Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under socialsoftware...

stefan63 says...

Peter Drucker, the brilliant management guru who defined the term ‘knowledge worker’, was clear these employees or partners couldn’t be controlled but must instead be motivated and given integrative collaboration environments to excel. Common goals, values and sense of purpose empower them to succeed on their own terms.

As an advocate of decentralization and against ‘command and control’ management, Drucker was clear knowledge workers would collaborate effectively as a community if driving to specified business objectives. While the new 2.0 technologies realize this and facilitate execution, strategic planning in many cases lags behind broadband application development and are not aligned with Drucker’s clarity of thought.

Very interesting take after the Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Frankfurt. Interesting enough we were discussing it in a Lotus Marketing workshop a few days earlier. Lotus was with Lotus Notes the company with the tool most efficiently supporting Knowledge Workers. In the last years this focus and the awareness of Lotus as the (meanwhile IBM brand) delivering the environment for Knowledge Workers seems to got lost a bit. We do need to re-iterate this fact. Meanwhile we do have Lotus Notes "as the E-Mail client of the future" and much more to offer, e.g. with Lotus Connections as the integrated Social platform for the Enterprise 2.0.

Lotus knows we should stress and emphasize this message again - clear and loud.

(Personal opinion. No official IBM statement :-)

Filed under: SocialSoftware

swiffs says...

I have been discussing the use of the term "group" in the context of collaborative online environments. I firmly believe when designing interactive tools you should not break convention unless:

  1. There is a clear use case to so, that can be well articulated.
  2. You know your audience and can prove the change benefits them.
  3. It has been usability tested and the new convection shows improvement over the old.

That being said I am not convinced that the idea of "group" is pre-established as a convention across platforms. To some degree each environment sets it's own subtle standards. In one, a group may be a workspace for a subset of individuals to complete a goal, for something else it may be a distribution list and for others a subset of people related by some identity marker who interact frequently. I could go on with a shopping list of use cases that have some variance or another, but I won't.

The discussion revolves around these two basic arguments:
  1. A group is a space where people can do (x) and the membership is managed.
  2. A group is a collection of managed people that be used for whatever with no pre-determiniation of the groups function.

The first is a common metaphor in social software. Someone can start a "group" in Linked In that allows them to manage membership and provides a space to collaborate. My argument is the group is actually the people and the space is the place they do stuff in, i.e. number 2. Now I agree that a group is useless without a goal and some environment to achieve that goal, but I believe they are still distinct. A system may always generate a workspace when a group is created, but the group itself is not the space but the people. So here is the question I am noodling: Is it intuitive to refer to the group as the membership and the space as a space when creating an interface for people to work with "groups"?

I suppose it becomes less vague with a clear use case, but in my conundrum the use cases vary, from specific workflow goals to more open collaboration around some common "thing". I believe it is important to set a standard for a platform and then continually support that standard to provide orientation for the user base, but I have to consider a broad user base including community managers who have to accomplish some organizational goal to individuals who may have any number of personal/professional goals. The expected outcomes vary and are often unclear.

Right now I don't think I could defend my argument with any more validation than the opposition, which makes me consider the alternative even though my gut tells me it's an incomplete metaphor. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Filed under: Social Software

Philipp says...

Tom Kelley

Tom Kelley is the general manager of IDEO, the design and development firm that brought us the Apple mouse, the Palm V and hundreds of other cutting edge products and services. He’s also an entertaining speaker and has written two books ‘The Art of Innovation’ and ‘The Ten Faces of Innovation’.

In an interview with Design at Work he presents you his view on design & innovation:

Which company has been able to surprise you this past year on the subject of innovation and why?

Conventional wisdom says that small start-ups are quick and nimble while big, old companies are slow and rigid. So I am always pleasantly surprised to see giant corporations flex their innovation muscles, and one compelling example from the past 18 months is General Electric. GE has launched dozens of recent innovation initiatives, but none more interesting than what CEO Jeffrey Immelt calls “reverse innovation.” In the traditional model of 20th century research & development, ideas originated at the headquarters and then got dispersed throughout the global organization. In reverse innovation however, simple cost-effective solutions created in the field—especially in the challenging environment of developing countries—get cross-pollinated back to the home office where they can be adapted for value-oriented customers in developed countries or anywhere on the planet.

GE Healthcare’s compact electrocardiogram (ECG) for the Indian market is a case study in reverse innovation: in 18 months a team in India, working on a shoestring budget, developed a unique ECG machine that was one tenth the cost and one third the weight of previous units. Having proven its success in rural India, GE’s new MAC 400 ECG is now a candidate for use in all the other healthcare markets in the world. Reverse innovation is an idea whose time has come.

In your opinion, what product should win all the design awards this year and why?

I believe the winning product for 2009 should actually be the whole new product category of smartphone applications. Sure, a handful of applications may have existed in 2008, but 2009 is the year of the app, with the number of applications for the iPhone alone headed toward a hundred thousand, and the number of downloads now over a billion. A cottage industry of designers and developers has sprung up virtually overnight, and is now creating apps so fast that no one can even keep track. In fact, a new behavior pattern has emerged in the Silicon Valley where I live—and probably among iPhone users around the world—where people frequent do “show and tell” of their favorite apps because the universe of potential apps is too overwhelming for any individual to comprehend. In other words, friends don’t let friend miss out on good apps. Of course some smartphone apps may seem frivolous, but I feel like some have changed my life. As someone who’s always lost, for example, the GPS app on my iPhone is practically indispensible, and I literally never leave home without it.

And in some ways my favorite app is Shazam (created by London-based Shazam Enterntainment), because it’s a harbinger of the kind of apps that can make me a better, smarter person. The first week I downloaded Shazam, I was at a great party, and a woman next to me on the dance floor said “Tom, what’s this song, do you know?” In the past, I’d have been clueless, but fifteen seconds later, I knew the answer for sure. Now if Shazam would just help me recognize people…

 

Which sector still has a lot of potential when it comes to innovation?

In spite of the great success already experienced by companies like Facebook in the U.S. and Skyrock in France, I believe we have only seen the tip of the iceberg on innovation opportunities around social networking. It will replace “expert” data with information, reviews, and advice from our personal networks or “people like you.” For example if the most famous film critic in the UK gives a film four stars, but my extensive network of friends is unanimous that it’s a dog, who am I going to believe? Humans are social animals and the power of social networking has only begun to emerge.

What evolution in the design and innovation field has been the most important one according to you?

The most important evolution in design and innovation is the transition from a narrow definition of design to the broader field of “design thinking.” “Design” still sounds a bit like aesthetics to some people, like a surface treatment added after the “real” work of creating something new is mostly done. But design thinking is an intuitive process for human-centered problem solving that engages the whole brain and opens up the possibility of new more multi-disciplinary solutions. Design can be a powerful tool for creating new products or services, but design thinking can be applied to broader social or issues and ultimately can help change the world. At IDEO and places like it around the world, design thinkers are working on new approaches to issues like environmental sustainability, childhood obesity, and access to clean drinking water in developing countries.

Filed under: social software

swiffs says...

I have been thinking about the laundry list of possible interactions in various social software applications. View, comment, create, rank, subscribe, share, post, add, tag, connect, message, search, invite and probably many other verbs that describe what people do. I playing around with an exercise to assess the varying values these verbs provide to the community and the person. The two variables that seem to stand out are impact to others, impact to me and how often it occurs.

Depending on the community type and personality I plug in, these values shift dramatically. Environment, membership and active personalities add extensive variation. This poses a great challenge to developing broad based social software in market verticals. Sub-communities and providing micro areas with larger organized communities can allow for more specific observation and encourage greater participation, especially from the lurker who wants to participate but has class barriers that prevent them from doing so. This also provides an array of lenses to observe and react to behavior to continually improve these environments.

I loved Sachin's presentation on "Designing for social traction: Turn a user into a passionate customer *before* making them sign up for your service" (http://sachin.posterous.com/designing-for-social-traction-turn-a-user-int). The concepts are very fresh and provide a new perspective for developing active communities for our customers/user's.

Filed under: Social Software

mika73 says...


Nette Idee ... Social Software auf usecase Ebene miteinander zu vergleichen.

Filed under: socialsoftware

Philipp says...

nice one. found at http://amirkassaei.posterous.com/

Filed under: social software

stefan63 says...

However, what you notice in any enterprise business process like the one above is that there is a lot of white space.  The white space is where people are human integrators.  Where the various folks from marketing, contact center, sales, and operations fill in the gaps that their enterprise software does a poor job of addressing today.  It is in these process contexts that wikis, blogs, instant messaging, etc. can perform a brilliant and valuable service, and for certain processes, form the entire substrate upon which the enterprise process can be manifest.  Thus, ultimately, the real Enterprise 2.0, the weaving of both the structured and unstructured worlds together, really looks a lot more like this:


The real Enterprise 2.0:  A combination of structured and unstructured processes 
and technologies woven together to achieve desired business outcomes

Ein sehr kluger Artikel von Nenshad Bardoliwalla, ehemals CTO für Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) and Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) bei SAP, zum Thema Enterprise 2.0 und der Positionierung von entsprechenden Funktionen besonders in den Bereichen, in denen standardisierbare Geschäftsprozesse die Aufgaben nicht optimal erfüllen können, oder besser, in denen Social Software-Komponenten diese ergänzen, vervollständigen und optimieren. Es geht auch um die Integration der klassischen Prozesswelt und der neuen Social Software-Welt, wenn man auf dem Weg zum Enterprise 2.0 ist.

Filed under: SocialSoftware

chieftech says...

This Pew Internet Personal Networks and Community survey is the first ever that examines the role of the internet and cell phones in the way that people interact with those in their core social network. Our key findings challenge previous research and commonplace fears about the harmful social impact of new technology

Well worth reading. Its just shows that our relationship with technology is often a lot more complex that it first appears.

Filed under: social software

stefan63 says...

Hersteller von Plattformen, wie z.B. IBM argumentieren natürlich den Vorteil der eigenen Produkte, die eine solche Integration natürlich bereits anbieten. Die Toolanbieter heben auf der anderen Seite die bessere Nutzerakzeptanz von best-of-breed Tools hervor, die auf eine bestimmte Aufgabe fokussieren und die Freiheit der Anwender (und -firmen), das für Sie beste Tool auszuwählen.

Die alte Diskussion, die ich auch aus anderen Software-Zusammenhängen (ECM) kenne. Ich denke, eine integrierte Plattform mit allen relevanten Modulen hat im Unternehmen einfach Riesenvorteile, da Anwender an einer Stelle voll integriert alles finden. Ich persönlich merke das jeden Tag als Nutzer von externen Tools wie Twitter, Delicious, Posterous, Blogger, Facebook, Xing usw. auf der einen Seite und Lotus Connections mit Microblogging, Blogging, Wiki, File Sharing, Aktivitätenmanagement, Profilen, Lesezeichen intern auf der anderen Seite. In Connections logge ich mich einmal ein und finde alles. Bei den externen Tools muss - trotz aller Verdrahtung, die ich schon vorgenommen habe - mich doch immer wieder separat einloggen und mit anderer Oberfläche und Benutzerführung arbeiten.

Mein einziger Wermutstropfen ist, dass ich mehrere Lotus Connections-Instanzen "fahre":

- die IBM-interne
- extern EULUC (die Plattform der deutschen Lotus Anwendervereinigung)
- extern den BlueBlog auf ibm.com (das auch auf Connections läuft)

Daneben nutze ich noch LotusLive, aber das ist dann eher für die Arbeit und Koordination mit Non-IBM'ern in Projekten. A bisserl ein anderes Einsatzgebiet.

Filed under: SocialSoftware

Philipp says...

09.11_gentry_tshirt11.jpg

T-shirt by Simon Crowley

Depending on how you see it, social software is either all the rage or so 2008. You know the stuff: Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Foursquare.... There's no talking about the web these days without it—that's for sure—but social software tools are quickly becoming an integral part of the way we run our day-to-day lives.

It's not just in the consumer space, either. Companies and large organizations are catching on to the benefits of social networking and improved collaboration tools. They want their intranets to be more like Facebook. They want to use crowdsourcing to leverage employee perspectives and wikis to help people help themselves. They want Twitter for the organization, (or at least they think they do).

Human-centered approaches to industrial and interaction design have long focused on studying human behavior to create informed and appropriate designs. A social interaction designer must consider not only people, environment, and existing tools, but also the unseen elements of the system such as social relationships, power dynamics, and cultural rules.

So there's a lot of budding social software out there, and a lot of opportunity to design the stuff. But for all of the press and fanfare, most social software is, well, socially awkward.

Take, for example, the satirized look at Facebook by the British improv troupe Idiots of Ants above. Idiots of Ants (the pun only emerges if you say that name with a British accent) pushes the social behaviors of Facebook to the extreme, but it's hardly the only piece of software they could pick on. Twitter, another massively successful tool, began as an attempt to facilitate text messaging among friends and has morphed into a platform for broad, ad-hoc real-time communication. But while the tool is great for flash mob conversations and celebrity tracking, the one-channel-for-everyone design is profoundly awkward for more nuanced social interaction.


read the full article here: Social Software: The Other 'Design for Social Impact,' by Gentry Underwood

...As products become more interactive, the focus shifts to the psychological. And with the networking of devices together, we see yet another shift—this time towards the sociological and anthropological. Now the designer must understand not only anthropometrics and cognitive science, but also ethnography and sociology, for an effective design must 'work' at all of these levels at once....

Filed under: social software