. If you couldn't get anyone to agree to critique you, look at the suggestions we made (above) and use your own imagination (if you still have it).
And then, prepare to engage in a little self-reflection. This is necessary so you can evaluate the results of your efforts and adjust, as needed. You may not get it right the first time. You may go overboard, or you may feel like you will go crazy if you don't check that one more email or make that one more phone call. It's like breaking any habit -- you have to want to and you have to be prepared to not get it right the first time.
If anything we've covered is totally foreign to you, don't worry. The Relationship Economy is a place where totally new paradigms will produce totally new actions and reactions. If someone tells you they have been-there, done-that, just let out a chuckle and run away from them -- as fast as you can. Make the time to build your foundation now, and prepare to reap the harvest of time tomorrow.
What do you think?
References:
Morgan, B. W. (1998). Strategy and enterprise value in the relationship economy. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Teten, D. & Allen, S. (2007, April 17). Who Knows Who You Know: Leverage and Focus. Fast Company. Available at
http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/networking/teten-allen/leverage-business-goals-080107.html
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Analysis of The Relationship Economy Model
Businesses that capitalize on and thrive in The Relationship Economy will not use a business model that resembles that of a traditional business. The businesses that have been retrofitted for The Relationship Economy will have the basic building blocks of traditional business models, addressing their Infrastructure, Offering, Customers, and Finances, but there will be some highly unusual additions. When you think about a Relationship Economy business, think hybrid.
The Relationship Economy Business Model
Recent news from eBay indicates they are attempting to appease sellers by lowering the upfront listing fee and increasing the back-end fee for sellers. Their "success-based" model is meant to increase listings, but according to Betsy Schiffman (2008), it will do little more than enrage its merchant base. Schiffman suggests that it isn't just the fee structure that has sellers complaining: eBay also changed its feedback system so that sellers cannot give a negative or neutral rating to buyers.
Ironically, eBay's business model has been one of the most successful in the online business movement. (Somewhat) average business people can minimize risk and overhead while avoiding the time and geographical constraints that can plague traditional businesses. They often benefit from social interactions (both in their online endeavors and in the frequent face-to-face seller conferences that eBay offers). The eBay-powered businesses often enjoy a large number of bidders, and benefit from networked markets.
Networked markets benefit from the effect that causes a business' products and services to have potential value beyond that of traditional markets. This phenomenon, often referred to as
network effect, grows exponentially based on the number of additional customers who have and use the products or services. The term was coined by Robert Metcalfe, the founder of Ethernet, the most widely installed computer local area network (LAN) protocol. But eBay, and other businesses intent on surviving The Relationship Economy, must master yet another model.
The customer loyalty model is useful for those companies that, like eBay, deal with a multitude of customers and collaborators who engage in conversation around and about the products or services they are purchasing and using. Businesses who use the customer loyalty model find that cost of customer acquisition only occurs at the beginning of a relationship, while the cost of maintaining (and retaining) that customer declines. These customers are generally loyal, satisfied, less price sensitive, and are less inclined to switch providers. This loyalty manifests itself in customer advocacy, where customers openly share their convictions about the company with others. These customers refer their friends and acquaintances to the company and vice versa, often promoting a company better than the marketing department could ever dream about.
How do businesses build relationships?
Relationship building for businesses seems almost counter intuitive. Back in the day, Customer Relationship Management was the practice of leaving the house, stopping for a cup of coffee at the local diner on the way to work, taking a break to visit with your neighbors who happened to be long-time customers, and generally engaging others in conversations about anything and everything.
Over time, businesses realized that in order to make those who held the purse strings happy, they had to generate revenue beyond what they had generated before. This first led to cutting out all nonessential and unproductive activity. Go figure -- taking the time to talk to others was one of the first activities to go. Think about the last time you engaged in conversation with:
- the store owner of a place you visit at least once a month
- your barber or hair stylist
- the person who delivers your newspaper (I know, you don't talk to digital people)
- your bank teller or your financial adviser
- your business associates
So what kind of conversations are we having with those we engage in business? We let them set the rules and make the initial approach. They use traditional business relationship techniques, sending us information they "know" we want, about stuff they "know" we need. We throw printed matter in the recycling bin, wear out our computer mouse (and left-button finger) hitting the delete button, and still they persist. Every once in a while we will actually speak with a human representative of the company, but it's usually after we have become very annoyed because we did not get what we expected for our money (and then had the privilege of listening to old, stale elevator music for 20-30 minutes).
Jay Deragon recently addressed these issues in his question: Ever try and reach someone with influence at a Fortune 500 Company? He noted that those that have any authority to make changes to improve customer relations are insulated from the customer. Even worse, companies that are growing will find it beneficial to outsource customer care (to people who may have less experience with the company and its products or services than the newest customer) If they really want to build our trust, they'll install a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to manage the details of our lives.
That's not a relationship!
So if we get the point, and we have the technology available, how do we get started?
Larry Weber (2007) provides us with Seven Steps to Build Your Own Customer Community.
- Observe.
– See what’s going on without you, who is talking and what they are saying
– Map (locate) your customers - Recruit.
– Drive traffic to your business locations -- online and offline. Lose the strategy of "build and they’ll come."
– Develop innovative (and sincere) ways to send out invitations
– Find and devote time to building your community & make connections to other communities - Evaluate platforms (conduits to others).
– Reputation aggregator
– Enlist someone in your organization to Blog – make the material regular, relevant and connected to not only your company's mission but also to the needs of your customers (in other words, allow comments).
– Participate in E-communities (those developed for folks with a common interest) & Social networks (those used by members to make and develop connections) - Engage.
– Your content and conversations should be engaging, meaning you are engaged in the discussion (not like when talking to someone who interrupts your favorite television show). By seriously demonstrating your commitment to customers, you will develop committed customers. - Measure.
– Frequently check the level of community involvement you have, compared to the level you hoped to have. - Promote.
– Everywhere you (and your customers) go, you should be there. Learn how to talk about your business (face-to-face or online) in such a way that people don't get the feeling that's all you think about, but they should realize that you are passionate about it. - Improve.
– Improving your "strategy" requires (gulp) listening to users - both customers and prospects, and actually evaluating (not summarily dismissing) the suggestions they make.
– As you come up with new innovations, test them. If they aren't accomplishing what you had hoped, re-evaluate, tweak, fine-tune, or replace them.
What do you think?
References:
Schiffman, B. (2008, January 30). Ebay Sellers Riled Up About New Fees, Rules. Wired Blog Network. Available at http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/01/ebay-sellers-ri.html
Weber, L. (2007). Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons
