• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Opportunity and risk in social computing environments
 

Opportunity and risk in social computing environments

on

  • 617 views

Hazel Hall's invited paper presented at SLA Eastern Canada Members' Day, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 29 April 2009. This presentation draws on the project work discussed in the report at: ...

Hazel Hall's invited paper presented at SLA Eastern Canada Members' Day, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, 29 April 2009. This presentation draws on the project work discussed in the report at: http://drhazelhall.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/soc_comp_proj_rep_public_2008.pdf

Statistics

Views

Total Views
617
Views on SlideShare
617
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Opportunity and risk in social computing environments Opportunity and risk in social computing environments Presentation Transcript

    • Opportunity and risk in social computingenvironmentsCentre for Social Informatics, Edinburgh Napier University  Dr Hazel Hall, Reader  Shooresh Golzari, InternTFPL Ltd, London  Melanie Goody, Director of Consultancy  Belinda Blaswick, Consultant
    • Centre for Social InformaticsSocial informatics  Design and use of information and communication technologies taking into account institutional and cultural contextsCSI focus  Sociotechnical interaction at different levels of the organisation at different stages of the system life-cycleStaffing  8 members based at Edinburgh, plus associates  Home to the International Teledemocracy CentreReputation  85% research output international/world class (RAE 2008)
    • Edinburgh Napier UniversityJohn Napier  C16th mathematician and philosopher  Decimal point, logarithms  Born 1550 Merchiston TowerCraiglockhart  1916-1919 military hospital  Meeting of Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon 1917  Owen’s Anthem for Doomed Youth and Dulce et Decorum EstToday  13,500 students  Research excellence in a number of areas
    • TFPL Ltd, LondonServices  Recruitment  Consultancy  Training  Including networks and events  TFPL Connect, SharePoint SummitsScope  Knowledge management  Information management  Records management  Content management  Library and information services management
    • Edinburgh Napier – TFPL connectionTrack record of joint research - TFPL  Royal Academy of Engineering secondment 2006  E-information roles (with Blaswick) – ASIS&T 06  Maximising value from communities consortiumTrack 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
    • Room demographicsWho 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
    • Purposes of the studyEstablish 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
    • Purposes of the studyEstablish 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
    • Purposes of the studyEstablish 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
    • Purposes of the studyEstablish 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
    • Research focus 1Scale 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
    • Research focus 2Perceived opportunities: anticipated and actual  Literature review highlighted:  increased collaboration  improved productivity  enhanced IM practice  positive cultural change
    • Research focus 3Perceived 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
    • Research activities – 12 weeks summer 08Literature review Weeks 1-2 Design of data collection Weeks 3-8 tools and data collection Web-based survey Focus groups Telephone interviews Data analysis Weeks 8-12 Quantitative – Excel Qualitative – manual Weeks 10-12 Writing up
    • Data subjectsPopulation  TFPL contacts  Direct, e.g. clients, attendees at SharePoint Summits  Indirect, e.g. through the Scottish Information NetworkInvitation 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
    • Study contributions Data set Data derived from Number of contributions 1 Web-based survey 57 Survey majority from public sector 2 London focus group 13 organisations. Organisation size = 3 Glasgow focus group 12 median 725 employees. 4 Interviews 14 96* *It was possible to make more than one contribution to the research, e.g. all who were interviewed completed the survey (96-14=82); similarly it was possible to complete the survey anonymously and attend a focus group.
    • Data collected, recorded & analysed Set Data collected Recording and analysis 1 Tool uptake within Excel for analysis of quantitative data. organisation; governance of Qualitative data coded up and analysed tools; attitudes to opportunity manually. and risk; challenges; demographic data2&3 Participant reactions to, and Recorded as Word files and content discussions of, preliminary integrated into report under main themes results of web-based survey. as derived from analysis of survey data. Also posted to TFPL blog, e.g. http://blog.tfpl.com/tfpl/2008/07/index.htm l 3 Participant experience of Recorded as Word files and content implementation: as executed, integrated into report under main themes planned or not yet undertaken as derived from analysis of survey data.
    • Hazel and Shooresh based atFocus group held at Napier in EdinburghIDOX offices in Glasgow(31/07/08)Respondents to web- Melanie and Belinda based atbased survey (07- TFPL in London14/07/08) andparticipants in telephoneinterviews (28/07 Focus group held at-01/08/08) based across IDOX/TFPL offices in Londonthe UK (23/07/08)
    • Uptake of social computing 1Range 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
    • Uptake of social computing 2Levels 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” Public sector organisations more  41.2% “low” enthusiastic than private
    • Enthusiasm amongst IM and KM staff 1Levels 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
    • 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
    • Implementation concerns 1Low organisational encouragement in the deployment of tools  41% “low” encouragement  Few efforts in change management and training, even where there has been heavy investment
    • Implementation concerns 2Biggest 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.”
    • Less prominent risksIM 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 informationLowered 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)
    • Top tools for IM and KM professionalsRank Tool Opportunities Risks posed 1 Wikis Information sharing; IM Information quality in terms practice; productivity of wiki accuracy; leakage of confidential data 2 Blogs Connecting individuals & Disrepute; leakage of groups; widening confidential data communication channels 3 Social Positive cultural change & Leakage of confidential data networking widened employee choice
    • Tool availability & usefulnessAvailability UsefulnessWikis WikisBlogging BloggingSocial networking Instant messagingInstant messaging Social networkingMicroblogging Microblogging
    • Tool availability, usefulness & usageAvailability Usefulness UsageWikis Wikis Social networkingBlogging Blogging Instant messagingSocial networking Instant messaging WikisInstant messaging Social networking BloggingMicroblogging Microblogging Microblogging
    • Tool availability, usefulness & usageAvailability Usefulness UsageWikis Wikis Social networkingBlogging Blogging Instant messagingSocial networking Instant messaging WikisInstant messaging Social networking BloggingMicroblogging Microblogging Microblogging
    • Tool availability, usefulness & usageAvailability Usefulness UsageWikis Wikis Social networkingBlogging Blogging Instant messagingSocial networking Instant messaging WikisInstant messaging Social networking BloggingMicroblogging Microblogging Microblogging
    • Tool availability, usefulness & usageAvailability Usefulness UsageWikis Wikis Social networkingBlogging Blogging Instant messagingSocial networking Instant messaging WikisInstant messaging Social networking BloggingMicroblogging Microblogging Microblogging  Ready availability of a tool does not guarantee popularity  Under-exploitation of most valuable tools?  “[All of the tools] support [collaboration] in different ways and are limited mainly because of uptake rather than limitations of the tool itself”  Microblogging barely on the radar, yet consider its offerings…
    • MicrobloggingElements of social networking  End user determines source of information flow based on “social network” that he/she buildsElements of instant messaging  Interactions are brief and to the point, real time, “familiar” formatElements of wiki  Public nature of conversations encourages collaborative building of new knowledgeElements of blogging  Microblog, with easy linking to other resources
    • MicrobloggingElements of social networking  End user determines source of information flow based on “social network” that he/she buildsElements of instant messaging  Interactions are brief and to the point, real time, “familiar” formatElements of wiki  Public nature of conversations encourages collaborative building of new knowledgeElements of blogging  Microblog, with easy linking to other resourcesPotential to meet needs of IM/KM professional and user preferences together?
    • 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.”
    • Reminder of context of findingsFindings 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 toolsTiming  Microblogging not mainstream in summer 2008
    • Priorities of information and knowledgemanagement professionalsKnow the value of social computing  Attendance at focus groups to enhance knowledgeSell message on value to the organisationPlay an active role in implementation planning  Choice of tools  Management of roll-out  Design of governance guidelinesBecome mediators in social computing business environmentsExplore microblogging
    • “Discussion” exercise part 11. Generate “Tweet fountain” for your table  http://www.ukeig.org.uk/conf2009/index.htmlSteps  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
    • “Discussion” exercise part 2Steps  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
    • Examplehazelh Learnt quite a bit about Zotero this morningPB Concerned that life is too short to get involved with TwitterEmilie Can anyone recommend a good X for doing Y in a small commercial library?Pascal Looking for reference site for Yammer installationDavid Anyone at SLA members’ day like to take same bus home after today’s session?hazelh @Pascal Think they use it at one of the big cell phone companies?Dawn @David Can give you a lift if you’re heading north?
    • Dissemination