The Working Network

Recently I found myself wondering about a comment from Sean discussing the order in which an organization should implement web 2.0 features.

Sean's answer was this:

"So, what’s the answer?  Simple (simple to say, not do).  The answer is none of the above.  The most important feature to implement in your web 2.0 strategy is integration with existing systems and processes." 

Sean is likely assuming you've done your homework. What I mean is that the what feature question is not the first one to ask.

Unless we're only discussing technical architecture, not user experience, the first thing you have to know is the readiness of your audience. The new "social" requires new behaviors. New behaviors are very costly to introduce. Has your audience already developed these habits of thought and action in any area directly related or not? Can you springboard from that? If not, do you understand what relative advantage participation provides and what personal cost your users will incur obtaining it?  If the cost justifies the personal investment, it's time to demonstrate and educate.

If it's not entirely clear what features you should do first -- and the competitive situation could easily dictate a starting set of tactics -- I say think big, but start small. Experiment. If your customers must learn new behaviors, consider embedding the new into the old such that the old still works, but the new is clearly visible. Adding tags to existing support forums might be one example -- though not the least expensive.

If you can go where the audience already is, and you can do it credibly, that could be best. Experimenting with someone else's infrastructure has its good points. (As an aside, I believe there are ways of using existing third party investments without "going there" yourself, but that's beyond the scope of this post.)

In any event, wrap a simple program around the technology: incent the behavior; make the results observable; reward the participation; and, watch (measure) and learn.

Significant infrastructure investments are risky and therefore, appropriately, require evidence. Proof through analogy only goes so far. First hand experience with your customers is the best evidence.

Sezwho -- very cool. Just signed up. I don't like the "rating" -- cause I'm a fan of "recognition" -- but I've already signed up and can't wait to see how this works out. I'm also not sure how the weighting they discuss will play out in the long term:

Q: How is the SezWho "Star Power" scores calculated?

A: The SezWho scoring algorithm is a proprietary page-rank-like recursive algorithm based on reputation score of rater and commenter, their frequency of participation, time of interaction, consistency of participation and topic of discussion.

-- we gamed that fairly thoroughly and came out with a different conclusion. You never know, they might actually be targeting the cult of personality we were trying to avoid. And that could be the right thing to do.

In any event, I can't find any way to ask them for a Community Server plugin -- but I'm still looking.

Quick quote from the book I thought I never read:

Although information exchange is key to learning environments, communities are not built on instrumental exchanges alone. Social support is important in cushioning stress, helping during a crisis, and promoting a "sense of social unity (a 'we' feel)" (van der Poel, 1993, p. 2). Social support -- expressed as companionship, emotional aid, advice, sharing of small goods and services -- also promotes individual well being (Haines & Wellman & Gulia, 199b). Thus, when examining a learning community, it is important to explore the extent to which socially supportive relations are maintained among members.

Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives) by Read more about this title...

So I buy this book. The following one, to be specific:

Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives) by Read more about this title...

Actually, when I see the title, I'm a little surprised it's not already on my shelves (but I didn't actually check). So I order it; it arrives; I scan through the contents and read the beginnings and ends of the chapters (a standard practice of mine when I'm reading this sort of material). All along I'm thinking, "jeez, I wish I would have had this when it first became available" (back in 2002). I'm thinking this because it includes all these great things that I'm believing I had to piece together on my own in the intervening years. Not my work exactly, but very close.

Still, it's not at the top of the read list, so it's going to have to wait (I'm reading Generation Me and Crowd of One at the moment -- what a combination!).

I put it on the shelf, and as I'm walking away my eye spots a book with a similar cover design. This one, however, is clearly a used book. Yes, it's true. I already own, and had apparently already read, "Building Virtual Communities". It had to be a long while ago -- probably all the way back in 2002. But I had completely forgotten.

Nevertheless, it's clear the book has influenced my thinking -- if not in detail, at least in terms of providing a foundation. All I have to say is thanks to the authors of "Building Virtual Communities".

I console myself by believing my behavior is less theft and more silent -- in fact hidden -- partner.

(This was accidentally published in "note-to-self" form. Excuse me. It must have seemed more than a little incoherent.)

Anyway,

In a recent paper, The Significance of Social Software, Dana Boyd makes the following point:

"While early social technologies were about finding people with similar interests, the latest round
is far more about connecting to people and watching shared interests emerge
through that."

I do get this. I've been having a great experience with Facebook recently. They are focused on connecting to such an extent I can only image it must be written on the walls above the water coolers, in the header and footer of every document and email, and inserted subliminally in the background office hum, down in their Palo Alto offices. They certainly appear successful. It must be good advice.

How good? Dana also points out the following:

"...those who joined Friendster and assumed that everyone was like them did so
because of the way the site was designed – the structure is inherently egocentric.
This is also where things get tricky because egocentric communities cannot support
that many different contexts. And thus, what you see, is people using multiple sites
to keep contexts separate."

Clearly, defining activities shape the environment in which they are pursued. Though there are "social networking" sites that are successful and focus on the activity, or context, first -- librarything, linkedin, and a lot of dating sites, come immediately to mind. Somehow I don't think LinkedIn would work as well if it looked like a WOW fan site. I think that's the point she's making with context -- that, and the interaction styles individuals pursue within a given context. I, for instance, did not choose to make my LOTRO main character name prominent in my LinkedIn profile.

I wonder where the balance lies. Along those lines, Dana also makes this point:

"The problem is that monetization is hanging on the tip of everyone's tongues again.
To make money, sites have to grow. To grow, they have to expand beyond
comfortable context borders."

It's equally hard for me to imagine a large number of profitable "people-connect-first-and-we'll-see-what-context-turns-up" sites, as it is for me to imagine properties for every possible niche context. I believe that's the balance social experience builders have to address, and keep addressing. The creative in me wants to think you can have your cake and eat it too. I wonder if we could construct an experience that flexibly manages multiple contexts? The optimist thinks the answer might be yes.

I think Dana is asking the more general question here:

"Are there ways to rethink the scaling process to make social software more economically viable without killing the communities in the process?"

I don't call my professional blog (and my personal web site) Process of Change, for no reason. Change, and lots of it, is about the only thing we can count on in this life. Well, yes, there is always the proverbial death and taxes. But I've heard rumors about taxes, and if there's anything to Kurzweil's view, death may be rif'd soon enough.

Anyway, we (the Microsoft.com Communities Team) have been re-organized into the MSDN/TechNet organization. That's why I've not been doing as much blogging as usual. Re-organizations cost time in terms of adjustment.

The prevailing view is that "community" should be surfaced first on the TechNet/MSDN properties. Needless to say that does change priorities. Delivering first to TechNet/MSDN will require some refactoring.

It also changes focus. The communities team was all about enabling community (any, many, Microsoft technology-focused communities), but owned, or more accurately hosted, no community of its own. MSDN/TechNet, on the other hand, are by charter responsible for IT professional and developer community all up. And it seems some of us may have the opportunity to influence the direction that takes. While exactly how that influence shapes up remains to be seen, I can't deny the magnitude of the opportunity. If we do this right, we could have a bigger impact, and make it sooner, than would have otherwise been the case.

In my studies I've come across a British (evolutionary) biologist by the name of J.B.S. Haldane. One of his more quotable quotes sums up the experience the communities team has had over the past year. "There are four stages of acceptance: 1) this is worthless nonsense; 2) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view; 3) this is true, but quite unimportant; 4) I've always said so."

I spent my two weeks with my in-laws -- and surprisingly, that turned out to be a good time. Everyone met in Disney World. I'd been there before, but only briefly, and never gave it much thought. This time I gave it a closer look. The photo below sums up my views of the Disney experience (despite being a sign from Universal).

That would be my wife and younger son in the foreground. And no, we didn't opt for the Meal Deal.