• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Web 2.0 - The Social Web

Web 2.0 - The Social Web






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 2

http://www.linkedin.com 2



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.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Bienvenidos a estasesionparaintroducirnos y entender el concepto de Web 2.0Hubieraqueridoestarfisicamente con Uds. Nada se iguala al contacto personal, cara a cara, peroaprovechando la tecnologia y esoesalgoquevamos a verhoy, podemoshacerlo en forma virtual.Empecemos
  • Ese soy yo.Una de mispasiones y confiesoquetengovarias, es el tema de lasredessociales y la grancapacidad de estas de generacionobrasmaestras a traves de lo queyollamo Hyper Collaboration.Es asicomoyo me me he integrado a trabajarconjuntamente con Luis y Leonel en estosproyectosqueyollamo de evangelizacion.Trabajo y de ahicomo, en HP. Mi experienciaprofesionalesdiversa y gracias a Dios me ha permitidoconocermuchagente y culturasdiviersas.Aquitienen mi perfil o identidad digital paraseguir en contacto. Porciertoquemasadelantehablaremos de ello.
  • Estos son los temas.Hemosdecido con Luis abrirlo en dos sesiones, debido a la riqueza de contenido y en base a queestamosconvencidosque les va a ser de muchautilidad, y sobretodoofrecerlesunaampliaperspectiva del tema.
  • Iniciamos. En estarepresentacion, talvez no se note muybienproyectado. Reensambla un poco los distintosagentes de cambio en estaolaquellamaremos Web 2.0
  • Web 2.0 es un movimiento social, no es un paquete de tecnologias, comoexpresaadecuadamente Ross Mayfield. Unaevangelizadoratemprana de web 2.0Ross Mayfield is co-founder, Chairman and President, and former CEO[1] of Socialtext Incorporated, an enterprise social software company based in Palo Alto, California.[2] He is also a regular blogger and public speaker.
  • Estaesunarepresentaciongrafica de la historia de Web 2.0, que en realidad a sidounaevolucion en tiemposdemasiadorecientes.In 1989, while working at CERN, Tim Berners-Lee invented a network-based implementation of the hypertext concept. By releasing his invention to public use, he ensured the technology would become widespread.[50] For his work in developing the World Wide Web, Berners-Lee received the Millennium technology prize in 2004. One early popular web browser, modeled after HyperCard, was ViolaWWW.During the late 1980s, the first Internet service provider (ISP) companies were formed. Companies like PSINet, UUNET, Netcom, and Portal Software were formed to provide service to the regional research networks and provide alternate network access, UUCP-based email and Usenet News to the public. The first commercial dialup ISP in the United States was The World, opened in 1989.[33]A potential turning point for the World Wide Web began with the introduction[51] of the Mosaic web browser[52] in 1993, a graphical browser developed by a team at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (NCSA-UIUC), led by Marc Andreessen. Funding for Mosaic came from the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, a funding program initiated by the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 also known as the Gore Bill.[53] Indeed, Mosaic's graphical interface soon became more popular than Gopher, which at the time was primarily text-based, and the WWW became the preferred interface for accessing the Internet. (Gore's reference to his role in "creating the Internet", however, was ridiculed in his presidential election campaign. See the full article Al Gore and information technology).Mosaic was eventually superseded in 1994 by Andreessen's Netscape Navigator, which replaced Mosaic as the world's most popular browser. While it held this title for some time, eventually competition from Internet Explorer and a variety of other browsers almost completely displaced it. Another important event held on January 11, 1994, was The Superhighway Summit at UCLA's Royce Hall. This was the "first public conference bringing together all of the major industry, government and academic leaders in the field [and] also began the national dialogue about the Information Superhighway and its implications."[54]As the Web grew, search engines and Web directories were created to track pages on the Web and allow people to find things. The first full-text Web search engine was WebCrawler in 1994. Before WebCrawler, only Web page titles were searched. Another early search engine, Lycos, was created in 1993 as a university project, and was the first to achieve commercial success. During the late 1990s, both Web directories and Web search engines were popular—Yahoo! (founded 1994) and Altavista (founded 1995) were the respective industry leaders. By August 2001, the directory model had begun to give way to search engines, tracking the rise of Google (founded 1998), which had developed new approaches to relevancy ranking. Directory features, while still commonly available, became after-thoughts to search engines.Suddenly the low price of reaching millions worldwide, and the possibility of selling to or hearing from those people at the same moment when they were reached, promised to overturn established business dogma in advertising, mail-order sales, customer relationship management, and many more areas. The web was a new killer app—it could bring together unrelated buyers and sellers in seamless and low-cost ways. Visionaries around the world developed new business models, and ran to their nearest venture capitalist. While some of the new entrepreneurs had experience in business and economics, the majority were simply people with ideas, and didn't manage the capital influx prudently. Additionally, many dot-com business plans were predicated on the assumption that by using the Internet, they would bypass the distribution channels of existing businesses and therefore not have to compete with them; when the established businesses with strong existing brands developed their own Internet presence, these hopes were shattered, and the newcomers were left attempting to break into markets dominated by larger, more established businesses. Many did not have the ability to do so.The dot-com bubble burst on March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index peaked at 5,048.62[60] (intra-day peak 5,132.52), more than double its value just a year before. By 2001, the bubble's deflation was running full speed. A majority of the dot-coms had ceased trading, after having burnt through their venture capital and IPO capital, often without ever making a profit.Though differing from many current social networking sites in that it asks not "Who can I connect with?" but rather, "Who can I connect with that was once a schoolmate of mine?" Classmates.com proved almost immediately that the idea of a virtual reunion was a good one. Early users could not create profiles, but they could locate long-lost grade school chums, menacing school bullies and maybe even that prom date they just couldn’t forget. It was a hit almost immediately, and even today the service boasts some 40 million registered accounts.That same level of success can’t be said for SixDegrees.com. Sporting a name based on the theory somehow associated with actor Kevin Bacon that no person is separated by more than six degrees from another, the site sprung up in 1997 and was one of the very first to allow its users to create profiles, invite friends, organize groups, and surf other user profiles. Its founders worked the six degrees angle hard by encouraging members to bring more people into the fold. Unfortunately, this "encouragement" ultimately became a bit too pushy for many, and the site slowly de-evolved into a loose association of computer users and numerous complaints of spam-filled membership drives. SixDegrees.com folded completely just after the turn of the millenniumIn 2002, social networking hit really its stride with the launch of Friendster. Friendster used a degree of separation concept similar to that of the now-defunct SixDegrees.com, refined it into a routine dubbed the "Circle of Friends" (wherein the pathways connecting two people are displayed), and promoted the idea that a rich online community can exist only between people who truly have common bonds. And it ensured there were plenty of ways to discover those bonds.Introduced just a year later in 2003, LinkedIn took a decidedly more serious, sober approach to the social networking phenomenon. Rather than being a mere playground for former classmates, teenagers, and cyberspace Don Juans, LinkedIn was, and still is, a networking resource for businesspeople who want to connect with other professionals. In fact, LinkedIn contacts are referred to as "connections." Today, LinkedIn boasts more than 30 million members.More than tripling that number, according to recent estimates, is MySpace, also launched in 2003. Though it no longer resides upon the social networking throne in many English-speaking countries – that honor now belongs toFacebook in places like Canada and the UK – MySpace remains the perennial favorite in the USA. It does so by tempting the key young adult demographic with music, music videos, and a funky, feature-filled environment. It looked and felt hipper than major competitor Friendster right from the start, and it conducted a campaign of sorts in the early days to show alienated Friendster users just what they were missing.It is, however, the ubiquitous Facebook that now leads the global social networking pack. Founded, like many social networking sites, by university students who initially peddled their product to other university students, Facebook launched in 2004 as a Harvard-only exercise and remained a campus-oriented site for two full years before finally opening to the general public in 2006. Yet even by that time, Facebook was seriously big business, with tens of millions of dollars already invested, and Silicon Valley bigwigs such as billionaire PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel firmly behind it.The secret of Facebook’s success (it now currently boasts in excess of 150 million users) is a subject of some debate. Some point to its ease of use, others to its multitude of easily-accessed features, and still others to a far simpler factor – its memorable, descriptive name. A highly targeted advertising model certainly hasn’t hurt, nor did financial injections, such as the $60 million from noted Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing in 2007. Regardless, there’s agreement on one thing – Facebook promotes both honesty and openness. It seems people really enjoy being themselves, and throwing that openness out there for all to seTwitter. Essentially a micro-blogging "What are you doing at the moment?" site where users keep contacts informed of everyday events through bite-size morsels they post from their computer or handheld device, the service got off to a very good start when launched in 2006. Its continued popularity notwithstanding, Twitter has nevertheless come under some criticism for taking the "staying in touch" thing too farThe term "Web 2.0" was coined in 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, a consultant on electronic information design (information architecture). In her article, "Fragmented Future", DiNucci writes:[6][7][8]The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfulls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfulls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.Her use of the term deals mainly with Web design, aesthetics, and the interconnection of everyday objects with the Internet; she argues that the Web is "fragmenting" due to the widespread use of portable Web-ready devices. Her article is aimed at designers, reminding them to code for an ever-increasing variety of hardware. As such, her use of the term hints at, but does not directly relate to, the current uses of the term.The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2003.[9][10][11][12] These authors focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".[11] John Robb wrote: "What is Web 2.0? It is a system that breaks with the old model of centralized Web sites and moves the power of the Web/Internet to the desktop."[12]In 2004, the term began its rise in popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you".[13] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated Web 1.0 with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. For example,Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.[14]In short, Netscape focused on creating software, updating it on occasion, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasted this with Google, a company which did not at the time focus on producing software, such as a browser, but instead focused on providing a service based on data such as the links Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web search based on reputation through its "page rank" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process called "the perpetual beta". A similar difference can be seen between the Encyclopædia Britannica Online and Wikipedia: while the Britannica relies upon experts to create articles and releases them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in anonymous users to constantly and quickly build content. Wikipedia is not based on expertise but rather an adaptation of the open source software adage"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", and it produces and updates articles constantly. O'Reilly's Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, large companies, and technology reporters.In terms of the lay public, the term Web 2.0 was largely championed by bloggers and by technology journalists, culminating in the 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You).[15] That is, TIMEselected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites. In the cover story, Lev Grossman explains:It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTubeand the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.Since that time, Web 2.0 has found a place in the lexicon; in 2009 Global Language Monitor declared it to be the one-millionth English word.[16]
  • Peroesto ha sidounaevolucion. Y paraelloiniciemos de lo quellamaremos Human 1.0 o lo quesomosnosotroscuandointeractuamos en forma viva y directa. Este terminofueacunadoporFrancois Gossieaux en sulibro Hyper Social Organization. No esotracosanosotroscomohumanossomosanimalessociales. Fuimos la primeraespeciedondeconvivimos y intercambiamos con individuosque no son consanguineos, quenosintegramos en tribus o grupos de distintoorigen.Human 1.0Live, person-to-person interactionConventional social environments of neighborhoods, religious organizations, or schoolsSocialWeb 1.0Static content delivery systems such as web sites, message boards or list servesWeb 2.0Rich user-generated content and dynamic interaction. Mobile, ubiquitous, and continuous (real-time) computingSocial again!
  • Estascaricaturasnosmuestran los cambios de patrones en los usuarios
  • My yahoo, Google Homepage, myspaceFirefox extensions
  • Leverage customer-self service e.g. Google, StumbleUpon, orkut
  • Amazon, ebay - User reviews, similar items, most popular, Wikipedia – content can be added/edited by any web user,Flickr – tagging images Cloudmark – Spam emails
  • E.g. Amazon, Google, Ebay
  • Automate the maintenance process Real time monitoring of user behaviorMicrosoft – upgrades every 2-3 yrFlickr- Deploy new build up to every half hr“Put two or three new features on some part of the site everyday, and if user don’t adopt them, take them out. If they like them roll them out on entire site” - Anonymous
  • La tecnologiapor mucho tiemposeparo a los individuos y laslimitaciones de comunicacionhicieronquelascorporacionesutilizarnmecanismosmasivos de comunicacionparaenviar los mensajes TV, radio, publicidad. La comunicacion era 1 a muchos, con pocasposibilidades de tenerdialogoinverso. Llamo a esto la tirania de la publicidad.
  • Reciprocity – a reflex why are social being helping one anotherWe lie to ourselves and others, and we tell people what we think they want to hearHumans have an innate sense of fairness = keeps reciprocal society working
  • IS NOTPR by blogging press releases, lead gen by spamming community members, recruiting through spray and pray over Twitter, etc
  • Running programs based on human reciprocity and social contracts to get others, whose job it isn’t to do so, to help you do your job – customer support with the help of all employees and customers, product innovation with customers and detractors, etc.TAPPING INTO PASSION, AND HUMAN 1.0 TRAIT
  • Lurkers = mirones
  • Less interaction face-to-face (email), man-to-man (answer machine)Amazing difference when we have real connection, rich communication face-to-faceTrend to reduce the size of packages of information.Videoclips, podcast, powerpoint slidesTremendous risk to fell in absurd extremes
  • Search for any information platform to be valuable, its users must be able to find what they are looking forLinks are an excellent guide to what’s important and provide structure to online content.Authoring. Internet blogs and Wikepedia have shown that many people have a desire to authorTags. After better searching mechanisms, what experienced users wanted most from their companies’ intranet was better categorization of content. The categorization system that emerges from tagging is called a Folksonomy (a categorization system developed overt time by folks)Extensions. Moderately “smart” computers take tagging one step further by automating some of the work of categorization and pattern matching. They use algorithms to say to users, “if you liked that, then by extension you’ll like this.”Signals. Even with powerful tools to search and categorize platform content, a user can easily feel overwhelmed. Signal users when new content of interest appears (email alerts, syndication). Aggregators periodically queries sites of interest for new notices, downloads them, put them in order and display their headlines.
  • Lightweight Social ProcessesLow-barrier social involvement like voting and the recording of personal participationDIGGLast.fmCraiglistDel.icio.usAmazonNetvibesCollaborative information structuresCore product enhanced by a social component, deeper participation to interactFacebookOdeoDeveloper NetworksHigh End CollaborationGroups utilizing systems to make sense and share complex materials and dataOpen Source projectsCouchsurfing
  • Think, then shareRedo how you work and manage your dayYour contributions should be globally visible (everyone can access) and persistent (can be consulted and searched for)URL itLink to the reference; enrich your commentsPromote reuse of informationBe TransparentAuthenticSeed your repoPeople want the truthBe personalRight balance of virtual and face-to-face interactionsCollaboration is beyond a virtual workspace; it is a matter of peopleEngage People. Get PassionCreate you Digital IdentityBe secureContributeKeep simpleSet the stagePlace for people to meet and give and get help

Web 2.0 - The Social Web Web 2.0 - The Social Web Presentation Transcript

  • The Social Web
    nContacto - 2011
  • Who I am?
    Father of two boys
    Evangelist of business models based on collaboration and social networking.
    Chief Officer of nContacto
    Expert on Enterprise Communities of Practice
    WW Compliance Manager in the business of Printing Systems Management at HP
    Former CFO and Controller for Hewlett Packard Venezuela.
    Chemical Engineer (ITESO Guadalajara)
    MBA in Finance (ITESM campus Guadalajara)
    Experienced educator
    President of the Houston Chapter of the Mexican Talent Network
    Co-founder and active member of the Alumni Association ITESM in Houston (Ex-A-Tecs)
    Follow Me:
  • Topics
    What is Web 2.0 ?
    Principles of Web 2.0
    Understanding effects of Web 2.0
    How to start
    Enterprise 2.0
  • If time permits…
    The Long Tail
    Your Digital Identity
  • What is web 2.0?
  • “Web 1.0 was Commerce
    Web 2.0 is
    - Ross Mayfield
  • Web 2.0
    The term Web 2.0 refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate and share information online.
    closer experience to desktop applications than the traditional static Web pages (Web 1.0).
    allow for mass participation (web-based social software - blogs and wikis).
    the phrase refers to one or more of the following:
    The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality
    -> computing platforms serving web applications to end users
    Approach to creating and distributing Web content itself (open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and "the market as a conversation“)
    A more organized and categorized content
    A shift in economic value of the web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s
    A marketing term to differentiate new web businesses from those of the dot com boom
    The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and services
  • WWW was born!
    Web 2.0 Conference
    Mosaic (Netscape)
    .com Bubble
    Source: Wikipedia
  • Vastly increased scale of users and content….
    Source: Wikipedia
  • Social
    Technology and social factors converge to create social computing
    • Cheap hardware and software reach the masses
    • Computing power migrates to the edge of the network
    Technology increases the speed and force of social change
    Social forces shape technology development and custom applications
    Social change
    • Aging consumers look to technology to support families and communities
    • Younger generations pioneer the use of personal networks and viral communication
    Source: Forrester
  • What is Web 2.0? Biz view…
    • Web 2.0 represents a fundamental shift toward a more open, flexible and participatory model for creating content, systems and business models. Its application can reduce cost, enhance adaptability and create new business opportunities."
    The Gartner Group
    • Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet – a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects.
    Tim O’Reilly
  • Consumer mind-shifts...
    Only 42% of consumers say they even “somewhat” trust newspapers
    Consumer trust is falling
    Consumers are less brand loyal
    52% of consumers say brand trumps price, down from 59% in 2000
    Consumer-to-consumer activities growing
    C2C eCommerce, messaging, blogs, camera phones, video phones
    Consumers are customizing products and services
    10% - 40% of customers develop or modify products
    Source: Forrester
  • What’s Changed
    Web 2.0 attributes differ from those of traditional web apps in numerous ways
  • Web Evolution
    Social again!
  • Web 2.0
    Web 1.0
  • Web 2.0 Examples
  • Principles of web 2.0
  • Principles of Web 2.0
    No Products, but Services
    Focus on the “Long Tail”
    Harnessing Collective Intelligence
    Specialized Database
    Who owns the data
    End of Software Release Cycle
    Software above the level of a single device
  • No Products but Services
    “There are no products, only solutions”
    Not what customer wants but why they want
    A problem solving approach
    Simple Solutions
  • No Product but Services
  • Customization
    Every individual is unique
    Some people want to be different
    Allow him to choose instead of forcing him to use what you have made
    Make him feel home
  • Customization
    Screen clipping taken: 2/3/2011, 5:50 PM
    Screen clipping taken: 2/3/2011, 5:53 PM
  • Focus on the “Long Tail”
    Reach out to the entire web
    To the edges and not just to the centre, to the long tail and not the just the head
    Put everything there
    Leverage customer-self service
  • Focus on the “Long Tail”
  • Harnessing Collective Intelligence
    Network effects from user contribution are the key to market dominance in Web 2.0 era
    The Wisdom of crowds – Users add value
    Systems designed to encourage participation
    Pay for people to do it – ‘gimme five’
    Get volunteers to perform the same task
    Inspired by the open source community
    Mutual benefits e.g. P2P sharing
    It requires radical experiment in trust
  • Harnessing Collective Intelligence
  • Specialized Database
    Every significant application to date has been backed by a specialized database
    Database management is the core competency of Web 2.0 companies
    “Infoware” rather than merely “software”
  • Specialized Database
  • Who owns the data
    Control over data has led to market control and oversized financial returns
    It will provide a sustainable competitive advantage to the company
    Especially is data sources are expensive to create or amenable to increasing returns via network effects
    Race is to own certain classes of core data e.g. naukri.com, 99acre, yahoo
  • Who owns the data
  • End of the Software Release Cycle
    “Release Early and Release Often”
    “Perpetual BETA”
    Daily operations must become a core competency
    Software will cease to perform unless it is maintained on a daily basis
    Real time monitoring of user behavior
  • End of the Software Release Cycle
  • Software above the level of a Single Device
    The PC is no longer the only access device for internet applications
    Applications that are limited to a single device are less valuable than those that are connected.
    Design your application from the get-go to integrate services across handheld devices, PCs, and internet servers.
  • Software above the level of a Single Device
  • understanding effects of web 2.0
  • So to understand how to do business in a 2.0 world…
    You are better off understanding Human 1.0 – not as individuals, but as hyper-social creatures
    You do not need to understand the Web 2.0 technologies
  • It’s more about the people than the technology
  • Connect & Communicate
  • What’s happen?
  • What are the important Human 1.0 Hyper-Social Traits
    Reciprocity – it’s a reflex that allows us to be the only super-social species without all being brothers and sisters
    Social framework - Evaluating things vs. market framework
    Fairness - The role of fairness and punishment in assessing situations
    Mimicking Others - The importance of looking cool and imitating others
    Herding and self-herding – We like to gather
    Meritocracy – Status and reputation matters
    Source: The Hyper-Social Organization – F. Gossieaux & E. Moran
  • Hyper-Social companies think differently: a recap
    Think tribe – not market segment
    We need to find groups of people who have something in common based on their behavior, not their market characteristics
    Think knowledge network – not information channel
    The most important conversations in communities happen in networks of people, not between the company and the community.
    Think human-centricity – not company-centricity
    The human has to be at the center of everything you do, not the company
    Think emergent messiness – not hierarchical fixed processes
    People will want to see responses to their suggestions, even if it does not fit your community goals – FAST
    Source: The Hyper-Social Organization – F. Gossieaux & E. Moran
  • Turning a business process into a social process
    Running traditional programs using social media platforms
    Source: The Hyper-Social Organization – F. Gossieaux & E. Moran
  • Turning a business process into a social process
    Running programs based on human reciprocity and social contracts to get others
    Source: The Hyper-Social Organization – F. Gossieaux & E. Moran
  • communities
  • A community
  • A domain of interest
    Gosport Allotment Holders & Gardeners Association
  • A place to meet
  • Someone to facilitate
  • 3 Types of Communities
    Communities of Passion - have the richest and most formal set of activities, governance, and structure
    Communities of Practice - are less formal and are based on common work specialties
    Communities of Interest - are for topics that don’t require formal communities but need threaded discussions for collaboration and knowledge sharing
  • Communities of Passion
    • Members have a particular role (e.g., project management)
    • Develops members to fit into this role, be proficient in this role, and actively help others to develop in this role
    • Motivation: master the discipline
  • Communities of Practice
    • Members have a particular specialty (e.g., security)
    • Various roles can participate
    • Focused on developing expertise and skills in this specialty
    • Motivation: learn about the specialty and solve problems
  • Communities of Interest
    • Loosely connected groups of people who want to learn about a particular topic
    • No commitment in terms of delivering something together
    • Motivation: stay current on the topic and ask questions
    facebook.com Group EXATEC HOUSTON - ITEMS
  • Richard McDermott on Communitieswww.mcdermottconsulting.com
    Healthy communities have a driving purpose, clear activities, and a sense of accomplishment
    Communities are becoming integrated into organizations
    Community facilitationand participation are real work and require time
    Core community members are well-connected through meetings and ongoing contact
    Healthy communities have high management expectations and support
    The heart of a community of practice:
    peer-to-peer relationships
    responsibility for stewarding a body of knowledge
    membership crosses boundaries
    room for dealing with whatever comes up
  • Patterns of contribution
    1% active contributors
    9% occasional contributors
    The 1-9-90 rule
    Number of contributions
    90% readers (aka ‘lurkers’)
    Number of participants
    Source:Jacob Nielsonwww.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html
  • The “1% Rule”
    For every 100 people online only 1 person will create content and 10 will “interact” with it. The other 89 will just view it.
    Each day at YouTube there are 100 million downloads and 65,000 uploads
    50% of all Wikipedia article edits are done by 0.7% of users, and more than 70% of all articles have been written by just 1.8% of all users
    In Yahoo Groups, 1% of the user population might start a group; 10% of the user population might participate actively. 100% of the user population benefits from the activities of the above groups
    Source: The Guardian
  • Members of an active community
  • How to start
  • Levels of Engagement
    Become an expert
    Become a mentor
    Write a blog
    Ask a question
    (with attribution)
    (with attribution)
    Level of engagement
    Waxing and Waning Interest
    Browse, search, learn
    Type of engagement
  • Start Contributing
    Identify Yourself
    Search & Explore Content
    Know more About
    Save & Share Links / Bookmarks
    Store & Distribute Documents
  • Start Contributing
    Express & Discuss Ideas
    Communicate & Get Feedback
    Learn & Share Knowledge
    Produce & publish content
    Invite to Events
    Work together
  • Enterprise 2.0
  • The “Long Tail” of Work
    Enriched jobs, several roles
    Broad span of control, flat organizations
    Tons of emails daily
    Calendar overloaded of meetings and calls
    3-digits number of direct contacts
    People located around the world
    Multi-language, multi-cultures
    Phone, email, instant messaging, virtual meetings, twitter, facebook, etc.
    Did I mention face-2-face (occasionally)?
    Only 24 hours at day…..
  • Fundamental Shifts on Organizations
    More virtual, few human interaction
    Communities requires face-to-face meetings
    Micro formats of knowledge
    PowerPoint slides, no longer reports
    People is not reading, they are scanning
    Tragedy of knowledge common sense
  • Balancing the Growing Costs
  • Exploration & Production
    Senior VP
    Formal vs. Informal Structures
    What Do You Notice When You Compare the Formal and Informal Structures?
    Formal Structure (Org Chart)
    Informal Structure (revealed in ONA)
  • Enterprise 2.0
    Informal, less structure, knowledge-based work of a company
    Balance of formal structures and informal networking
    IT enabled application of Web 2.0 to corporate environment
    Enterprise-wide Social Networks
  • Components of Enterprise 2.0
    Six components (SLATES):
  • Levels of Collaboration
    Groups utilizing systems to make sense and share complex materials and data
    Core product enhanced by a social component, deeper participation to interact
    Low-barrier social involvement like voting and the recording of personal participation
  • Key decisions needed for success
    A Receptive Culture
    A Common Platform
    An Informal Rollout
    Managerial Support
  • usability
  • UsabilityPrinciples
    • Don’tmake me think
    Simple, Selfevident, obious, self-explanatory
    • Easyto Use
    We don't read pages. We scan them
    Clear visual hierarchy
    Use conventions
    Break up pages into clearly defined areas
    Make it obvious what’s clickable
    Keep the noise down to a dul roar
    We satisfice
    We don't figure out how things work.
    We muddle through
  • Usability Principles
  • Web Navigation 101
    • Few clicks to get anywhere
    No more than 3 clicks; 2 is a good goal
    • Omit needless words
    Happy talk must die
    Instructions must die
    • A well designed page should be able to answer these questions:
    What site is this? (site ID)
    What page am I on? (page name)
    What are the major sections of this site? (sections)
    What are my options at this level? (local navigation)
    Where am I in the scheme of things? (“you are here” indicators)
    How can I search?
  • Your digital identity
  • Socialize
    Think, then share
    URL it!
    Be Transparent
    Be Personal
    Be reciprocal
    Set the stage
  • Create your Digital Identity
    Show who you are
    Express yourself
    Know your tools
    Keep simple
    Know your audience
    My profile
    My blog
    My feeds
    My tags
    My pictures
    My presentations
    My places
    My videos
  • Me - First
  • Personal Identity
  • Company Identity
  • The long tail
  • Understandingthe Long TailA powerlaw
  • Where are they all going?
  • Savagely truncated
    Box office
  • An example of the Long Tail
  • Six Themes of the Long Tail age
    There are far more niche goods than hits
    Cost of reaching those niches is now falling dramatically.
    New “filters” can drive demand down the Tail
    Once there’s a massively expanded variety and the filters to sort throught it, the demand curve flattens
    There are so many niche products that collectively they can compromise a market rivaling the hits.
    Then, the natural shape of demand is revealed
    A Long Tail is just culture unfiltered by economic scarcity
  • Three Forces of the Long Tail
  • references
  • Bibliography
  • Bloggraphy
  • Slidegraphy
    Web 2.0 – The Social Web (this presentation!)
    What is Web 2.0
    Web 2.0 Tools to inspire
    Web 2.0
    An introduction to Web 2.0
    Webinar: The Hyper-Social Organization
  • Follow Me!
  • Thanks!