This is from Jordan Frank, Vice President Sales & Business Development at Traction Software. I’m in Providence, RI to deliver the closing keynote this afternoon at Traction User Group 2009.

Awhile back, Stewart Mader was involved in a discussion about the role  of professional services in emergent systems like wikis. In the many pilots I’ve seen its become increasingly clear that adoption doesn’t just happen on its own, there are a variety of factors ranging from technology to timing to training and even taxonomy (or folksonomy, if you will) which all play a role.

The role of professional services, in my words, is to bring forward best practices and to accelerate the process of identifying the emergent patterns that may be specific to any one organization.

In Structuring for Emergence, I’ve discussed how those patterns are a part of organizational grain and are best exposed when in context of a facilitating structure. The facilitating structure is defined by the technology deployed, the organization of the content in that technology (including space names, permissions, tags, and the way information is visually displayed) as well as the behavioral, organizational orientation to the technology (including whether there is training, whether contribution is compulsive or voluntary, and how communication in such a system aligns, or doesn’t, with job role and position).

These two cases explain how services facilitate better outcomes, faster:

• Fixture Manufacturing Company: A customer installed TeamPage and started establishing workspaces with no problem. His first few steps were to make a workspace for each competitor. In just a few moments of discussion, we agreed he would be better off with a Market Research workspace containing a tag for each competitor. He engineered his workspaces accordingly and is thriving as he joins the 12-Month club in November 2009.
• Pharmaceutical Marketing Division: Pharmaceutical firms are required to err on the side of caution when sharing information, but have high value for information sharing and relish the opportunity reduce barriers as much as possible. A customer needed two layers of review and started off with a process that involved information content approval by a product specific marketing manager and review of tag usage by a content administrator. I showed them how timing effects could delay the publishing process by days if not a week or more in such a two tier process.

  Instead, we decided on a parallel process where the product marketing manager approved content for publishing while in a separate and independent process, a content administrator was sure to review the use of tags on the content. The latter step is important for wiki gardening, but not a necessary barrier between contribution of draft content and approval for publishing to the enterprise.

Despite anyone’s judgement as to what % of collaboration success is attributed to Technology vs. People, getting the technology right and configuring it in a way that meets rather than defeats a need is a Door 1 pre-requisite.

This is from Ric Roberts of Swirrl, a company that offers a hosted online workspace for sharing knowledge. The Swirrl Blog is a good source of information on business collaboration and knowledge management. – Stewart

Email works great for short messages intended for one person, where you just want to alert the recipient to something, and no further discussion is required. But when you start to include more people, and they all start chipping in with their responses, email starts to break down as an efficient medium.

Say there are five other people in your team, and you want to get their feedback on a report that you intend to send to a client. If you send out an email to all of them, asking for their advice, you might get 3 or 4 responses back: some with revised versions of the report, some with notes at the end and some with comments interspersed within your original text. A couple of people might have ‘CC’d everyone else in your team when they replied, where others might have just replied directly to you.

I’m sure you can see where this is leading. Your team ends up with multiple conflicting versions of the report, some of which aren’t available to everyone involved. Holding a meaningful discussion over the content quickly becomes impossible. [Read more]

This is from Ric Roberts of Swirrl, a company that offers a hosted online workspace for sharing knowledge. The Swirrl Blog is a good source of information on business collaboration and knowledge management. – Stewart

If a question about general knowledge comes up in conversation, it’s easy to immediately look it up on the web on your laptop or phone.  If you’re watching a film and you can’t place where else you’ve seen one of the actors, you can instantly look it up on IMDB.  You can even use services like Shazam to identify songs.  Finding things out at work should also be this easy, but it normally isn’t. Although the information you want probably exists somewhere in your organization, it’s often scattered across multiple systems or you might not have access to the specific shared drive where it lives.

Being able to easily access the current knowledge in your workplace helps you do your job better.  It allows you to spend less time searching for information or tackling issues that others have already solved. [Read more]

Larry Cannell explains the inherent weakness in files as the primary container for information:

I don’t even want files. What I want is the information stored in a file. I have been thinking about files and documents lately and I have come to the conclusion that our reliance on the computer file as the primary structure for storing our digital “stuff” is hurting us in ways we cannot see. This is holding us back from realizing truly breakthrough capabilities.

Files must be pushed out to people, and each person makes changes in isolation from others. The resulting revisions must be combined – and differences resolved – which can lead to disagreements, misunderstandings, and corrections. This can prolong the development of critical products like proposals, reports, technical documentation, and anything else that needs to be produced by many people in a short time period.

A wiki pulls those same people in to work on information in a shared space where one always sees the most up to date version – the product of all previous revisions. This eliminates the reconciliation of competing or conflicting changes, since they’re dealt with during the revision process. That’s the part of collaboration that’s otherwise the least collaborative, least productive, and most damaging to the social fabric of work groups.

Janet Rae Dupree suggests that since computers are already doing left brain tasks so well, it’s time for us to focus more on our imaginative, creative right-brains:

…now that computers can emulate many of the sequential skills of the brain’s left hemisphere — the part that sees the individual trees in a forest — the author Daniel Pink argues that it’s time for our imaginative right brain, which sees the entire forest all at once, to take center stage.

Wikis are good for the right brain, and the creative process, since they don’t bog you down with complex steps and processes – the domain of the left brain. [Read more]

Rob Castaneda, Founder of CustomWare Asia Pacific, wrote Working the “Wiki” Way for the March 2008 issue of Octane, quarterly magazine of the Entrepreneurs’ Organization (EO).

In the article, he discusses how CustomWare uses a wiki internally to improve information flow between teams working on client projects:

The Pain Point

The biggest snag we experienced was transferring knowledge and context from the sales team to the delivery team. This muddled flow of information threatened our client projects.

Rob and his company decided they needed to improve communication, and decided to use a wiki as their collaboration platform. [Read more]

On Monday, I posted a reader poll asking how you use wikis. As of last night, 127 of you responded, and here’s what you had to say:

There were three respondents who chose “Other”, and here are their specific responses: Managing classroom information, garbage trash, and audits. Now, I can’t really say much about garbage trash, but I can comment on the other two “other” uses:

Managing classroom information is an excellent wiki use. In fact, I got started using wikis doing something very similar – building a wiki-based science curriculum.

Using a wiki for audits is a great use too – besides having all your information easily accessible in one place, the revision history the wiki maintains for every page is very audit-friendly since it shows a complete trail of who contributed information, when they did so, and what was added, changed and removed.

Jeffrey Keefer (Twitter) commented on the post and asked about a poll for education uses. That’s coming next week! He also asked for more information on some of the uses I included in the poll, like project management. Watch for that next week too.

Eighth in a series by guest author Vincenzo Cammarata.

In order to shift from the culture of individual work to the culture of collaborative work, it is obvious that the issue of trust is crucial: trust is linked not only with the Wiki spirit but it is a very important requirement of creativity and so of the orientation to innovation.

To be considered a credible expert is important such as to be sure to have reliable expert’s opinions; the feeling that you are appreciate inside your team and more in general in your community is an incentive to be active and “creative”.

Related WIOWA Questions:

8.a Time allocation (support to effectiveness)

In your online profile, do you have the possibility to write about your further expertises or personal projects?

8.b Teaming (organizational services)

When there are meetings, have you the same documentation of other participants?

8.c Openness to Ideas (knowledge and collaborative support)

Do you think that your ideas and, in general, your work, get the right acknowledgment from your Organization?

8.d Decision Making Agility (communication and socialization)

Do you consider reliable the insights coming from the whole community?

I believe this very strongly, and I think it’s one of the most critical cultural changes that will determine which organizations thrive and which ones lose relevance.

Bill Ives echoes this point in his summary of J.P. Rangaswami’s presentation at the FASTForward ’08 conference. Rengaswami talked of the “new polarization” in organizations, or how the customer gains control.

The fights have traditionally been within the IT departments. Now they have moved outside.

The first polarization is expertise. People of his and my generation believe experience is necessary for real innovation. We need to stop rejecting youth.

The second is participation. Now people can participate in much more than possible. He gave as an example, the numerous donations in small amounts that Obama has raised for the US primary campaign through the web on his way to a record month for total contributions ever.

The third dimension is time. He quoted Rupert Murdoch that fast is the new good. Now we have stuff in Beta all the time. JP said that IT has to get over these three concepts to succeed. Now the users have already breached the IT wall and running around inside the fort. It is too late to keep them out.

Seventh in a series by guest author Vincenzo Cammarata.

Strictly linked with transparency concept, openness is at the base of the principle that people work better if they have access to the right information and possibility to assume that all over the organization.

The simple access to other group member data or the possibility to know activities scheduled also in other groups are normal operations in a mature context such as is allowed to look to other team solutions or results in order to decide something for the own team.

Related WIOWA Questions:

7.a Collaboration (support to effectiveness)

Is it possible to access other groups’ contact data?

7.b Openness to ideas (organizational services)

Is it possible to know when other groups meet and, if you want, participate?

7.c Decision Making (knowledge and collaborative support)

In order to take decisions, do you usually look to other groups’ or departments’ work results and choices?

7.d Communication (communication and socialization)

Have you ever participated in other groups’ or departments’ discussions?