SmallBizAmerica Radio Podcast interview

Smallbiz America is an integrated new-media platform created to help entrepreneurs profit in business and prosper in life.

Ron Sukenick has been called many things, including one of America’s leading authorities on networking and business relationship strategies. He is the author of “Networking Your Way to Success” and the co-author of “The Power is in the Connection: Taking Your Personal and Professional Relationships to the Next Level.”

This is Ron's interview of two of the four authors of The Emergence of the Relationship Economy -- Jay T. Deragon and Carter F Smith -- by Ron Sukenick at SmallBizAmerica.

How do you find the right people? Recruiting Socialutions!

The economy doesn't seem to be improving and housing prices are dropping (though interest rates are, too). Common sense would say there wouldn't be too many folks looking to trade-in their current jobs for one that you are offering. The position is still vacant, and the Director is getting impatient.

So what's a recruiter to do?

Previously, we discussed fit for work. Perhaps the first thing to do is determine whether you are a fit with your present position. Surely you and your employer felt you were when you entered into the employment agreement.

So what has changed?

As we engage The Relationship Economy, we find many opportunities to improve how we do what we do. We also see a lot of opportunities for innovation.

But can we really innovate when we are working at the same place, doing the same thing for the same people over and over again? Can we tolerate innovation from people who want to work at our company when we know that the people we refer to aren't interested in all that newfangled technology? perhaps, but in the meantime, why not just innovate with what's out there and not worry about something with a bunch of bells and whistles?

Imagine this.

You are looking for people who do a certain job. Where do they hang out? Go there. Make friends with them now.

Don't offer them employment, just make friends with them.

Don't hide where you work or what you do, but do everything in your power to avoid selling anyone on anything. You are making friends, not finding applicants! This isn't your traditional socialution, but how's that been working for you?

Make connections with old friends, meet new friends, and simply talk with all of them to find things in common and build relationships with them. They'll find out (they may even ask) what you do. When that happens, tell them, don't sell them.

And for job seekers, how 'bout this (Dan Schawbel addresses the idea here in more detail, but I have a twist to add to the technology Dan addressed) . . . A virtual resume. Yes, it's bells and whistles, but if that's who you are, would you really be happy working somewhere that didn't appreciate your style?

Imagine the cover letter (e-mail) to the employer of your choice . . .

Dear Ms. Jones,

I was excited to learn about the availability of a position with your company that appears to have been designed specifically for me. Here's a link to my e-resume where I can better show you why I got that impression.

Sincerely,

Bob Smith

(The technology demo is coming)

What do you think?

Allen, S., Deragon, J. T., Orem, M. G., & Smith, C. F. (2008). The Emergence of The Relationship Economy: The New Order of Things to Come. Cupertino, CA: Happy About

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

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 long will "social networks" be around, and how long is the tail?

A recent article in my not-so-favorite form of media, the NYT - addressed: Why Old Technologies Are Still Kicking. The article identified the common traits of survivor technologies as 1) some enduring advantage in the old technology that is not entirely supplanted by the new, and 2) business decisions that invest in retooling the traditional technology, adopting a new business model and nurturing a support network of loyal customers, industry partners and skilled workers.

Is that what's happening with social networking?

In The Roaring 2000s, Harry S. Dent made some interesting observations and predictions. He missed the boat on a couple of them (like the Dow reaching at least 21,500 by the year 2008 -- it barely passed 14,000 in October 2007 and hasn't been the same since). In all fairness, there have been some significant unpredictable events, but take a look at what Dent was seeing here. Dent found recently that it was typical to have a major crash and shake-out as new technologies approached 50% penetration on the S-Curve, and in 2006, he forcasted that most stocks will soar to unprecedented highs—most likely to around 20,000 on the Dow by 2009.

Dent saw and examined the impact of new technologies on the S-Curve, and I think that's critical as we examine the longevity and enduring advantage of technology like social network or networking sites (not to be confused with the activity of social networking, which doesn't need a specific site). Boyd and Ellison (2007) define social network sites (as distinguished from social networking sites) as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.

Dent explains the growth catalysts of the S-Curve like this:

The first comes as many early stage market entrants go under as the product first moves mainstream around 10% market penetration and the field of mainstream potential options narrow down. Then there is a second and most violent shake-out as the product moves towards 50% penetration and growing competitors over-expand. That shake-out shifts market share further to the strongest leaders who bring costs down further through larger economies of scale. Once the industry matures between 90% and 99.9%, foreign or new competition often sets in and even dominant leaders have to fight to maintain market share in an era of declining growth and margins.

So where are we with social networks?

I think it depends on how you are looking at these sites. Social networking sites as they are used now ultimately serve to identify the changes in our approaches to socializing, especially dependent on the stage of life we are in. Take a look at three of these sites (my reasons for being on each of them were covered previously). We've got the mall (of MySpace), the Coffee Shop (of FaceBook), and the Chamber of Commerce function (of LinkedIn).

There is a likelihood of traditional social use -- both with MySpace and the mall.

Youth (and some adults) enjoy the time spent in "hanging out" at the mall. That's where groups of friends go to the mall to show off recent acquisitions (clothes, mobile phones, etc), to hang out with friends, and to hang out with friends of friends you can't connect with in your neighborhood.

Adults are more likely to meet in Facebook or at a coffee shop

The local coffee shop is a place way from home, perhaps an office-like environnment that can be used as a place to work or a place to relax. It's a short term stop between other personal and professional errands. It's a neutral, friendly place for informal conversation for business or pleasure. And most of them are more than a coffee shop.

People with business on their mind are more likely to go to LinkedIn or a Chamber of Commerce function.

LinkedIn has mall-like qualities, as does a Chamber of Commerce mixer. People often gather (group) together to chat, plan, or introduce others, and it's pretty clear why they are there (it's likely there's a clue on their nametag or profile). LinkedIn allows us to share details about each other and our professional interests, and provides a useful venue for introducing others.

LinkedIn also has coffee shop qualities, as it provides a place where business isn't the only thing that needs to be discussed. That's especially helpful in Chamber of Commerce mixers in some of the Southern U.S. locations, where it's taboo to conduct business before spending a minimum of 15 minutes about the weather, politics, and your choice of either the SEC or NASCAR.

Their use often differs by demographic, and their specific use and potential are different.

So where will social networking sites be in 5, 10, or 15 years?

In Metcalfe's Law is Wrong, Briscoe, Odlyzko, and Tilly say that Metcalfe's Law, which says that the value of a communications network is proportional to the square of the number of its users, is wrong. Of relevance for this topic is their observation that:

The fundamental flaw underlying both Metcalfe's and Reed's laws is in the assignment of equal value to all connections or all groups. The underlying problem with this assumption was pointed out by Thoreau in relation to the very first large telecommunications network, then being built in the United States. Thoreau wrote: "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate."

The authors noted that if Metcalfe's Law were true, it would create overwhelming incentives for all networks relying on the same technology to merge, or at least to interconnect. These incentives would make isolated networks hard to explain. They introduce Zipf's Law, which says that if we order some large collection by size or popularity, the second element in the collection will be about half the measure of the first one, the third one will be about one-third the measure of the first one, and so on. In other words, the kth-ranked item will measure about 1/k of the first one. They also propose their own calculations, which states that the value of a network of size n grows in proportion to n log(n). They note that this cannot predict the value of a network from its size alone, but if we already know its valuation at one particular size, we can estimate its value at any future size, all other factors being equal.

Here's the n log(n) law in application:

Imagine a network of 100 000 members that we know brings in $1 million. We have to know this starting point in advance—none of the laws can help here, as they tell us only about growth. So if the network doubles its membership to 200 000, Metcalfe's Law says its value grows by (200 0002/100 0002) times, quadrupling to $4 million, whereas the n log(n) law says its value grows by 200 000 log(200 000)/100 000 log(100 000) times to only $2.1 million. In both cases, the network's growth in value more than doubles, still outpacing the growth in members, but the one is a much more modest growth than the other. In our view, much of the difference between the artificial values of the dot-com era and the genuine value created by the Internet can be explained by the difference between the Metcalfe-fueled optimism of n 2 and the more sober reality of n log(n).

There's a lot more to their argument, but I think the key is that as the shakeout in social network sites continues (are you listening AOL, Google, and Microsoft?), the real valuation can be estimated, but only based on a previous real valuation. If we look at the anticipated growth with the expected mergers and acquisitions, it's possible we may avoid the kind of pain we saw with the bubble bursting in the late 1990s.

And so, Metcalfe's law is trumped by Zipf's Law and the law of n log(n) -- leading us to The Long Tail of social network sites for which we still don't have an assigned value.

So how does this fit with our look at social networking sites?

If an enduring advantage and a retooling mindset are the keys to success, then social networks should be around for a while. These sites didn't invent the social part, nor did they invent the networking part, so the enduring advantage is there. They facilitate acquaintance and reacquaintance, and are run (at least initially) by technology entrepreneurs -- with a retooling mindset built in. I think the question is not whether they will last, but in what form they will emerge, and how many mergers will we see before the shakeout is over.

As note in a previous post, I see a tendency toward focusing on specific social networking sites, but in the future I think many of us will simply be using what was "learned" in these sites to just be more social -- out in the open, on an Internet without walls. The people we relate to, the relationships we have with them, and the use of available communication tools are the keys to success in this space, not “the site.”

What do you think?

References:

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Dear John, Where's the Beef?

There's been recent news in the social webspace about not one, but two marriage proposals on the micro-blogging site Twitter (more discussion here). But marriage is only one demonstration of the relationships that can be strengthened with the support of the social web. It is about the relationship, but do we really understand how that works?

I found this little gem thanks to Doc Searls, who received it from Keith Hopper.

Don't read any more until you watch this (it's short - under two well-invested minutes):

The Break Up
by geertdesager

As we wrote in The Emergence of The Relationship Economy, all business requires a medium of marketing, communicating, and selling means that drive customer awareness of the business proposition. Where companies screw this up is their focus ONLY on our awareness by failing to find the right balance between marketing, communicating, and selling.

Perhaps the perspective needs some adjustment -- let's look at it as a "communication sandwich," where marketing and selling frame the communication. Companies can bring their intent to the communication -- consumers are OK with that -- it's nice to know what the other person aims to get from a relationship, but we're getting to the point where we are wondering whether there is marketing just for the sake of marketing? Wendy's (provider of very excellent hamburgers sandwiches) had a commercial a while back that asked "Where's the Beef?"



In a communication sandwich like we've had for many years now, we should be asking the same thing!

So how can we get that message to the companies who keep pushing their products and services on us, without so much as a real follow up?

Perhaps we should just walk out on them and take our business elsewhere . . .

Is it that easy? Do you think they'll get it? NO!!! Not without a united effort by the people formerly known as the audience . . . we touched on the need for new strategies in our post on marketing in The Relationship Economy. Remember the peanuts that brought Jericho back? Well, that campaign worked (though not for very long), but this one is different, and it won't cost you money.

How 'bout this?

. . . go to as many company feedback sites as you can in the next 7 days.

Post something like this.


I (and a lot of people like me) have been trying to convey our sincere desire to have a real relationship with those who provide products and services for our consumption and enjoyment. The benefit of this relationship for you is that you get to know EXACTLY what we need, not only what you think we need, based on your research, focus groups, and late-night brainstorming with people who are so entrenched in the marketing model of the 20th Century that they wouldn't know a real conversation if one bit them on the nose. We want you to know what we need, when we need it, and why . . .

If you really care about our relationship, please invest two minutes and three seconds in it, by watching this video - http://bringtheloveback.com/2007/05/16/mdas_europe/

Sincerely,

Yournamehere

What do you think?

P.S. A hamburger is first a sandwich . . . verify here.

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?

Can I have a Coffee Lite Frappucinno and some FREE WiFi? Apparently the answer is YES!

I just got an email from ATT (where I get my home and mobile phone service with DSL Internet) and they announced that I could go get free wireless with a cup of coffee!

I am pumped!

A search of the ATT.com site (and even Cingular.com which autoforwards) found nothing on a search for starbucks . . . maybe only the marketing department knows . . .

But the STARBUCKS site is touting "free Wi-Fi access for qualifying AT&T customers and any Starbucks Card holder" - Heck, I have both!

I wonder if that's why they had the company-wide store closure the other day? Is this another example of Customer Powered Service?

Earlier I was reading a very indepth article on branding. In it, Umair Haque, Director of the Havas Media Lab, said Brands are perhaps the most intuitive example of cheap interaction’s atomizing hand. Yesterday, they were a potent source of advantage. Today, the game has changed: investing in traditional brands is yielding fast diminishing returns, and leading more and more players directly into value destruction. That’s why it’s not just revolutionaries like Google, but also mass-market giants like Nike and P&G, who are rethinking orthodox branding.

I'm thinking ATT might be going into the coffee business, so they can compete with McDonalds . . .

What do you think?

Utopic Neutrality

I really don't think there's a whole lot of long-term support for Net Neutrality, but it sure does make for some interesting dialog. As the Internet forms and transforms, so many people have so many views on what should be and what will be. These often conflicting and usually opposing views seem to miss the reality of what the Internet and Neutrality is all about. Putting the two together appears to form an oxymoron. I propose, as an alternative:
The premise of neutrality is objectivity, or freedom from bias.

The premise of Net Neutrality is the absence of restrictions by those providing access on those for whom the access is provided.

If this sounds like the western expansion in the United States (and other countries before it), or if someone has burdened you with the metaphor of Internet expansion as space exploration, that's because we, as humans, have the need to relate new things to old paradigms. If we are looking for something to really relate this to, it's pretty simple . . . the Internet is like Utopia!

Utopia is that la-la-land dreamworld where everything is perfectly designed, where beta-testing is a thing of the past (sorry Microsoft), and where nothing -- seriously, nothing -- breaks. It's where you have enough and I have enough, and we both know it and are happy about it.

Thomas More, a lawyer, author, and statesman, coined the word "utopia," and described it as an ideal (fictitious) island nation. Here's an overview of More's Utopia (also here):

View Upload your own

According to Wikipedia, Net Neutrality refers to a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, that does not restrict content, sites, or platforms and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams would be considered neutral by most observers.

According to Google, Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The company observes that fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet.

The problem with that position is that it doesn't fit even the basic business (revenue generating) model. Google has been operating with an advertising revenue model that is changing (not growing) even as you read this post. Google is to the Internet what Wal-Mart is to manufacturing -- they provide none of the Internet but make a whole lot of money using it. To even think that Google has the ability to provide an unbiased view of the topic is to think that American automobile manufacturers naturally support carbon-neutral energy sources.

Here's the more simple analysis. In our neighborhood (yours and mine), we have dirt roads. Suppose there's a campaign started that requires all local, state and federal governments to provide unlimited access to improved roads for all vehicles. Let's call it "Street Neutrality." I ride a bicycle, you drive a sedan, and Joe, the guy down the street, drives a semi truck. Are we all supportive of this campaign? Absolutely! The problem comes with implementation.

The roadways in our city are made of concrete, about two inches thick and ten feet wide. I am the first one to drive on the roadway, and I really enjoy the comfortable drive. The curves are gently sloped, the roads are flawless on the surface, and they are plenty wide for me -- even if I like to swerve back and forth. You are the second to drive on the roads. You, too, enjoy the drive, and though you tend to drive like you are on the Interstate (hopefully I am already off the roads), the slope of the curves allows your tires to grip the road surface just right.

And then along comes Joe. He's got a trailer on the back of his truck, so the width of the road is a problem -- especially around the curves. That trailer has some heavy merchandise in it, so the thickness of the road is a problem. We both notice the problems Joe is having, so we force our city to build wider and thicker roads and build sidewalks for me and my bike.

And then the tax bill comes.

Each of us notice our taxes went up, and we are not especially pleased about it. We get together and walk down to City Hall to see what the problem is. We are told that because of the additional work, the city had to spend more money to improve the roads then they had in the annual budget. They explain that the added costs are needed to install and maintain a roadway infrastructure that will support large semis like Joe's while providing way too much support for your sedan and my bike. You and I glance at each other and almost immediately glare at Joe, vowing to find a way to opt out of supporting this in the future. We return home and immediately start a neighborhood petition. I think you can fill in the rest of the story . . .

So how does this all shake out? Telecom companies (or power companies) will provide Internet access just like we currently get water, electricity, and trash pickup. They used to provide dial-up (dirt roads) but realized that enough of us wanted and were willing to pay for DSL or Cable Internet. A few of us need much more bandwidth, and the rest of us got tired of paying extra (remember, we join social networks and upload pictures and video for free). There will be a basic fee for a up to a certain amount and then there will be added charges for those users who want more than the average customer.

We may not like it, but we wouldn't be able to run our own companies any other way.

This post was provided without adding added burden to the Internet . . .

What do you think?

Customer Powered Service -- the next step in The Relationship Economy!

A while back, Bruno Teuber suggested we use something called Customer Powered Service to define service that is shaped by the customer . . . driven from outside the business to inside and designed to make the customer successful, not just to make support staff more efficient. There have been a few instances of the use of this term, but they all seem to focus on the company's reputation, not the customer's needs and desires. Teuber suggested that Customer Powered Service was a new model that empowers customers, not just internal service personnel. It helps customers achieve their goals, and it optimizes service towards making the best use of customers' time.

I think it's time to revisit the use of this term -- not as a buzzword, but as a mantra.

Customer Powered Service should be seen as a return to the mindset of the marketplace. It is the empowering of the customer, but it doesn't stop there. We have to realize (and make sure the companies we are dealing with realize) that they really aren't going to be successful if they don't provide us with what we need (and are asking for). When we speak of Customer Powered Service, it's not just about the customer -- it's also about the service!

Scott Allen recently noted that we have been moving closer and closer to the point that the customer is really the one in charge of the relationship, not the vendor. How does that work? Customer Powered Service!

Mark Kerrigan established a contact within #84 of the United States’ most profitable companies, and they (the founders) weren’t going to let that slip away. How did he do that? Customer Powered Service!

Jay Deragon observed that the best kind of sale comes from existing customers either buying more or referring someone else to your business. What is he talking about? Customer Powered Service!

Doc Searls, at Harvard's Berkman Center, is knee deep in VRM, or Vendor Relationship Management, the reciprocal of CRM or Customer Relationship Management. It provides customers with tools for engaging with vendors in ways that work for both parties. How are they going to build that? Customer Powered Service!

Pete Blackshaw suggested that if customer service and consumer affairs professionals want more budget, more respect, more leeway to nurture meaningful consumer loyalty -- and hence positive word-of-mouth and CGM creation -- they need to make their case, and do so now at a time when the resource-rich marketers are dotting every third word in speeches and memos with the word "conversation." How can they do that? Customer Powered Service!

The March 3 issue of Business Week, in an article entitled “Consumer Vigilantes“, provides us with a look at the creative ways that "we the people" have started using social media to address the issues when we want to avoid dealing with the phone menu (press one if you really want to do something about the problem).

This Thursday, February 28, 2008, join is at the Business Week webcast on The Impact of Social Media on Selling.

It promises to be a glimpse into the future of Customer Powered Service!

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?

Corporate Online Relevancy in The Relationship Economy

Let's talk about corporate online relevancy.

In a recent article, Lee Gomes observed that, "Back in the '90s if you didn't have a Web site you were irrelevant; the same was true with having an e-commerce site in 2001. That is where social networks are right now." See Talking Tech - WSJ.com

Is that acccurate?

I agree that social networks are important. I understand that it is not in the best interest of many companies to venture into the space by launching their own site and trying to draw customers and potential customers to it. I have seen the mistakes by those who try to use Marketing 1.0 techniques to attract a Web 2.0 customer. But can we be so bold as to suggest that companies without a social network presence TODAY are irrelevent?

Perhaps.

Perhaps if they don't realize that they should and are scrambling to do something, anything, to be seen as "in the know." Perhaps if they have hired a consulting firm and thrown tons of cash at every and any idea and wasted countless hours training their employees on the proper way to represent the company in the new online world. Perhaps if they don't pay attention to their teenagers (representing their future employee base) and see that this is where they "hang-out."

Christopher Carfi and Dan Greenfield have asked the question "does 'if you build it, they will come' work for social networks?" My keen eye and memory allowed me to spot the classic movie inspired metaphor right away, and then I got curious. I was blown away when I Googled social network field dreams in the blogosphere.

Here are some of the hits:

Dan Greenfield cautioned that "in launching a social network, it is tempting to create a FaceBook page and declare mission accomplished. Yes you can check off that item on your social media to do list. But having friends on your company page rarely taps a user base looking for a meaningful forum to engage with your brand or company." He then addresses the needs and goals that must be in place in order to make the project measurable, observing that "Critical mass is about relative measurements, not absolutes."

Dan wraps up with "In successfully targeting your audience and reaching critical mass, the problem may not ultimately be whether they will come, but what will you do when they come." That reminds me a little of the ad earlier in this decade (as I recall) where the startup was watching their hit counter roll so fast that they were out of action before they had been open long enough to consider a profit.

Marshall Sponder wrote a follow up to Dan's that "we’re living though all that - figuring it out as we go - which is exciting but also makes me want to pause and figure out if we’re missing something."

I, too, love it that we are all excited about being excited, but what message can we really deliver to those in need, desparate need, of an answer? We can tell them that the tide is coming in and the surf is looking good -- that's about it! Don't get me wrong, I feel strongly (and previously said so) that Corporations should embrace (and more) the activity known as Social Networking. As we previously posted, Networking, especially Social Networking, can be used to leverage time. But every company that wants relevance in The Relationship Economy needs to first understand what it is!

The downside is, there are no cookie-cutter solutions. Each individual and organization has to see 1) where they are, and 2) where they want to go. Then and only then can they map out 3) how they are going to get from 1 to 2.

Chris Brogan lays this out pretty well:

"First, know what the intent of your social media and networks will be. Are you hoping to improve awareness and open communication about your organization? Are you looking to reach new markets and open channels for sales or membership or market adoption? Are you hoping to use these tools as collaboration platforms? Are you making informational products? Are you just virtualizing your water cooler? Knowing your intent drives which path you take."

In addressing the new strategies needed in this space, Jeremiah Owyang observes:

"What’s key? It’s having a plan to kick start your community. Secondly, understanding to consider joining the community before building one. Lastly, marketing (and your community) may not even be on your own website or domain, distributive, amorphous, and ubiquitous."

With all the confusion that this can cause, there will be quite a few well-meaning and not so well-meaning scam artists who will promise solutions they have no possibility of delivering. That's about the only place the rules haven't changed for this new era -- there are still people who will take advantage of someone in need.

Hopefully, the CEOs, CMOs, CIOs and CTOs have read our post about "The CEOs new social network strategy."

What do you think?

War of the Worlds - Spoofing Social Networking

BOOK ONE/CHAPTER ONE - THE EVE OF THE WAR

No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought ofthem only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable.

The War of the Worldsby H. G. Wells [1898]

In "Social Networking Sites Linked to Poor Social Networking Skills," Barry Foy reports:

A study released yesterday draws a strong connection between websites devoted to "social networking" and the inability of their subscribers to network socially. The survey's results suggest that teenagers who conduct social activities via the internet are likely to end up singularly ill-equipped to conduct social activities.

On the plus side, the report goes on to say, many of them develop impressive skills at making pornographic videos with cellphone cameras.In the Stanford University experiment, 30 teenagers were banned from their computers and forced to engage in face-to-face social interplay for a period of three weeks. For nearly all, this proved challenging.

Among the most difficult adjustments they reported were: 1) eliminating frequent pauses they had learned to introduce into conversation to allow for advertising, 2) getting used to just how few actual human heads are highlighted from behind by customized "wallpaper" and 3) finding the cursor.

The humor is perhaps subtle (reminiscent of War of the Worlds?), but the two-pronged message is clear. First, social networking has arrived. You don't spoof things that are not working. Sometimes folks take their time to write about things that aren't going to make it (like the HD DVD that just admitted defeat by BluRay), but no one takes the time to spoof the nearly dead. Second, there may be a bit of reality in this post. How long have today's youth been called socially unaware, only to be defended by well-meaning parents and psychologists who pointed to intereaction in online social networks.

I think the problem we have here is one of transition. The old-school networking model (mostly face-to-face) required social skills like looking at someone (not their shoes) while speaking to them. It required speaking in complete, understandable sentences, not slurring, speaking in code, and using half-finished sentences. And most of all, it required actually finding some value in the relationship, not just connecting for the sake of connecting.

No matter how social we (or our kids) get, you can't learn that stuff behind a computer screen.

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?

What are the economics of relationships in The Relationship Economy?

In order to grasp the economic value of relationships, let’s take a look from a business perspective.

Kevin Kelly's Customer Control
Kevin Kelly (1998) suggests business owners:
1) Create what the customer wants
2) Remember what the customer wants
3) Anticipate what the customer wants
4) Change what the customer wants.

Before you judge the message, consider it in the context of a hybrid type of business, not a traditional business, and not a business in The Relationship Economy. Kelly’s message indicates that businesses control the relationship – do they? In The Relationship Economy, it will be the consumer that holds the controls, and they will hold the economic power, as long as they demand it.

Go Daddy's Money Spots
In a recent media censorship challenge, Fox Television rejected an advertisement that included references to a slang term for a woman’s “private parts.” The ad, at Go Daddy Hot Spot, was one in a history of risqué ads that seemed to get more “exposure” than they would have had they been aired.

Go Daddy had issues in previous years http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/personaltech/175700416 http://humor.about.com/b/2006/02/05/go-daddys-banned-super-bowl-xl-tv-commercials.htm but apparently isn’t getting the message . . . Or are they?

The company proudly lists the timelines for ad rejection from 2008, 2007 and 2006 on their website, and many bloggers have covered their adventure.
http://www.micropersuasion.com/2005/02/godaddy_ceo_fig.html
http://www.faniq.com/blog/Go-Daddy-Super-Bowl-Ad-Rejected-by-Fox-Because-it-Used-the-Word-Beaver-Blog-6107
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/blog/JDeragon/site/posts/?bid=25541
But only one that I found shows data to indicate that this was a bad move:
http://www.internetfinancialnews.com/financialblogtalk/news/ifn-6-20080208SalesGeniecomGoDaddycomDamageBrand.html

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?

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

Share and Share Alike in The Relationship Economy

Sharing Knowledge can and does occur in our social networks. We’ll cover these more later, but for now let’s look at how the two can intersect.

•Knowledge is central to economic development with new technology.

•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.

So what’s in it for me?

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. And from an even broader perspective . . .

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:

Defense Acquisition University

Harvard Law

Johns Hopkins

MIT

Michigan State

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 Southern California aerospace industry for managing knowledge assets. Available at http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/072/knowledge.html

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