390 likes | 644 Views
Centre for Social Informatics. Social informatics Design and use of information and communication technologies taking into account institutional and cultural contextsCSI focusSociotechnical interaction at different levels of the organisation at different stages of the system life-cycleStaffing8
E N D
1.
Centre for Social Informatics, Edinburgh Napier University
Dr Hazel Hall, Reader
Shooresh Golzari, Intern
TFPL Ltd, London
Melanie Goody, Director of Consultancy
Belinda Blaswick, Consultant
Opportunity and risk in social computing environments
2. Centre for Social Informatics Social informatics
Design and use of information and communication technologies taking into account institutional and cultural contexts
CSI focus
Sociotechnical interaction at different levels of the organisation at different stages of the system life-cycle
Staffing
8 members based at Edinburgh, plus associates
Home to the International Teledemocracy Centre
Reputation
85% research output international/world class (RAE 2008)
3. Edinburgh Napier University John Napier
C16th mathematician and philosopher
Decimal point, logarithms
Born 1550 Merchiston Tower
Craiglockhart
1916-1919 military hospital
Meeting of Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon 1917
Owen’s Anthem for Doomed Youth and Dulce et Decorum Est
Today
13,500 students
Research excellence in a number of areas
4. TFPL Ltd, London Services
Recruitment
Consultancy
Training
Including networks and events
TFPL Connect, SharePoint Summits
Scope
Knowledge management
Information management
Records management
Content management
Library and information services management
5. Edinburgh Napier – TFPL connection Track record of joint research - TFPL
Royal Academy of Engineering secondment 2006
E-information roles (with Blaswick) – ASIS&T 06
Maximising value from communities consortium
Track record of joint research – Hall & Goody
Outsourcing of research and information services (2005/6 LIRG/Elsevier Research Award)
KPMG as case study for doctoral work
http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~hazelh/esis/hazel_publications.html#phd
6. Room demographics Who uses what for purposes of collaborative work?
Blogs?
Wikis?
Social networking?
Instant messaging?
Microblogging?
Anyone think this is trivial?
Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7RrHXNyONc
7. Purposes of the study Establish main opportunities and risks of social computing tools within organisations for collaborative work purposes, as perceived by information and knowledge management professionals
Meet general interest of TFPL’s client base
Inform TFPL’s training and consultancy portfolio
Serve as pilot for larger, externally-funded piece of work
Possible repeat study summer 2009
8. Purposes of the study Establish main opportunities and risks of social computing tools within organisations for collaborative work purposes, as perceived by information and knowledge management professionals
Licensed collaborative work platforms
SharePoint (Microsoft)
Lotus Notes and Quickplace (IBM)
E-rooms (Documentum)
“Mature” social software applications, e.g. instant messaging, blogs, wikis
Newer Web 2.0 applications, e.g. social networking, microblogging
9. Purposes of the study Establish main opportunities and risks of social computing tools within organisations for collaborative work purposes, as perceived by information and knowledge management professionals
Focus to date mainly on freely available social software for personal use
Academic studies treat “older” applications in non-corporate environments, e.g. educational settings
Few studies on internal social computing environments
Lack of extant literature on newer tools, e.g. social networking and microblogging applications
10. Purposes of the study Establish main opportunities and risks of social computing tools within organisations for collaborative work purposes, as perceived by information and knowledge management professionals
Rather than:
Journalists, e.g. concern over vulnerable groups
Educational researchers, e.g. goal of enhancement of classroom environment
Public relations professionals, e.g. efforts to improve corporate communications
11. Research focus 1 Scale of implementation
Organisational uptake of social computing
Levels of adoption
Degree of access to tools
In general
By tool
By tool function
Attitudes of IM/KM staff to social computing
In general
By tool
12. Research focus 2 Perceived opportunities: anticipated and actual
Literature review highlighted:
increased collaboration
improved productivity
enhanced IM practice
positive cultural change
13. Research focus 3 Perceived risks: feared and realised
Literature review highlighted:
lowered productivity - time-wasting
erosion of IM practice, e.g. for archiving and accessing exchanges
compromised security
antisocial behaviour
14. Research activities – 12 weeks summer 08 Literature review
15. Data subjects Population
TFPL contacts
Direct, e.g. clients, attendees at SharePoint Summits
Indirect, e.g. through the Scottish Information Network
Invitation to participate
Face-to-face at TFPL Connect meeting June 2008
Survey and focus groups: by e-mail invitation
Possible to attend focus group, but not complete survey
Interviews: volunteers left contact details on survey
16. Study contributions
17. Data collected, recorded & analysed
19. Uptake of social computing 1 Range in levels of adoption
From non-provision...
... to sophisticated implementations that integrate “consumer” applications with licensed systems
Sense that study may have come “too early”
High number of “don’t know” and “neutral” responses to survey questions
Two thirds of respondents who provided additional free text comments at end of survey noted impacts on social computing initiatives in their organisations were yet to be felt
Interviewees cautious in drawing firm conclusions
20. Uptake of social computing 2 Levels of access – survey respondents with access
Higher levels in public sector (yet greater deployment in private)
Licensed plus “consumer” tools: 57.7%
Licensed system only: 31.7%
“Consumer” tools only: 11.5%
Organisations that restrict access: 24%
Encouragement to adopt social computing tools
26.5% “high”
32.4% “moderate”
41.2% “low”
21. Enthusiasm amongst IM and KM staff 1 Levels of enthusiasm for social computing amongst IM and KM staff = high
Increases collaboration and improves productivity in general
Facilitates knowledge and information sharing
Connects individuals and groups
Widens communication channels
Enhances IM practice
More obvious and better organisation of resources
Consolidation of material and reduction of silos
24 hour access
Induces positive cultural change (especially social networking)
Widens employee choice ? retention (social networking)
55% involved in decision making around social computing tools
“
22. Enthusiasm amongst IM and KM staff 2 “Top” tools
Wikis for information sharing
NB “information”
Blogs for connecting individuals and groups, and widening information channels
Unite physically separated team members
Provide outlet for promotion of on-going work to a wide audience
Open up conversations
Route to feedback on activities
Social networking
Culture
Employee choice
23. Implementation concerns 1 Low organisational encouragement in the deployment of tools
41% “low” encouragement
Few efforts in change management and training, even where there has been heavy investment
24. Implementation concerns 2 Biggest risk
Failure to capitalise on opportunities offered by social computing tools due to poor implementation management
Respondents familiar with this risk from earlier experiences, e.g. intranet developments from mid-90s onwards
This risk is not considered in the literature
“Like most things it’s about cultural change. A tool (however clever) can be used well/badly. Therefore usual considerations apply around what purpose does it serve, selling it to the business, understanding business benefits/risks, giving staff skills to use [it/them] properly, providing standards and guidance around use, encouraging good practice.”
25. Less prominent risks IM problems
Information sprawl (but not overload); archiving; means of accessing archives; (version control and information quality)
Compromised security
(Legal infringement and disrepute theoretically valid, though not realised in practice); some leakage of confidential information
Lowered productivity
Coping with IM problems; failure to adopt social computing tools
“If employees are going to waste time, they do not need social computing tools to do it”
(Anti-social behaviour)
26. Top tools for IM and KM professionals
27. Tool availability & usefulness
28. Tool availability, usefulness & usage
29. Tool availability, usefulness & usage
30. Tool availability, usefulness & usage
31. Tool availability, usefulness & usage
32. Microblogging Elements of social networking
End user determines source of information flow based on “social network” that he/she builds
Elements of instant messaging
Interactions are brief and to the point, real time, “familiar” format
Elements of wiki
Public nature of conversations encourages collaborative building of new knowledge
Elements of blogging
Microblog, with easy linking to other resources
33. Microblogging Elements of social networking
End user determines source of information flow based on “social network” that he/she builds
Elements of instant messaging
Interactions are brief and to the point, real time, “familiar” format
Elements of wiki
Public nature of conversations encourages collaborative building of new knowledge
Elements of blogging
Microblog, with easy linking to other resources
Potential to meet needs of IM/KM professional and user preferences together?
34. 5 stages of Twitter acceptancehttp://www.slideshare.net/minxuan/how-twitter-changed-my-life-presentation 1. Denial
“I think Twitter sounds stupid. Why would anyone care what other people are doing right now?”
2. Presence
“OK, I don’t really get why people love it, but I guess I should at least create an account.”
3. Dumping
“I’m on Twitter and use it for pasting links to my blog posts and pointing people to my press releases.”
4. Conversing
“I don’t always post useful stuff, but I do use Twitter to have authentic 1x1 conversations.”
5. Microblogging
“I’m using Twitter to publish useful information that people read, and to converse 1x1 authentically.”
35. Reminder of context of findings Findings align to priorities of information management roles: providing access to resources and information governance
Wikis as open tools for the capture of knowledge made explicit in the form of information are rated highest
Collaborative value of social networking applications is less “visible”
Other groups, other priorities
e.g. in the same organisations Human Resources staff may see greater evidence of inappropriate use of tools
Timing
Microblogging not mainstream in summer 2008
36. Priorities of information and knowledge management professionals
Know the value of social computing
Attendance at focus groups to enhance knowledge
Sell message on value to the organisation
Play an active role in implementation planning
Choice of tools
Management of roll-out
Design of governance guidelines
Become mediators in social computing business environments
Explore microblogging
37. “Discussion” exercise part 1 1. Generate “Tweet fountain” for your table
http://www.ukeig.org.uk/conf2009/index.html
Steps
Individuals need Twitter user names: help invent names for those who do not already have them (You are one another’s followers)
As individuals write tweets on post-its: one 140 character tweet (English or French) per post-it, including user name
Observations/thoughts: “Going to check out Zotero after seminar”
News/PR: “My organisation is doing X”
Information delivery (current awareness): “Here’s a great resource…”
Questions: “Does anyone know about Y?”
Arrange tweets on the wall in order of appearance
38. “Discussion” exercise part 2 Steps
If you would like to respond to a tweet generated by one of the people you “follow” (i.e. same table members), do so with post-its. Preface them with @username at the top so it’s clear to which tweet you are responding.
Switch tables (together)
Check what the other tables have been “discussing”
See if there are individuals whose contributions are such that you would like to “follow” them
If appropriate (and not too chaotic), add responses to the tweet fountains of the other tables
39. Example
40. Dissemination