Monthly Archives: July 2009

Quick wins for any year plan 2010: Three Instantly Effective Social Media Strategies

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/07/three_instant_social_media_sol.html

1:45 PM Monday July 27, 2009
by Alexandra Samuel

If you’ve got an experienced social media team, a solid budget and an appetite for innovation, you can create an original online presence that engages your customers or supporters in an entirely new kind of online experience.

But many organizations lack the time, budget or experience to start from scratch. That doesn’t limit your social media options to a generic corporate news blog or a standard-issue Facebook page. Here are three great options for robust social media presences that let you manage cost and risk by building on existing tools and established best practices.

1. Suggestion Box

What is it: Invite your customers, supporters or employees to submit their ideas and suggestions for new products, services or improvements. Community members get to rate submissions so the best ideas rise to the top; it’s your job to ensure top suggestions get implemented.

Great for: Consumer-facing brands open to product/service input; member-driven NGOs looking for policy or service ideas.

Examples: Dell Ideastorm , MyStarbucks Idea, Threadless

How to do it: Build your own site using a content management system; many now offer a Digg-style submission and voting system as an add-on. Or use a pre-fab solution like the Salesforce software that powers Dell’s site, or the turn-key Uservoice, designed specifically for managing customer suggestions.

Where to spend: Invest in the implementation of a few user-submitted ideas as soon as possible; then use your media team to publicize the fact that you’re listening. Once people know their ideas will turn into action, it will be easy to motivate participation.

Where to save: Don’t build your own submission-and-rating system from scratch. There are lots of turn-key options available.

Where to get help: Make sure you have a community manager who can reach out to potential early adopters — like the customers who already blog or tweet about your project. And if your product development team is less than thrilled about taking direction from consumers, hire an organizational development expert who can help you evolve into a more nimble and responsive organization.

2. Widget

What is it: Create an interactive badge your customers or supporters can place on their Facebook pages or blogs. A widget can display your latest news, deals or contests, invite Twitter-style updates, or solicit donations.

Great for: Popular brands with young, web-savvy customers who love to wear your logo; non-profits with young, eager-to-help supporters.

Examples: innocent drinks, Dove Fresh Takes, Ask Your Lawmaker

How to do it: Use a service like SproutBuilder or WidgetBox to create a simple widget with content updates powered by your RSS feed; for non-standard approaches, a web developer or programmer can create something from scratch.

Where to spend: Design skills and interactivity to make your widget stand out from the pack; outreach and incentives to encourage people to install the widget.

Where to save: If you’re soliciting donations, use a widget or development kit designed for online fundraising, rather than creating your own donation system.

Where to get help: Widgets that exist to serve up content (like videos) thrive when they’re presenting really great media, so hire a great filmmaker, photographer or content development team. If your widget prompts action (like donations or media forwarding) get strategic help from someone with a track record in online campaigning.

3. Deal-of-the-day

What is it: Create an online presence that lets people know about a special, time-limited offer. It could be a product available in limited quantities, a discounted service, or donation matching. Update your offer regularly so there’s a reason for your audience to check
back frequently.

Great for: Companies with new products or services they want to publicize; businesses with stock to clear; non-profits who want to balance their big-donor relationships with more grassroots fundraising.

Examples: United Airline “Twares”, Future Shop, Pizza Hut’s Facebook page

How to do it: Create a Twitter feed or Facebook page that you update once a day (or even once or

Read more at http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cs/2009/07/three_instant_social_media_sol.html

Resolution for the annual plan 2010: excellence in service innovation

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Dion Hinchcliffe: Ten top issues in adopting enterprise social computing

Artist Matthew Monteith  http://www.matthewmonteith.com/projects.html

Artist Matthew Monteith http://www.matthewmonteith.com/projects.html

This blog has several items that refer to the excellent work of Dion Hinchcliffe. This post reflecting on The Engagement report is included because it reflects the intellectual and operational doubts that managers like me (even as I am an advocate) have about the adaption (and indeed, adaption is not implementing or managing) of social media in the corporate world. This post stimulated my thinking, created further insights for me how to adapt social media in an enterprise environment but also what it implies for me on a professional or personal level.

Working assumption for me at this moment: debate to be continued

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=581

July 27th, 2009Posted by Dion Hinchcliffe @ 8:32 am

Last week ZDNet’s Larry Dignan wrote an insightful post that analyzed the recent report from Charlene Li and the Altimeter Group/Wetpaint about early data that seems to show an intriguing correlation between social media engagement and corporate financial performance. The key finding was this:

To be specific, companies that are both deeply and widely engaged in social media surpass their peers in terms of both revenue and profit performance by a significant difference.

This report (details and copy here) is encouraging news for those embarking on applying social software to various parts of their business. But, as Larry points out, these numbers can be interpreted a number of ways. Many organizations would rather wait for best practices to solidify before climbing very far up the social computing adoption curve. So while there’s increasingly less question that there is genuine ROI in social media, the question still remains whether it can directly drive fundamental, bottom line performance in the average organization today.

This highlights a key conversational thread that came out of last month’s Enterprise 2.0 conference: Does social computing really deliver significantly better business performance? Or is it merely a minor incremental improvement?

Unfortunately, despite an growing body of encouraging case studies, evidence, and research, the jury is still out on total impact social computing will have on businesses. This return will even vary widely for many organizations for a number of reasons will explore below. At present, the uncertainty is simply because that there are not enough organizations that have incorporated social computing approaches (which encompasses the full range of social software as applied to business that include social networks and Enterprise 2.0 to things like crowdsourcing and social CRM) across their lines of business for us to get a complete enough picture. Even the ones that have done it, haven’t done it long enough to see what the results actually are.

Instead, as companies begin pilots and initiatives, we are seeing the first wave of issues cropping up as the larger cultural, IT, and business impact of social tools begins to be felt.

Social Computing Adoption Curve - Software and Processes

Sidebar: What is social computing? It’s the use of social software within and between organizations and any interested parties such as employees, customers, and partners. Social computing, as explained here, can usher in significant large-scale shifts in where productive forces and innovation come from. Organizations will all adopt enterprise social computing tools in slightly different ways and will generally proceed from ad hoc usage, often by applying widely available consumer tools at first, to more evolved open business models. As of this year, about half of all large organizations now have social computing tools deployed in some manner.

The following is a summary of the issues I’m hearing from practitioners in the field as well as from our clients and industry contacts.

While these ten issues with social computing are the ones I hear about most, your mileage will almost certainly vary. However, I believe them to be representative of where we are in 2009. Please note that these are by no means insurmountable obstacles and merely represent a good cross section of what early adopters typically encounter as they begin climbing the social computing adoption curve (see diagram above).

Ten top issues with social computing in business

  1. Lack of social media literacy amongst workers. Anecdotally, the farther a business is from the technology industry, the less likely that line workers will be familiar with the latest software innovations. Those who haven’t been maintaining blogs, updating wiki sites, using social networks, sharing information socially, etc. will require more education than those who do. Even the basics of netiquette as well as key techniques to get the most from social computing platforms such as encouraging the building of links between data, tagging information, or establishing weak ties over the network are often poorly understood even by frequent users of social computing tools. In short, social computing requires some literacy efforts in most organizations to achieve effectiveness, just like personal computing skills did a few decades ago.
  2. A perception that social tools won’t work well in a particular industry. There is often an assumption in many specialized industries — such as medicine or manufacturing, just to cite two random examples — that social tools won’t be a good fit for their specific vertical; that they are unique in some way that makes social business models inappropriate or a non-starter in some way. While many enterprise Web 2.0 advances have spread rather unevenly in many industries — with media and financial services often leading the way in early adoption — more and more evidence is accumulating that social computing tools have use in most, if not all, industries. However, more than five years after social software became common in private life, it’s still surprisingly common encounter a culture of resistance (though often to change in general, and not just enterprise social tools) in organizations that have fewer competitive pressures, are highly specialized, or are unusually late adopters of technology.
  3. Social software is still perceived as too risky to use for core business activities. There is still a broad sense with many that I talk to that social computing applications are more suitable for knowledge workers isolated from the mission critical functions of an organization or in more fungible areas such as marketing and advertising. There’s a sense that social computing is not for operations or key business capabilities. This can be ascribed variously to concerns about unpredictability, loss of control, or worries of introducing potential distractions to activities that directly and immediately affect the conditions of the business, including the bottom line. Interestingly, in my analysis of case studies and discussions with implementers, this is the very place where social tools have the most impact when deployed, usually by improving decisions, making key data (or potential experts with the information you need) more accessible and discoverable, and so on. In fact, no case that I can find has emerged of social tools disrupting the workplace in any significant manner, and almost all reports, some of which are indeed integrating social tools into key business processes, are positive. This concern will likely persist for a while yet, pending the arrival of a preponderance of research and internal results belies it.
  4. Can’t get enough senior executives engaged with social tools. I’ve been known to say that most senior executives in large organizations are often read-only users of their IT systems, whether it’s Outlook, their Blackberry, or operational dashboards. Despite even the earliest Enterprise 2.0 case studies confirming that social tool adoption is greatly improved by an organization’s top personnel leading by example, these are often the folks that have the least time to participate and little practical experience in doing so. (Note: Enterprise 2.0 is just part of the enterprise social computing spectrum, though a very important one.) It’s something I’m beginning to hear often, and that is lack of engagement by senior executives in most social computing efforts, public or private. I’m personally torn by whether this is critical for success in the long term, since social computing is largely about tapping into the cognitive surpluses within an organization and across the network, but it certainly is a key factor in the short term by slowing the effectiveness of adoption internally.
  5. There is vapor lock between IT and the social computing initiative. The famous IT/business divide is often holding up social computing initiatives, often by months — and in some cases for a year or more — as IT tries to find (and sometimes build) social computing applications that meet requirements for internal software, architecture, security, and governance standards, while still exhibiting the latest best practices on the social computing side. That many of the best social computing applications come from newer, smaller firms that often don’t focus on traditional enterprise requirements only exacerbates the issues. IT shops also tend to have limited understanding of the business side of social computing and try to shoehorn existing solutions on hand to solve business needs. While this isn’t automatically a bad practice, the classic example of SharePoint and Enterprise 2.0 illustrates how this can often become a charged issue and hold up efforts while it is resolved.
  6. Need to prove ROI before there will be support for social software. This is a classic anti-pattern for enterprise software acquisition in general (and Enterprise 2.0 in particular), and while there are certainly twists that are unique to social computing, the ROI proof objection has increasingly fallen by wayside with the growing number of successful case studies.
  7. Security concerns are holding up pilot projects/adoption plans. Because social tools make many things that were normally private much more public — including policies, procedures, critical methods, corporate data, and intellectual property — many organizations would rather wait for best practices in dealing with this important issue to solidify before climbing very far up the social computing adoption curve. We’ve seen a surprisingly increase and friendly reception lately for tools that address security as well as governance with social computing tools. I’ll explore some of these in an upcoming post.
  8. The needs around community management have come as a surprise. Social tools create audiences with a shared understanding and sense of community, as well as an internally guided direction. Without suitable management (help, support, guidance, moderation, administration, and planning) communities will eventually take on a life of their own. Community management is the facility through which they stay connected to the organization and its goals/needs while satisfying their own internal requirements. The staffing skills, team sizes, techniques, and tools of community management for the full spectrum of enterprise social computing needs is still something that we’re learning as an industry. This is also an emerging story that I’ll be covering this year as social computing matures in more and more organizations.
  9. Difficulties sustaining external engagement. As I discussed last year in covering 12 best practices for online customer communities, many organizations have trouble engaging the broader world using their own social computing initiatives. They build communities but their target audiences often ends up preferring the ones they built for themselves, especially if they perceive too cynical an approach or one that is too narrow for their needs (focusing on just a product from one company instead of an entire vertical or niche). Creating thriving social computing environments is still as much an art as a science and while engagement can always be generated through expensive traditional marketing and PR channels, learning the emerging rules for social business can really help.
  10. Struggling to survive due to unexpected success. More and more frequently lately I’m coming across enterprise social computing stories that had considerable and unexpected early success. This led to attention and scrutiny from across the organization and a subsequent struggle to fund a fast growing venture amid internecine turf wars, battles over control, and the battles with competing efforts. With social computing a foreign way of doing business for many organizations, the rapid growth of new effort can spell disaster without careful oversight, planning, and expectation setting. Building a strong network of friendly and well-respected sponsors internally can help this issue in particular.
Artist Matthew Monteith  http://www.matthewmonteith.com/projects.html

Artist Matthew Monteith http://www.matthewmonteith.com/projects.html

Read more and discuss at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=581

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The 4Cs Social Media Framework

Artist Victoria Haack http://www.viktoriahaackphotography.com/

Artist Victoria Haack http://www.viktoriahaackphotography.com/

On this blog I allocate some time from me and from my readers to conceptual frameworks. Conceptual frameworks are for me constructs which are fitted for connecting and acting.

One of the great bloggers who really is connected and acting is Beth Kanter. This found creates another framework and made me once more aware that social media can be a major force for development in non-western and western countries.

And – as always – if that major force is important for you, start acting too!!

http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/07/guest-post-by-gaurav-mishra-the-4cs-social-media-framework.html

Guest Post by Gaurav Mishra:

The 4Cs Social Media Framework


The Need for the 4Cs Social Media Framework

Over the last year, I have had to explain how social media works to diplomats, defense officials, and academics and students focused on fields as diverse as international affairs, management and sociology.

I have found that first-timer find social media confusing because of two reasons.

The first reason is the excessive focus on specific social media tools. Many first-timers are introduced to social media via specific tools. Many ’social media experts’ who are practitioners rather than thinkers also focus on specific tools. Since social media encompasses many different types of tools, and each tool has specific characteristics and a steep learning curve, a toolkit approach can quickly become overwhelming. Blogging (WordPress), microblogging (Twitter), video-sharing (YouTube), photo-sharing (Flickr), podcasting (Blog Talk Radio), mapping (Google Maps), social networking (Facebook), social voting (Digg), social bookmarking (Delicious), lifestreaming (Friendfeed), wikis (Wikipedia), and virtual worlds (Second Life) are all quite different from each other and new and hybrid tools are being introduced almost everyday. Mastering each tool individually seems like a lot of work and a lot of people give up even before they begin.

The second reason is a clear definition of what social media is, even within the social media community. Different thinkers and practitioners use different terms to describe similar tools and practices. Terms like social media, digital media, new media, citizen media, participatory media, peer-to-peer media, social web, participatory web, peer-to-peer web, read write web, social computing, social software, web 2.0, and even crowdsourcing and wikinomics can mean similar or slightly different things depending upon who is using it. Journalists, marketers, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, software vendors and academics approach the space from their own perspectives and have their own preferred terms. Used precisely, these terms can mean very different things. However, very few people use these terms precisely and almost nobody agrees on the exact definition of these terms.

The 4Cs Social Media Framework

My own approach to social media is both tool-agnostic and terminology-agnostic. So, I use the term social media to encompass all the tools and all the practices that are described by the terms I mentioned above.

Instead of getting distracted by the tools and the terminologies, I focus on the four underlying themes in social media, the 4Cs of social media: Content, Collaboration, Community and Collective Intelligence. Taken together, these four themes constitute the value system of social media. I believe that the tools are transient, the buzzwords will change, but the value system embedded in these 4Cs is here to stay. So, let’s look at these 4Cs in some detail.

The First C: Content

The first C, Content, refers to the idea that social media tools allow everyone to become a creator, by making the publishing and distribution of multimedia content both free and easy, even for amateurs.

User generated content, and the hope of monetizing it through advertising, is at the core of the business model of almost all social media platforms. User generated content is also at the core of citizen journalism, the notion that amateur users can perform journalist-like functions (accidentally or otherwise) by reporting and commenting on news. Citizen journalists have repeatedly emerged as critical in crisis reporting and several citizen journalist platforms have emerged to harness their potential to report hyper-local news.

However, just because everyone can become a creator doesn’t mean that everyone does. Most users prefer to consume user generated content, by reading blog, watching videos, or browsing through photos. Some user curate user generated content, by tagging it on social bookmarking websites, voting for it on social voting websites, commenting on it, or linking to it. Researcher have found support for the 1:9:90 rule in many different contexts. The 1:9:90 rule says that 90% of all users are consumers, 9% of all users are curators and only 1% of the users are creators.

The Second C: Collaboration

The second C, Collaboration, refers to the idea that social media facilitates the aggregation of small individual actions into meaningful collective results.

Collaboration can happen at three levels: conversation, co-creation and collective action.

As consumers and curators engage with compelling content, the content becomes the center of conversations. Conversations create buzz, which is how ideas tip, become viral. Many social media practitioners who are from a marketing or public relations background are focused on creating conversations.

However, some of us recognize that conversations are a mere stepping stone for co-creation. In co-creation, the value lies as much in the curated aggregate as in the individual contributions. Wikis are a perfect example of co-creation. Open group blogs, photo pools, video collages and similar projects are also good examples of co-creation.

Collective action goes one step further and uses online engagement to initiate meaningful action. Collective action can take the form of signing online petitions, fundraising, tele-calling, or organizing an offline protest or event.

Even though conversations, co-creation and collective action are different forms of collaboration, the difficulty in collaborating increases dramatically as we move from conversations to co-creation to collective action. The key is to start with a big task, break it down into individual actions (modularity) that are really small (granularity), and then put them together into a whole without losing value (aggregating mechanism). It is also important to bridge online conversations into mainstream media buzz and online engagement into offline action.

The Third C: Community

The third C, Community, refers to the idea that social media facilitates sustained collaboration around a shared idea, over time and often across space.

The notion of a community is really tricky because every web page is a latent community, waiting to be activated. A vibrant community has size and strength, and is built around a meaningful social object.

Most people understand that a community that has a large number of members (size) who have strong relationships and frequent interactions with each other (strength) is better than a community which doesn’t. However, a community is more than the sum total of its members and their relationships.

People don’t build relationships with each other in a vacuum. A vibrant community is built around a social object that is meaningful for its members. The social object can be a person, a place, a thing or an idea. The Netroots community is built around progressive politics in America. The My Barack Obama community was built around Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. The Obama Girl community was built around a series of videos Amber Lee Ettinger made to support Obama’s campaign. Sometimes, choosing the right social object can be crucial for building a vibrant community. HP can choose to build a community around printers, printing, or corporate careers, all of which will have very different characteristics.

The Fourth C: Collective Intelligence

The fourth C, Collective Intelligence, refers to the idea that the social web enables us to not only aggregate individual actions, but also run sophisticated algorithms on them and extract meaning from them.

Collective intelligence can be based on both implicit and explicit actions and often takes the form of reputation and recommendation systems. Google extracts the pagerank, a measure of how important a page is, from our (implicit) linking and clicking behavior. Amazon and Netflix are able to offer us recommendations based on our (implicit) browsing, (implicit) buying and (explicit) rating behavior and comparing it to the behavior of other people like us. eBay and Amazon assign ratings to sellers and reviewers respectively, based on whether other members in the community had a good experience with them. On the day of the 2008 US elections, the Obama campaign was able to assign trimmed down telecalling lists to volunteers by ticking off the names of the people who had already voted.

The great thing about collective intelligence is that it becomes easier to extract meaning from a community as the size and strength of the community grow. If the collective intelligence is then shared back with the community, the members find more value in the community, and the community grows even more, leading to a virtuous cycle.

The4Cs Social Media Framework in Summary

So, the 4Cs form a hierarchy of what is possible with social media. As we move from Content to Collaboration to Community to Collective Intelligence, it becomes increasingly difficult to both observe these layers and activate them. Also each layer is often, but not always, a pre-requisite for the next layer. Compelling content is a pre-requisite for meaningful collaboration, which is a pre-requisite for a vibrant community, which, in turn, is a pre-requisite for collective intelligence.

Although I designed the 4Cs framework to explain how I see social media, I have also found it to be a useful tools to evaluate specific social media initiatives. The best social media initiatives leverage all these four layers, but I have seen that most initiatives get stuck between the Collaboration and Community layers. Examples of social media initiatives that leverage the Community or Collective Intelligence layers are few and far between. It’s important to note, however, that each layer is valuable in itself, and it’s OK to design an initiative to only exploit the Content or Collaboration layers.

The 4Cs Social Media Framework Applied to Digital Activism

Let me explain what I just said my applying the 4Cs framework to digital activism initiatives.

Many digital activism initiatives like Social Documentary and Witness primarily focus on using social media tools to create and share compelling multimedia Content. Some of this Content generates Conversations and becomes viral and some of it might even lead to Collective Action. However, the focus is on Content.

Other initiatives, like Vote Report India or the Pink Chaddi Campaign, start off with a strong focus on Collaboration around a specific event. In its first iteration, Vote Report India leveraged Co-creation by creating a platform for collectively tracking irregularities in the 2009 Indian elections. The Pink Chaddi Campaign leveraged Collective Action by asking its supporters to send pink panties to the Sri Ram Sena as Valentine’s Day gifts. As these campaigns become successful, they try to move to the next Community level, but don’t always succeed in building a long-term community.

Very few digital activism initiatives are able to leverage the Community or Collective Intelligence layers. The Netroots community in the US, especially Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo and MoveOn.org, have been able to build a strong Community around progressive politics in the US. My Barack Obama leverage some aspects of Collective Intelligence during the 2008 presidential campaign.

What About You?

If you are a social media practitioner or a digital activist focused on the Content and Collaboration layers, I would urge you to think about how you can move to the Community layer. If you already run a vibrant community, I would urge you to think about introducing reputation and recommendation systems in it and leverage the Collective Intelligence layer.

If you are designing a new social media initiative, I would urge you to use the 4Cs Framework in the design and strategy phase itself. Perhaps, in phase one, you would want to start with a campaign built around Content and focused on Collaboration, with elements of co-creation and/ or collective action. You would do well to plan for a phase two which is focused on Community, with a dash of  Collective Intelligence built in. The question you want to ask yourself, then, is: how can I design a Collaboration based campaign so that it can be used to build a long-term Community?

If you are a journalist, analyst or academic in the business of understanding social media initiatives, you’ll find the 4Cs Framework really useful. What are the boundary conditions needed to succeed at each layer? What are the boundary conditions needed to move from Content to Collaboration, from Collaboration to Community, and from Community to Collective Intelligence? Can you think of other digital activism or social media initiatives that leverage the Community or Collective Intelligence layers?

Do share your thoughts.

Gaurav Mishra is the CEO of social media research & strategy company 20:20 WebTech (http://2020webtech.com) and co-founder of election monitoring platform Vote Report India (http://votereport.in).

http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2009/07/guest-post-by-gaurav-mishra-the-4cs-social-media-framework.html

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

How to Manage Outside Innovation

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2009/summer/50413/how-to-manage-outside-innovation

Should external innovators be organized in collaborative communities or competitive markets? The answer depends on three crucial issues.
The leading question

Should companies organize outside innovation through collaborative communities or competitive markets?

Findings
  • Communities are useful when an innovation problem involves cumulative knowledge, continually building on past advances. Markets are effective when an innovation problem is best solved by broad experimentation.
  • In general, communities are more oriented toward the intrinsic motivations of external innovators (the desire to be a part of some larger cause, for instance), whereas markets tend to reward extrinsic motivations (such as through financial compensation).

To appreciate the important role that outside innovators can play, look no further than Apple Inc.’s wildly successful iPhone. Thousands of external software developers have written complementary applications for the iPhone that have greatly enhanced its value, transforming the product into a blockbuster that has become the center of a thriving business ecosystem.

Of course, the fundamental concept of “open innovation1 — relying on outsiders both as a source of ideas and as a means to commercialize them — is hardly new, but companies have struggled with precisely how to open up their product development to the external world. For starters, many executives have little idea how to motivate and manage outside innovation. Specifically, should external innovators be organized as a collaborative community or as a competitive market?

Collaborative communities are perhaps best known through the Linux Foundation’s Linux and through… To read the complete article:

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2009/summer/50413/how-to-manage-outside-innovation

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Modern technology = longer hours (but only for the happy few)

In line with a post earlier found and reflected on. On a second read: only 1/3 mentioned longer working hours. So I have to admit that the caption is misleading. Moreover,  if work and hobbies converge, what is the problem to spend more time on your hjobbie!

Source: http://blog.managers.org.uk/post/Modern-technlogy-3d-longer-hours-440.aspx

by Adi 26. juli 2009 14:33

I suppose it kinda proves the point that I’m writing this article on a Sunday, but recent research by the Kelly Global Workforce Index indicates that whilst modern technology has improved productivity, it has also ensured we all work longer hours.

Lets start with the good news, that technology has made us generally more productive before getting onto the longer hours thing later.

Technology makes us more productive

The survey found that 78% of North American workers believed that devices such as laptops and mobile phones had made them more productive, with an equally high number stating that the ability for such technology to allow work to be done outside of the office was a positive step.

Indeed 87% of respondants believed that an official office remote working strategy would be attractive to them as employees, with the modern workforce apparently regarding such flexibility as a major factor in attaining good work/life balance.

Productivity good; longer hours bad

Ok, I promised the bad news and here it is.  Around a third of those questioned in the survey said that modern technology had led to longer working hours.  Apparently however these longer working hours are not seen as a bad thing, and indeed many of those surveyed revealed that they are happy with their work/life balance.

Does technology have a halo effect?

The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias whereby our perceptions of a particular trait are influenced by perceptions of similar traits.  So we wrote recently about the apparent connection between a persons looks and their managerial ability.  Essentially, good looking managers were said to be better than uglier managers.  This is a classic example of the Halo Effect in action.  Good looks are a positive attribute, so the perception is that good looking people must therefore be better at other things as well, such as management.

Such cognitive bias is rife where questions rely on perception rather than any kind of quantitative analysis.  And I fear that this study has fallen foul of cognitive bias.  It used questions such as:

In your job, how important is it that you have a good balance between work and personal life?

How have technlogies such as mobile phones, PDAs and laptops affected your productivity at work?

Combine reasonably vague questions with fluffy answers such as somewhat important and much more productive and you get results that are highly questionable. Lets start from the beginning.  How can productivity be measured?

Measuring productivity

Here are a few ways that productivity can be measured:

  • Technological change
  • Efficiency
  • Real cost savings
  • Benchmarking processes

What others can you think of?

http://blog.managers.org.uk/post/Modern-technlogy-3d-longer-hours-440.aspx

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Engagement report 2009: about world class corporations and their engagement wrt the use of social media

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers