Texting 911 -- imagine the reply "you texted to 911, if this is not an emergency . . .

please text to the local police text number -- 555-0911 -- or post your non-emergency to our Facebook or MySpace wall or send us a message on Twitter to @yourpolicedepartment."

We noted in Can we text to 911, too? there aren't too many police departments on Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter yet (though there has been some improvement), but . . . I can text the local PD to report a crime via text. We couldn't . . . text to 911 and have Google Latitude (My Location) share your current location with the police (if we choose).

Well now it's possible! (at least texting to 911, in Des Moines)

Black Hawk's dispatch center is believed to be the first in the nation capable of communicating with 911 "callers" via standard text-messaging, a big breakthrough as the country's emergency responders race to keep up with the rapid evolution of human communication.

In the understatement of the year, Barbara Vos, the state's 911 program manager, said:

"A lot of people want to text 911 - we know that"

I just wonder why this wasn't considered early on . . . must not have involved a government bureaucrat -- they know everything about business!

What do you think?

Do you agree that Twitter is the telegraph of the 21st Century?

For those of us who have been using Twitter for some time now (whatever that means, since it's only a few years old), we generally take the limitations for granted. It's no big deal that there's a limit on characters for posts (though shouldn't the limit be the same as for text messages, since that's how many of us get our Tweets?). We develop a routine of acknowledging or ignoring those who follow us, sometimes following them back, and we all go through the new period, where we make a determination regarding the level of Twitter we are able to squeeze into our lives (and still have a life).

But the biggest adjustment for me has been the new language. Why is it that we don't hesitate to tailor our messages to the delivery method? Are we so accustomed to flexibility that we will alter our mode of communication even when there is not a clear reason why?

I think so, and we can blame it on the telegraph.

Do you remember those? The remnants are still around - just go to your local grocery store and look for the yellow Western Union sign. That company (that now owns the lion's share of bankless cash transfers) used to be where we went to get a message across the state, across the country, and even around the world.

If you have always wanted to write a how-to manual for Twitterspeak, you might be able to use this booklet as a template. The Telegraph Office published "HOW TO WRITE TELEGRAMS PROPERLY" A Small Booklet by Nelson E. Ross, in 1928.

So did anyone talk that way? No, and we don't (yet) talk like we Twitter. I will admit that I use some of the generally accepted text abbreviations in my presentations (especially ROTFL) but I've yet to smile and wink with my face in a horizontal position, and neither of these are unique to Twitter.

So, when do we start talking In Twitterspeak?

What do you think?

(see the Daily Telegraph on Twitter)

Cultural Socialutions – Oxymoron or Logical Thought Process?

The marketplace is buzzing with the new way of solving problems.

Though is hasn’t been posted at Dictionary.com or Webster.com (yet) “Socialutions” is defined as people, communities and organizations leveraging technology to interact with people for the purpose of solving problems; the act of working together with others to create new solutions to old paradigms of communications and interaction without boundaries and with limitless reach.

The irony of starting with a definition lies in our use of contemporary tools. In order to provide an easy way to use their product for more searches, Google has a relatively simple code that allows us to type in “define: the word you want to define.” So I typed in “define: socialutions.” Though this may change by the time you read this, here’s what I got.

Note that Google, as they often do, tries to be helpful when they find nothing based on your typing . . . and they relate socialutions with associations!

So how is Associations defined? Dictionary.com has a head start on this one, where they have the definition as: An organized body of people who have an interest, activity, or purpose in common. Coincidentally, that’s exactly what it will take to implement solutions . . . an organized body who have interests and purposes in common.

Does that define today’s organizations?

In the proposed definition, we identify the need for organizations working together with others to create new solutions. What could possibly stop this from happening?

Personal agendas, political grievances, a lack of agreement . . . all wrapped up in the culture of the organization, that’s what!

Why is the culture a problem when it comes to implementing socialutions? Inherent in the suggestion that a solution is in order is the implication that there is a problem. Most of us, organizational leadership included, want to hear anything but that. The existence of a problem rarely means that everything has been done well. It often means someone has missed something, and that someone may be us or someone who works for us. Usually, problems mean added costs, and that can’t be good.

But socialutions doesn’t need to indicate the existence of a problem. It can be used to define a paradigm. The suggested paradigm is one of problem solving and finding innovative solutions through social exchanges. Many leaders understand the problem solving part, it’s the innovation part there’s difficulty with. As has been noted already, the paradigm means: Engaging the organization’s employees, customers and suppliers for innovation, problem solving and breakthrough ideas, changing the marketing focus, removing barriers, and leveraging technology and social media to increase response time by listening and learning. The end result can only be a changed paradigm, with a cultural transformation where everyone is engaged.

So, look around your organization . . . envision a Corporate Socialution!

What do you think?

Amber Alerts using the Social Web . . . at least somewhat

It's been my experience that government and quasi-government agencies are always the last ones to figure out the technology that helps them accomplish their mission. For the most part, my impression has not changed, though more and more I am seeing a glimmer of hope.

There are police officers , emergency management personnel, homeland security employees, and firefighters on LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, and several of the other social networks, and more and more poised to enter The Relationship Economy.

From my time in the criminal justice field (and discipline), I have developed an outside the walls network of thousands of these folks (they are "connected" to me in the address book on my computer, and frequently post on my old-school wall known as an inbox while CCing others). I have seen a select few (and growing) number of folks over the past 15 or so years adopt (and adapt to) the various iterations (is that spelled right?) of communications technology and I am often impressed by their progress. In fact, the friend I mentioned in 4score and . . . how would Lincoln do on Twitter?, where I observed that the combination of my time working for the government and my legal training and my current focus on education was not a good breeding ground for brevity, works in this very field.

In the recent past, though, I have seen a more useful (my opinion) adaptation and implementation, and have noted police and fire departments using Twitter, the microblogging service that feels a lot like a mashup of instant messaging, chat rooms, and 2-way radios. I first noted that three police departments were on Facebook (update: there are now five) and two (there's now a third, but no posts yet, though they have 5 followers) are on Twitter. I made some suggestions in our recent book that police departments could find innovative ways to communicate with the communities, and I have been impressed with those who are (and I am waiting patiently for the tens of thousands who are not). I delved a little deeper into a hypothetical scenario in the post on Social Network Commerce.

I have noted also that a fire department is Twittering (update: Now there's a second). The @LAFD has a very active presence in the Twitterverse, and they add followers by the day (you can follow them, too) though they are only following one. And I just realized that there are nine (yes, 9) Fire Departments on Facebook -- wow!

And today (Wednesday, April 30, 2008), while Twittering with Chris Brogan (@chrisbrogan), I learned from @wscottw3 (yeah, the Comcast guy) that Amber Alerts are on Twitter, too - see @amberalerts. I knew that Jason, with Herban Media has had an Amber Alert application on Facebook for a while, and our local (Nashville) media does a decent job of putting the alerts out, but Twitter seems to be the perfect place for them (especially since they just received another infusion of funding).

I don't know that the @amberalerts on Twitter are from an official site, but the program is a Department of Justice Initiative, and before now, I had only seen the Transportation Safety Administration getting involved (other than covertly) in the social web. The only problem with this demonstration is that @amberalerts hasn't seen a Twitterpost since three months ago. I suspect that's not reflective of the most recent Amber Alert . . . but it's the thought that counts, right? I did find that the @Amber_Alert Twitter Feed is directly from the national website DM, so make sure you follow the right one!

What do you think?

BTW - I promise to make my next post on something unrelated to Twitter . . ..

The COMcast ic forecast -- chance of storms

. . . with possible improvement if COMmunication improves

Jay Deragon's post Can Comcast Reverse the Storm suggests that Comcast has the opportunity to be a leading brand that leverages the tools of the web for improvement of service and innovation of propositions to their customer base, both personal and business. He suggests that they could be customer service trend-setters and thought leaders, which would be a great improvement over their current ranking by a 2007 J.D.Power survey, that ranked Comcast second-to-last only to Charter in customer service for cable and satellite TX providers. Bob Fernandez, in article in The Seattle Times that Jay quotes, discussed this survey, and noted that in the February issue of Consumer Reports, Comcast ranked ninth of 10 big telecom companies. It was sandwiched between Time Warner Cable, at No. 8, and last-place Charter Communications.

I first got engaged with Comcastic customer service with a post by a (local to me) Nashvillian, named Mark Kerrigan, in a fabulous demonstration of the use of webtime by corporations. Mark was frustrated by the local Comcast office's attempts at customer service, so he went to the best distribution channel he had available -- his blog. Mark had a follow-up appointment (after a three day wait) scheduled from 8-11 AM. He wrote, the breakdown in communication became apparent when someone from Comcast called at 9:28 on the day of service to “remind” us that we were scheduled to have a service tech come out between the hours of 12 and three! I read that post and thought, "good for him, he's demonstrating the communication style needed in The Relationship Economy -- talking out in the open." And the next day, Mark blogged again, and it blew my mind (not that he's not that frequent, but what he was writing :-). Mark reported a phone call from Frank Eliason,with Comcast Corporate. Mark explained how it felt to know he was speaking with someone who could actually do something about the service (or lack of service) provided.

Shortly before this, I had been working with Mike Orshan to start a series of initiatives called The Conversation On . . ., on Facebook, and we had posted the first 50 or so companies from the Fortune 100 (and begun a website, too) to try to organize "the good, the bad, the new, the old, the newsworthy and the hopes regarding the United States number 84 company in revenue." Seeing an opportunity for traction and momentum, we pushed the Comcast group to the front of the line for development. Check out the Facebook Group for more -- if you join, you could be member number 440!

But webtime wasn't over yet with the Facebook group addition . . . the Comcastic Twitter initiative had just launched. Two Comcastians, known as @wscottw3 and @ComcastCares (Scott Westerman and Frank Eliason) started responding to Twitterposts by Comcustomers (who were "venting" about Comcast) like they were personal account managers. I saw a variety of high and low-profile technology folks being helped, and even saw some Twittered follow up posts. Take a peek at how messages are passed on Twitter by @mjlambie, @chrisbrogan, @bloggersblog, and @jowyang. if you aren't familiar with this technology. You can see more at The Comcast Tweet Scan. Scott and Frank are doing so well in addressing the issues that they are getting referrals for both customer service and strategy!

So yes, Jay, I think Comcast can reverse the storm.

They were #84 on Fortune's list (they are #79 now)and they have one heckuvan Internet presence, too! Alexa.com Site Stats for comcast.net show Comcast.net has a traffic rank of: 123 (wow - they were 223 on March 20), and they have been online Since: 25-Sep-1997. But it would take a transition, no, a company-wide transformation, to relationship-based customer serving. As we noted in a previous post, relationship building for businesses seems almost counterintuitive. 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. And that, in webtime, is what it will take to divert this storm.

So how do you engage your customers in webtime? You can use simple tools, like this mini-mashup I got from Steve Rubel to check customer service posts for Comcast (or the company of your choice). You can also search the blogosphere . . . Technorati has 541 blogs listed in a search for Comcast in their aggregated blogs, alone. Now, many of them could be spammer sites, but they all tagged their main blog with Comcast, and at the time this was written, there were individually 2,864 posts tagged with Comcast on Technorati (this should make it # 2,866 if Jay tags his).

But searching these sites, whether manually or automatically, is not the solution. There must be something better!

Imagine a public access portal set up strictly for Comcast communications. In that portal is a live blog collector and a live Twitter stream (among other cool tools). The posts are searchable, sortable by keywords, and threadable. A potentially disgruntled Comcustomer finds the portal (shouldn't be too hard with the search tool of choice) and searches for their specific issue (no service, delay in responding, blocked file transfer, late technician, etc.). They locate an ongoing thread, and see that others, perhaps others in their area, are experiencing the same problem. In this example, the threads will serve as a FAQ section that is updated in real time. Instead of making a new call or sending another email, the Comcustomer can say "me too" by tagging the post or thread with their location or adding a simple comment.

If you really want to kick your imagination into high gear, envision a webcam of the technician speeding to your location . . . That's the webtime way!

What do you think?

Disclaimer: The author is not a subscriber to any cable or satellite TV provider, and has not been one since 1990. Though this may indicate that he does not know much about these providers, it does not indicate that he's unable to know a storm when he sees one. And this, my friends, is a storm!

comcastcares

4score and . . . how would Lincoln do on Twitter?

I received a call today from a friend who asked for assistance in brainstorming a two-and-a-half hour presentation on a topic she was very familiar with. She doubted that she could keep the attendees' attention for that long, though she knew the material.

My first suggestion was "engage them."

So how's that done? First, you have to get their attention. Next, you have to have something they are interested in. Finally, you have to find the intersection of what they know and what they are comfortable talking about in public. Combine all this with getting them to talk more than you, and you have a winning formula for interactivity!

As long as you keep it brief.

I'm not a natural at this. Many of my colleagues (see either my LinkedIn profile or my Hotlist for some examples) will tell you that the combination of time working for the government combined with my legal training and my current focus on education is not a good breeding ground for brevity. As an introvert, I don't necessarily enjoy the time where I am the only one talking, but I do know how to tell you everything I know about (your topic here) in 3 hours or less. But I recognize that brevity is good in this fast-paced, attention deficient world.

Can you feel my my pain?

I learned from Brian Solis, that technology and thought leader extraordinare Stowe Boyd has begun training others on brevity. Stowe told the world that he is posting a schedule of the times that he will make available for meetings with companies at the Web 2.0 Expo, and he is not going to accept email-based proposals to meet, only Twitpitches.

Twitpitches? That means 14o characters or less to get his attention? Is that possible? The title of this post is over half that long! Sarah Perez from ReadWriteWeb credits Stowe as the inventor of Twipitches . . . so who is going to start the training program?

Brian says he knows that it’s a huge amount of work to shift from a blast mentality to a one-on-one pitch regiment. . . it’s time to change things up. Make the time to invest in relationships with those who can help you tell your story.

Wow! So in order to build relationships with some people, we have to take less of their time? That sounds a lot like a digital elevator speech.

So I got to thinking, how would Abraham Lincoln have pitched the Gettysburg address on Twitter? (the original is here -- it's 271 words -- I'm not counting all the characters)

Here goes:

87 yrs ago we sed all menR equal-Now weR fighting. Lets honor the dead so this nation under God is free & govt of by & 4 people won’t perish

What do you think?

More on BlogTalkRadio Show Widget

The above is the first run of the introductory chapter of Online Business Networking, including The Seven Keys to a Powerful Network AND Ways to Maximize Effectiveness.

This is from the course that accompanies Teten & Allen's "The Virtual Handshake." The course (6 modules) is available at http://www.linktoyoureducation.com.

If unavailable, check out BlogTalkRadio.com/carterfsmith or the show here.

Twitter catches on Fire

In an earlier post we saw that a few police departments had begun experimenting with Twitter . . . And now we see the fire departments Twitter, too!

Thanks to Grant Griffiths for his post in the Twitterverse! Grant runs one of the best blogs out there for those who do freelance work. Others covered it previously, but I wasn't connected to them, so I didn't get the message (there's a message there).

In Governing/December 2007, : Ellen Perlman's (Tech Talk) writes "For the department, twittering is an easy, free way to get important information out to the public. If, in the aftermath of, say, an earthquake, Los Angeles wanted to send out a boil water alert, one message could alert millions of people instantly. 'It's even better than the Goodyear blimp flying around,' says Humphrey, who also serves as the department's public information officer."

I can see the value for fire departments. Apparently, though, me and the LAFD and perhaps Ellen are the only ones who can.

In a search of Twitter for subscribers describing themselves as "fire department," the LAFD was "Results 1 - 1 of 1." Now it's possible that there are departments out there who just haven't listed themselves the right way (it's all public access, so like the yellow pages "fire department" would be the most logical).

There are plenty of users with the word "fire" in their name or description, like @SilverFire, @theCOLORofFIRE, @FireAngel, @StrangeFire, @iFire, and @Nuclear_Fire, but the majority haven't posted an update (indicating a lack of participation) in several months. There was one for California Fire News (@CalFireNews), but they appear to be just getting started, so if you would like to follow them that might help get them motivated!

Here's just a sample of the LAFD Twitter posts. Can you see the value in getting these on your mobile phone?

*Greater Alarm Structure Fire* 15222 W. Stagg St.; TG 531-H3; FS 90, 1
story commercial warehou... Read more at http://tinyurl.com/4wupzj

*UPDATE: 4630 N. Cerro Verde Pl.* Small fire starting in a pool house,
spread into approx. 1/4 ... Read more at http://tinyurl.com/53sz73

*Brush Fire* 4630 N. Cerro Verde Pl.; TG 560-H4; FS 93, Small amount of
brush burning behind a ... Read more at http://tinyurl.com/423gx7

*UPDATE: 120 E. 8th St.* Incident possibly caused by small fire in
electrical vault. DWP on sc... Read more at http://tinyurl.com/47arxg

Granted there are a lot of leading edge tech-aware folks in the Los Angeles area, but how 'bout some of the other large (and relatively progressive in a technology sort of way) metropolitan fire departments? Off the top of my head, given what LAFD learned, I would say New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and Houston would be prime candidates. Personally, I would think Nashville would also jump into the mix, but . . .

So you can check how many are participating long after this has posted, here are a couple of self-updating links. These will identify mentions of the quoted words on Twitter.

• Search for the term "Police Department" in conversations on Twitter


• Search for the term "Fire Department" in conversations on Twitter


• Search for the term "Police Department" in users on Twitter


• Search for the term "Fire Department" in users on Twitter

What do you think?

The Nail don't hurt bad enough

Today I concluded a multiple-session meeting with a company that we were considering a partnership with, and I was reminded of a story I used on many a sales call back in the day . . .

Ben went to visit his neighbor, who had a front porch that extended across the entire front of his house.

On the porch sat the neighbor's dog, howling . . .

whooo-whooo-whooo

Ben asked his neighbor what the dog's problem was . . .

whooo-whooo-whooo

The neighbor said, "he's sitting on a nail."

whooo-whooo-whooo

Ben asked why the dog didn't just stand up instead of howling

whooo-whooo-whooo

The neighbor said . . . The nail don't hurt bad enough yet . . .

Does your nail hurt yet?

How video complements what we do

We talked about video before, but didn't do a demonstration. This animoto.com video is just a sample of how video can be used to spice up a website.

I uploaded a few .gifs from slides we used to design a course at LinkToYourEducation.com, picked some music, and then let the gurus go to town. WOW!

What do you think?

Can Candid Camera make a comeback?

As you may have seen from my post on the Retro-Education blog, I have recently figured out how to take a slideshow and turn it into a video. There's probably an easier way to do it, but I have it down to a science (if you want a how to, I'll get to working on that soon :-)

But the bigger question is WHY did I see the need for this anyway . . .

With Google's YouTube Video running so Hi def lately (almost 52 million visitors per year as of October 2007), the numbers are surely stacking up, and they are making good Cents (sic) . . .

. . . and with companies like GoYoDeo launching their cutting-edge interactive site personalization tools (my term) that allows anyone to publish their personal video content ON TOP of their blogs, social networks and websites (for a demo, check this out -- for an imagination stimulator, go here) . . .



. . . and LinkedIn, MTV, and Beet.tv doing video interviews to supplement their Internet presence . . .

. . . and now animoto is making it so simple to create flash-bang videos with lots of buzz (if you haven't seen their stuff yet, run over there now!) . . . it appears that this whole video thing may be catching on . . . ya think?!?!?

I'm not talking about the paranoia-laden concerns that could be caused by the press (the BBC to be exact) where a teacher was secretly filming lessons she taught, I'm talking about the use of video for a majority of our non-in-person (or video conference) communication. I'm talking about the only person I know who has never owned a computer (a friend since grade school) will be able to communicate the great ideas he has to more than just those who answer the phone when he calls (he does do mobile text-messaging, maybe I should set him up a Twitter account :-). I'm talking about the use of video for more than just passing around shots of the latest Go-Daddy Super Bowl blunder.

Part of me is concerned that we'll be dumbing down the future generations, but it's possible that we'll be giving them another avenue for self-expression (I know, they've been doing this stuff for a while). And for those who simply can't (or won't) learn how to type . . . welcome to the Internet . . . come on in, the water's fine!

So can we expect a return of the peeping-Toms of Candid Camera? Though the show (on it's return trip) hasn't been around for three years, does that mean this kind of activity hasn't permeated our culture? I'm thinking it has, and I'm thinking we haven't seen the end result yet. When portable video cameras can stream better than mobile-phone quality videos through the metropolitan wi-fi, I think it will be time for all of us to wear wigs and shades . . . until then, let's have some fun!

What do you think?

Do we really need to know how to have a conversation?

We all know that one of the key foundations for relationship building is the ability to have a conversation. We all assume that we know how to have a conversation, since many of us have been talking since long before we got out of diapers.

But do we really know what we are doing?

In the book Language Development: From Two to Three (1991), Lois Bloom summarized the research regarding basic conversational strategies. Likening conversation to a game of catch, she explained that each conversationalist participates by throwing balls into the air. The rules are that only one ball can be in the air at a time. Throwing a ball into the air is seen as a contribution to the conversation.

So what happens when both people in a conversation are willing participants? One throws the ball, the other throws the same ball back, and the conversation is ongoing until one or both get tired of “playing catch.” Another option is that one player throws the ball into the air and the other watches it hit the ground. The second player then picks up a new ball and throws it back. The first player (or a third) takes yet another ball and throws it into the air. This is not a conversation. The challenge is to get the game of catch going between two, three, or more people in order to engage. Knowing "the rules of the game" facilitates a smooth conversation. As with the game of catch, as we practice conversations, we usually get better at having them. Conversations often result in the transference of knowledge and enrich the lives of those involved, but in order to have conversations we have to actually engage someone else.

Has that changed with the recent advances of technology?

Years ago, people all over were asking whether the next generation would be able to engage in a conversation. They were spending all their time on instant messaging (and less time on the telephone - go figure), and there were some doubts that any of them were developing the social skills to actually communicate.

And then we realized that technology wasn't replacing interaction, it was supplementing it. The instant messages and now the social networking sites were being used like the telephone used to be. They were used to arrange meetings and follow up after them! They were enhancing the conversations, not replacing them. Wouldn't it be great if that worked in the business world?

The reality is that, for many, this is exactly what happens. People who arrange to meet face-to-face, whether in small groups or large, will plan the meeting in their choice of online communications forum. Many will also follow up the meeting with ongoing dialog, often including people who weren't even there. Ultimately, technology (once again), appears to have provided us with yet another way to communicate.

And technology based conversations are happening all around us. If you have access to Facebook, check out “The Conversation on Comcast” (covered in much depth by Mark Kerrigan) and the foundation for this conversation at The ConversationOn.Com. For some rather deep analysis of conversations in marketing, check out Doc Searls' post Can marketing be conversational? Jay Deragon has observed that the social web is the new marketplace of influence fueled by conversations and relationships formed at the intersection of people and technology, and refers to these activities as conversational rivers.

And we can manage our conversations with all kinds of tools. RIM Blackberries started the move to allow us to skip the return to the computer if we needed to check email. Mobile phone text messaging allows us to get messages on the fly (even while we are having a voice conversation), and all the feeds from a variety of providers including Twitter, and social networking sites like LinkedIn and Facebook, let us know what all of our contacts (some of whom are friends) are doing, with minute-by-minute coverage.

I just wonder if we have mastered the art of conversation . . . are we able to play catch, or are we juggling?

What do you think?

Unifying our Communications -- can we really speak with one voice?

About a decade ago, in the dark ages of Web 1.0, I happened across a technology that I absolutely knew was going to catch on. It was a simple idea, really, and promised to make things so much simpler for all of us.

Perhaps you heard of it -- Unified Communications?

If you need a refresher, go here.

I first got turned on to it with an adverstisement as I recall, probably on a pre-Microsoft Hotmail message or something. As I write this, I am having some difficulty remembering the name of the first company I signed on with for this great experience. I do remember that I could get voicemail, fax, and email all in one convenient location (on the web), and I could access it with my mobile phone. The thing I liked most about it was the storage space, as I had many points of presence where I accessed the web, floppies were still likely to roast in my car or break in my satchel, and USB thumb drives had not yet been invented.

I was really hooked on this phenomenon, and actually still have an account with a company called J2 (which is good, 'cause I hate using a separate phone line for the technology -2.0 practice of faxing. But I have progressed with the technology developments, and now wear my unified communciations on my hip. I have an ATT/HTC 8525 phone/pocket pc device that provides one central location to read emails (including those from J2 with a fax), send text (and email messages) from, keep up with my daily schedule, manage my tasks, keep record of my mileage and other business expenses, and still be able to share pictures, PowerPoint slideshows, and full-lenth Video movies. Oh, and I get all my phone calls there, too.

Speaking with One Voice

But today the question is whether we can unify our communications and speak with one voice. It appears that in order to get what we want from the behemoths of corporate America, we have to show that our "numbers" are big enough to require them to pay attention to. I like the attempts that many have made in their customer service endeavors, but are they listening to us because they have nothing better to do, or because the really care?

Let's put this into perspective.

If I have 5 customers that each want something different from me that requires my time, which one am I most likely to respond to? I'm thinking the first choice goes to the customer who wants what takes the least amount of mental and physical effort. This customer may also be one who has listened to my suggestions in the past. He or she is likely to be low maintenance when it comes to my time, and I (as many people do) truly appreciate low-maintenance. If by using this model one of the repeatedly needy doesn't get as much of my time, is that a problem? Perhaps, but what's a businessperson to do? At some point, you gotta let them live with their decisions, right?

Many business thought leaders will suggest that we drop the customers who can be considered hand-holding, high-maintenance. They note that the Pareto Principle tells us, quite accurately, that in anything a few (roughly 20 percent) are vital and many (roughly 80 percent) are relatively trivial. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world.

Is that good business?

How do we expect mega-companies to respond? We expect them to satisfy all of their customers! We look at the invoice every month and determine how big a chunk of our income we are dishing out to them and think that they should be falling all over themselves to earn every penny we send them. That's not how small businesses work, but by golly, that's how they should operate!

But it won't work that way. The only way for us to get them to satisfy our needs is for us to take our time to first figure out what our needs are. We can probably start with a Top Ten for each company and then whittle down the list to the Top Two. We should then get together with other customers and compare notes and find our collective Top Two. Then and only then should we approach the mega-company and ask for their attention. This way, we won't be stuck with a problem fixer, we can get the attention of a problem solver.

Don't think that kind of proactivity is needed? Where else have we tried to individually change a collective issue? Where else have we limited our conversations before deciding how we as a group should act? Where else have we failed to get the attention of the real decision makers, and ended up with those who could barely answer our questions, much less fix our problems?

Have you looked at the political scene lately?

We have treated the business world like we've been treating the political world for far too long. How's that working for us? The current election season has drawn out potential voters and open public conversations (no, not the debates) more than any time in recent history. If we can figure it out for politics, can't we figure it out for business?

Here's a spoof of the 2008 debates that I hope you enjoy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMpajqPV_bk

What do you think?

Arrrgghhh! All those years studying Political Science were a waste!

It's a shame when you realize that you wasted time doing something. It's even more a shame when you realize you wasted A LOT of time doing something!

No, I'm not talking about the times where we might second-guess ourselves after a failed marriage. I'm not referring to the soul-searching that goes on when one of our adult children does something REALLY stupid and we wonder where they learned that from. I'm not even talking about the feeling we get when we are downsized, rightsized, or even (God forbid) laid off, nor am I talking about what happens when you and your spouse vote for opposing candidates (more on that later).

I'm talking about the time we've wasted studying the variety of ideologies and political maneuverings at the Federal, State and Local levels of government in our fine country. I'm talking about the time we (even now) spend on trying to discern the benefits of voting for one primary candidate over another, or even trying to engage in public dialog to assist others in distinguishing from one potential political candidate over another.

This revelation comes like a cannon ball in the gut (I've never felt it, but I watched enough cartoons as a child to be able to imagine how it feels). Could it be true that it is actually our gut that affects our political persuasion? That's what it looks like . . .

According to James Fowler and Christopher Dawes of the University of California, San Diego, genetic predisposition can account for up to 50 percent of our political ideology. Tom Jacobs observed that political scientists have debated which environmental influences have a bigger impact on a young person’s nascent political ideology: the belief system of one’s family of origin, or the alternative ways of thinking one is exposed to in the outside world (say, at college). “All liberals know conservatives don’t have a heart, and all conservatives know that liberals don’t have a backbone,” joked John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University and one of the first academics to explore genetic influences on ideology. “So the issue has always been biological. “This takes some of the onus off of parents,” he added. “If your kids become liberal and you’re a conservative, they’re usually not doing it to poke a finger in their eye. It wasn’t a choice for them, so it doesn’t reflect a deliberate flaunting of your beliefs.”

The sure thing here appears to be that politics are not simple to understand -- at least not as simple as business.

Doc Searls, Scott Allen, and Jay Deragon have all posted of late on the effects of the basic factors of The Relationship Economy on politics in the context of the recent debates. Doc reported that Clinton called it “an honor” to be running against Barack Obama, and that “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.” Scott and Jay observed that in recent debates, Obama was saying that we have to have a relationship in order to effect change, while Clinton was saying that “they” have to change in order for us to have a relationship. In order to keep this framed in one ideological stance or another, let me observe that McCain was deemed newsworthy by the New York Times for claims made eight years ago regarding his relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist . . . oh, wait, that's not we mean by The Relationship Economy . . . Actually, I think Newsweek did a decent job of covering the recent mud-slinging toward the GOP candidate-in-waiting.

The bottom line is that all these politicians need is a crash course on relationships. In the marketplace, the reaction to someone who completely and totally offends your offering of a relationship is the removal of that offering, the commitment to take your business elsewhere, and (if they were really offensive) the commitment to report this offense to everyone you know, everyone they know, and as many people as you can by a variety of broadcast mediums. In government and politics, we have to wait a bit longer -- usually around four years. Nonetheless, we all remember the ways to get involved in politics from our American Government class, right? If you don't like the way you are represented, either jump on the bandwagon of someone you agree (more) with, or build your own bandwagon.

It is sad, but I think the choices in this election season started out in the crapper, and they just keep swirling around and around.

Here's Tango's attempt to combine Politics and Relationships:



See if you can do any better!

What do you think?

If traditional marketing won't work in The Relationship Economy, what will?

Relationships, that's what!

In Generation MySpace Is Getting Fed Up, Business week reminds us that "Social networking was supposed to be the Next Big Thing on the Internet."

The article covers a variety of noteworthy points:

• Advertising on social networking sites is growing fast. Last year global ad spending on these sites shot up 155%, to $1.2 billion, expected to jump 75% this year, to $2.1 billion.
• The forecasts may prove unrealistic. Besides the slowing user growth and declining time spent on these sites, users appear to be growing less responsive to ads, according to several advertisers and online placement firms.
• Google didn't generate as much revenue from social networking as expected.
• Many people on social networking sites pay little to no attention to the ads because they're more interested in kibitzing with their friends.
• Social networks have some of the lowest response rates on the Web, advertisers and ad placement firms say. Marketers say as few as 4 in 10,000 people who see their ads on social networking sites click on them, compared with 20 in 10,000 across the Web.

So what should we be doing to get the attention of the people formerly known as the audience? Perhaps we should treat our markets as conversations . . . perhaps we should engage our customers in dialog, getting to know them before we tell them what we have "just for them." Possibly, we should stop selling, and start listening . . .

In The Relationship Economy, the first step is the relationship. We are sick and tired of the push-marketing model, and are demanding that the pull (our pull) be implemented. The days of build it and they will come are gone. We want you to build, make, and provide stuff that we tell you we want. We'll only tell you in a conversation. The only way you will get it is if you are listening.

That's how relationships work.

Take a look at the new model, brought to you by some of the Cluetrain Manifesto authors.

The updated theses (numbering is not a mistake -- he skipped a few) as posted by Charlene Li - Josh Bernoff at Social Media Today.

1. Advertising as we know it will die.

2. Herding people into walled gardens and guessing about what makes them "social" will seem as absurd as it actually is. (Facebook is his example.)

3. We will realize that the most important producers are what we used to call consumers. (Yup.)

4. The value chain will be replaced by the value constellation. (Many connections.)

5. "What's your business model?" will no longer be asked of everything. (What's the business model for your kids?)

6. We will make money by maximizing "because effects". ("Because effects" are what happen when you make more money because of something than with it.) E.g. search and blogging.

8. We will be able to manage vendors at least as well as they manage us. (Agreements between companies and customers shouldn't be skewed in favor of the companies.) At Harvard Law they call this VRM -- vendor relationship management -- which is what Searls is working on (projectvrm.org).

10. We'll marry the live web to the value constellation. (The Live Web isn't just about stars. Relationships of anybody to anybody.)

What do you think?

The Denver Post - Work, connected by social networking

Another company who gets it! A reecent article in The Denver Post - Work, connected by social networking - reports "'Web 2.0 and social networks, blogs, wikis, tags, all shifted the way we can all connect and share with each other,' said John Kembel, co-founder and chief executive of HiveLive. 'Either from a competitive point of view or the effectiveness of doing business with each other, people realize they need to bring different communication tools to the business.'"

This in a services organization . . . what a concept! I am sure that they considered the "wasted" time spent by employees "trading photos and recipes," and realized that community building was far more important than bean-counting.

As one of the team leaders noted, ""It's kind of like walking into someone's office or cubicle, where you can see pictures and other things about them."

What do you think?

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 Western Reserve University http://sprouts.case.edu/2002/020412.pdf

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. USA TODAY. Available at http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-01-08-shared-computing_x.htm

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. New York: Portfolio

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 Oxford anthropologist, is often sited by those who are concerned about network building effectiveness. His most noteworthy work (in 1993) is often used to support the notion that we cannot have a functional network above 150 connections. It should be noted that Dunbar’s limit was derived from a study of social groups in nonhuman primates. Dunbar, who reportedly does not engage in social networking himself, says that social network sites could "in principle" allow users to push past the limit (Bialik, 2007). "It's perfectly possible that the technology will increase your memory capacity," he says (Bialik, 2007).

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. New York: Portfolio

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