Nonetheless, I promised some time ago that I would keep you posted on the score with respect to Wiki Part Deux (Electric Boogaloo) . In short – so far, so good. Adoption, usage, and pervasiveness continue to steadily grow regardless of some rather daunting challenges like no SSO, no communication efforts, mandated account requests, and no integration with enterprise search. It’s all viral, all day and frankly it has been working surprisingly well. Like a virus. Errr…a friendly virus. A friendly virus that promotes transparency and recently added some hot new drag and drop capabilities. Yeah. That kind of virus.

As awareness increases, I have been fielding more and more questions on the difference between the wiki and (insert any big name document management platform here). The questions pertain to other internal systems or client systems. I (as well as a bunch of other much smarter people) have said some of this before, but thought it helpful to put it out there again.

Simply put, the wiki is not a new place to put content. It is a new way to create content. Think of the wiki as a replacement for Word or Email. Big name document management systems (in almost every organization I have seen) work like this: Open Word. Write something. Save it on your desktop. Upload it somewhere a few people can see it. Hopefully they find it. Hopefully they are the “right” people. Hopefully they download it. They make comments or changes. Hopefully they reupload. Hopefully you can reconcile the changes with everybody else’s. Rinse and repeat.

The wiki (in my organization) works like this -> Open the wiki. Write something. Save it. Everyone sees it. Some people comment or make changes. Actual (and rapid) collaboration ensues.

In my book the big difference between the two is a process improvement, not a location improvement. I don’t download. I don’t save attachments. I don’t worry about versions. I don’t send emails . I produce actual content.  My team and I are able to produce better content because we can work faster and with more brains at the table. Sure, there are great benefits in the knowledge management game, but at the end of the day it is about $ to me. Efficiency and leverage are the lifeblood of successful projects. Shifting how you think about producing the content, not where you think about putting the content will get you larger gains. It just so happens that the wiki is indeed a “place” of sorts at the end of the day, but the true value is in the process itself. This is why I see so many disappointed wiki users who do nothing but create pages and attach documents to them. There isn’t really a compelling improvement there. But when you change the process…now we’re cooking with gas.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Needless to say, I am stoked. After 3 months of a painful regression through file uploads, track changes, and hourly knowledge assassinations from email, I could not be happier to again, author content in Confluence. I mean really though…how do people do it? I haven’t been removed from that world for decades but Jesus Murphy…I almost missed my handball game with Gordon due to the total time suck of outdated and inefficient tools and methods.

So…I have been a thinkin’. Thinkin ’bout 2.0 and what not. Know how people say ‘If I had to do it all over again…”, and then ramble off a litany of mistakes from their latest project? (Or complete life in my case). Sometimes they even go so far as to turn these pricey little gems of consulting pontification into deliverables we call “Lessons Learned”. Strangely, for as introspective and growth-oriented as this process appears, I always get the sense no one actually “learns the lessons”. They are more just an embarrassing admission of failure recurrence when “learned” again on the next project.

So with that, I figured I would put down on paper (monitor?) a few lessons we learned from our multiple 2.0 implementations over the years. We are essentially starting over in the adoption marathon at our new company, and maybe, just maybe we won’t have to learn these lessons again.

• Lesson 1 – Completely disregard anything said by anyone referring to themselves as a social media expert, selling only a social media strategy, or claiming that it’s not about the technology. The real “experts” out there are the employees with their heads down, screaming like a banshee for a better way to work. They don’t need a strategy.  They need permission and a tool that will enable them to serve as a vanguard for the organizationally elite .  They will guide the rest of the herd, knowingly or not. And don’t call them early adopters. Call everyone else late.
• Lesson 2 – Realize you probably know way less about “how your organization works” than you think. “Culture” can be a tricky devil in the world of limited choice. Maybe your organization hoards information because they have never been given an option otherwise. Don’t presuppose any of the actions of the crowd. Go into projects with a focus on flexibility and agile adaptation to the movements of the masses. This is social software after all, and I know I am not nearly smart enough to accurately predict anything a society might do.
• Lesson 3 – Convince yourself you are never informed enough to always be right. You are only informed enough to sometimes be present. If you ask more questions than you answer, you reduce the risk of looking like a complete knucklehead and increase your chances of getting a second date. Wait…that’s not a lesson I learned at work…definitely learned that in Adams Morgan. Seems to sort of work both places though.
• Lesson 4 – Start a blog and make fun of yourself for being a 2.0 zealot. I mean…we are kind of nutty, right? And just like Dairy Queen, everyone loves a little substance dipped in crunchy self deprecation.

I can say with absolute certainty that I have committed the mistakes driving these “lessons” dozens of times. Hell, I might be committing one of them by writing this post.  As we move ahead with Wiki Part Deux, we’ll keep the scoreboard updated on how we are doing.  Put on your rally caps though, because if my writing is any indication of my ability, I am coming from down a ton and need all the help I can get.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The gym at the Intercontinental in Amman is respectable as far as hotel gyms go. Not usually crowded, it can be a respite to the weary/bleary/eerie traveler on their way through the middle east. I was all three the fateful morning I discovered a mildly cultish experience I have since bought into in a mildly obsessive fashion. Check that. Majorly cultish experience in an obsessively obsessive fashion.

I was huffing and puffing my way through a set of pullups when an ominous, somewhat bearded man of significant magnitude approached from the far side of the gym. He was clearly (hiding being) American but with a smile and an overly firm handshake he said to me…

“How long you been doing CrossFit?”

Racing through my memory bank, cluttered by the trans-Atlantic-business-class-all-you-can-convince-that-nice-woman-who-works-for-United-wine-fest of last night’s flight,  I stuttered something that hopefully would garner an iota of respect.

“Yeah…it’s cool. I just uhh…started but am not really…umm…sure yet.” (cue man shrug and realization of complete idiocy).

He stares at me quizzically. Perhaps wondering whether English is my first language and after what might have been against his better judgment, smiles again and says, “Keep it up. It will change your life.”

We exchange another (awkward on my part) handshake and he moves on to what I assume is a day consisting of a flight directly into the IZ. However, I was intrigued by this thing he referred to as “CrossFit”. Was I doing that? Should I be doing that? Why am I not doing that now? Do I need to grow a beard? After completing the balance of my paltry workout, I immediately set to googlin’ and came across a phenomenon that in fact, has changed my life. And maybe, just maybe, might provide a corollary to helping spread the goodness that is Enterprise 2.0.

In short, CrossFit is an open source “strength and conditioning fitness methodology”. There is a website/blog where daily workouts are posted and in turn, the participants post their results. The key differences between this and other programs that may sound similar is that these workouts are blow-an-o-ring difficult, usually require little equipment, and encourage competition through public reporting of performance or achievement. As a result of this, the community that has developed around CrossFit is extremely loyal, passionate, and somewhat insubordinate with respect to the “old way” of exercising. “Forging Elite Fitness” is more a badge of honor than a slogan, and gyms catering to xfitters have sprung up across the world. In my experience, the approach produces superior results yet is often shunned by the traditional fitness complex, starving for consumer dollars. It can be argued that CrossFit is the land of zealots. Yes, we are in excellent shape. Yes, we are training not to suck at life. Yes, we have a supportive community and almost limitless, free resources. Yes, organizations like the Marine Corps, law enforcement, and emergency services have adopted the approach. Yes, all indications seem to point to the fact that CrossFit might be the best way to get your widening derriere off the couch and into those hipster jeans. The results form a somewhat bulletproof business case.

Yet…we are the minority. We are overshadowed by Zumba classes and Bowflex. We are surrounded by Old Country Buffets and other food borne assaults on the human condition. Critics have painted us as cultish, a fad, and lacking rigorous certification standards. Despite what I have seen as overwhelming success in my own life as well as those around me, CrossFit is still not yet mainstream. In some instances, traditional gyms have banned its practice altogether.

In preparing for my participation in the “Reality Check” session at the E2 Conference this year, it occurred to me that this is not a dissimilar situation from the state of transparency within the enterprise.

In my current (past?) company, the use of our Enterprise Wiki to peel back the layers of otherwise tacit knowledge bears the same characteristics of the situation surrounding CrossFit. We are a somewhat cultish group of contributors who passionately believe in this way of working. We have wholesale adopted the practice of creating content in the clear, seek and use input from across the organization, and raise an indignant grimace to the “old way” of collaborating. Our approach requires little client side equipment, a puny corporate investment, and focuses on driving value from the crowd by changing yourself first. Yes, we are writing more informed deliverables. Yes, we have a supportive community and almost limitless free resources. Yes, organizations like IBM, Cisco, and the DC City Government have adopted the approach.  Yes, all indications seem to point to the fact that Enterprise 2.0 might be the best way to get your darkening corporate knowledge base out of Exchange (or whatever) and into the light of utility. The results form a somewhat bulletproof business case.

Yet…we are the minority. We are overshadowed by large corporate investments in permission-granted, file-driven technologies. We are surrounded by the easy and familiar technology mega buffet of so called collaboration suites. Sure, there might be grilled chicken in a steam tray somewhere, but in comparison to the volume pumping through the mac and cheese hopper, the healthy options look a bit lonely. Criticism is not as vocal, but passively manifested in lack of participation or continuation of traditionally opaque practices. Depite what I have seen as overwhelming success in my own life as well as those around me, Enterprise 2.0 is still not yet mainstream.

More respectable and knowledgeable bloggers than I have pointed out too many times to cite, that this may have something to do with fear. While I agree fear is a part of it, perhaps transparency, the core of Enterprise 2.0, is avoided for the same reason we choose a leisurely twirl on the elliptical machine over a fight gone bad.

Simply put – transparency is hard. Transparency might hurt while you are doing it. Transparency might actually injure you if not practiced with common sense and an objective view of your capabilities. Transparency requires you to think about work in a different way, not a different place. Sure, you can check the transparency box by standing up a corporate-apedia, viewing it a couple times, and maybe adding a link or two. But immediately sending a status report as an attachment thereafter is like doing a single pushup before riding a desk all day. Might make you feel good about yourself, but the marginal gains are lost in the grand scheme of things. Much like CrossFit, I believe transparency can only improve both an individual and an organization. With time, it becomes easier. With time, you begin to better understand your capabilities. With time, the community helps to gauge your performance and ultimately drives a greater, leaderless good. With time, you can forge your own brand of elite organizational fitness.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Go check it out and make sure to browse the rest of his great content. Thanks Stewart!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The nice thing about unlearning is that the eventual learning of the replacement approach takes significantly less effort. Digging around for ideas on unlearning, I turned up this fascinating white paper on unlearning as it related to innovation. Of note, the best ways the authors suggest to unlearn are:

“But, how do we unlearn? Five steps seem to be essential. We need to:
1) Create space for thinking
2) Play with ideas
3) Dare to believe that the impossible ideas might be true
4) Adapt the ideas to useful contexts
5) Take action, despite objections of experts and authorities.”

Wikis and web-based collaboration capabilities, when granted to employees within an enterprise, provide a “space for thinking” that has never been broadly available to them. Unlearning becomes critical when one realizes that to take advantage of these tools, one must unlearn how they’ve learned to operate in a business environment, moving out of the what the typical knowledge worker considers their comfort zone. It’s a critical part of the adoption cycle for collaboration tools, and should be considered carefully during any deployment effort.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I jest, but I believe this phenomenon represents a perspective unique to my age group (24-32). Furthermore, I believe we have an interesting psychological advantage in the fight to take E2 to the masses. Especially in arbitrating the impending conflict between the younger demographic, steeped in Web 2.0 as their primary information interaction paradigm, and the older demographic, seemingly arc-welded to email and hierarchical document management masquerading as collaboration. Roughly speaking, these two sides represent the past and future of the knowledge management approach (whatever that means). Holding all else equal, and assuming that neither side will be all too keen to change, my age group stands in the middle with a leg in both pools. We are the veritable swing-workers, emerging from college and joining the workforce at the perfect time to position us now with enough decision making power affect middle management, but also with enough youth to have had our formative years influenced by the rise of Web 2.0.

The generation to the right, while some of them may embrace and understand the advantages of E2, will have to re-wire their corporate DNA in order to fully adopt the model. Their ability to leverage E2 is directly proportional to their ability to change. Their personalities were formed using information exchange models relevant for the past 15 years or so. Similarly, in order for the folks to the left to connect and interact with the people in power, they too will have to re-wire their respective DNA, and seek to understand the models of the past. The sub-24 crowd’s collective personalities were also formed, but through the disruptive and novel models of Web 2.0.

I posit that if these two forces can not effectively collaborate through a viable middle ground, the transaction costs of basic management will increase. This is an overly simplified example, but imagine if you sent an email to your new intern, asking him to make some coffee, and his reply was “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?” via his Twitter account. That is no bueno my sleepy friend. Not only are you unaware of the frustrated labor, but good luck remembering the TPS report cover sheet through the brain fog of caffeine withdrawal.

So in this mental melee, my generational comrades and I serve an important role. We have DNA formed by both models. We were still in college long enough to have our minds altered by FaceBook (or its predecessors), but can also function within the current corporate operating system of email and thick client apps. It’s not that either side can’t learn each other’s respective ways; it’s that neither side was immersed in both simultaneously at a time in their lives when the concrete was still wet. This is our advantage in climbing the corporate mountain with E2 upon our backs. We are interlopers. We are fence-sitters. We are the Venn diagram intersection. We can not only connect the leadership of today with the workforce of tomorrow, but we inherently understand their respective rationale. This understanding is paramount to change and positions us as powerful and convincing agents in the mainstreaming of Enterprise 2.0

Ok…time for the disclaimers.

• I know next to nothing about sociology, psychology, DNA, or dragon-slaying magic. This is just a guess, based on very little (0 to be exact), scientific research or personal credibility.
• The age ranges are representative, not actual. If you are 33 and all fired up because you feel left off of the E2 change management kickball team, take a deep breath. Relax. You’re in. You just might not be a starter.
• The use of semicolon in the preceding paragraph was suggested by the grammar checking capabilities of MS Word 2003. I have no idea if it is actually grammatically correct. I am just blame-shifting in case I look like a moron. Then again, that ship may have sailed a while ago.
• Look at that…I just proved my point. I wrote this post using a thick client app. And an old version at that!
• I heart lawyers.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

So…sweet. Jay and I have the merit badge. Word of our badge (and sash?) have percolated through the firm and we now get calls to help existing clients with implementing their own wikis and similar enterprise 2.0 technologies. Inevitably, our clients ask for best practices, potential pitfalls, methodology, lessons learned, and (insert typical consulting artifact here). So, in the vein of decaying IP, I thought I would share some high points here:

Pitfalls
Implementing a wiki is the antithesis to traditional enterprise application deployment. Treat it like an HR or Financial system, and you are bound for failure. Typical mistakes include:

• Lack of willingness to move to the read/write web paradigm – It is not a new place to put work, it is a new way to do work.
• Treating your users like kids – Overactive security models, excessive taxonomy, and extreme management oversight will turn your wiki into nothing more than the magnificent, inflexible shell you originally created.
• Treating your users like geniuses – A blank slate with little guidance or seeding will work for only the hyper-creative. We paint lines on roads for a reason.
• Wiki panacea – A wiki will not solve all of your problems. It should not be positioned as all things to all people. Change is slow. Don’t try to eat the elephant.
• Managing to the possibility of failure, not success – If you are more focused on how the wiki will fail, instead of how it will succeed, you have already written your destiny. The cost of failure is relatively low. The value of success is immeasurable. (Really, it is – so don’t try and measure it.)
• Asking for permission – Encourage your users to proceed until apprehended. The best content comes from a user community free to express themselves, without fear of (overwhelming) retribution. Critical mass will be impossible to achieve unless people are willing to step forward on their own.

Best Practices
Begin your day by understanding that a wiki implementation is like surfing. Be prepared to react to the forces of nature, and shift direction easily. These implementations are “quasi-unplannable”. Best practices include:

• Start with a discreet, flexible, and relevant business process – If you do nothing but have meetings, keep the minutes in the wiki. If your do nothing but go to happy hours (please hire me immediately and) post bar reviews in the wiki.
• Identify a participating sponsor – Find a high-level, well-respected leader and implore him/her to begin using the wiki ASAP. Contributions from management will bolster the rank and file to participate.
• Spot pros early and recognize contributions – Keep an eye on updates and learn who is not only active, but qualified. Encourage them off and on line to continue and mentor others.
• Go viral – Adoption of a wiki is best achieved when predicated on a “want”, not a “mandate”. Avoid mass communications and anything that sounds non-exclusive. While this can be a slower method for implementation, the results are a much more entrenched and vibrant community.
• Drink your own kool-aid – If you are advocating use of the wiki for collaboration on a new policy or procedure, and still emailing attachments, you are sending the wrong signal.

These points were developed through a combination of the advice and guidance from Stewart Mader and our own implementation experiences. Stewart was instrumental in helping Jay and I navigate what I now believe are the potentially troubled waters of implementing an enterprise wiki. If you are even thinking about wikis, go buy his book. It might just save your life. Well…not really, but it is a great read nonetheless.

More later on why enterprise wikis are difficult to implement…

(Neither Jay nor I have been compensated in any way for this post.)

Bookmark It

Hide Sites