Opportunity and risk in social computing environments

Centre for Social Informatics, Edinburgh Napier University Dr Hazel Hall, Reader Shooresh Golzari, Intern

TFPL Ltd, London Melanie Goody, Director of Consultancy Belinda Blaswick, Consultant

Opportunity and risk in social computing environments

Centre for Social Informatics

Social informatics Design and use of information and communication technologies

taking into account institutional and cultural contexts

CSI focus Sociotechnical interaction at different levels of the organisation at

different stages of the system life-cycle

Staffing 8 members based at Edinburgh, plus associates Home to the International Teledemocracy Centre

Reputation 85% research output international/world class (RAE 2008)

http://staff.napier.ac.uk/News/ITCtotakepartindigitalinclusionconference

Edinburgh Napier UniversityJohn Napier

C16th mathematician and philosopher Decimal point, logarithms Born 1550 Merchiston Tower

Craiglockhart 1916-1919 military hospital Meeting of Wilfred Owen and Siegfried

Sassoon 1917 Owen’s Anthem for Doomed Youth and

Dulce et Decorum Est

Today 13,500 students Research excellence in a number of areas

TFPL Ltd, London

Services Recruitment Consultancy Training

Including networks and events TFPL Connect, SharePoint Summits

Scope Knowledge management Information management Records management Content management Library and information services management

Edinburgh Napier – TFPL connection

Track record of joint research - TFPL

Royal Academy of Engineering secondment 2006 E-information roles (with Blaswick) – ASIS&T 06 Maximising value from communities consortium

Track record of joint research – Hall & Goody Outsourcing of research and information services (2005/6

LIRG/Elsevier Research Award) KPMG as case study for doctoral work

http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~hazelh/esis/hazel_publications.html#phd

http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~hazelh/esis/hazel_publications.html#phd

Room demographics

Who uses what for purposes of collaborative work? Blogs? Wikis? Social networking? Instant messaging? Microblogging?

Anyone think this is trivial? Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7RrHXNyONc

Purposes of the study

Establish main opportunities and risks of social computing tools within organisations for collaborative work purposes, as perceived by information and knowledge management professionals

Meet general interest of TFPL’s client base Inform TFPL’s training and consultancy portfolio Serve as pilot for larger, externally-funded piece of work

Possible repeat study summer 2009



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



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



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 1

Scale of implementation

Organisational uptake of social computing Levels of adoption Degree of access to tools

In general By tool By tool function

Attitudes of IM/KM staff to social computing In general By tool

Research focus 2

Perceived opportunities: anticipated and actual

Literature review highlighted:

increased collaboration improved productivity enhanced IM practice positive cultural change

Research focus 3

Perceived risks: feared and realised

Literature review highlighted:

lowered productivity - time-wasting erosion of IM practice, e.g. for archiving and accessing exchanges compromised security antisocial behaviour

Research activities – 12 weeks summer 08

Literature review

Data analysisQuantitative – ExcelQualitative – manual

Design of data collection tools and data collection

Web-based surveyFocus groupsTelephone interviews

Writing up

Weeks 1-2

Weeks 3-8

Weeks 8-12

Weeks 10-12

Data subjects

Population TFPL contacts

Direct, e.g. clients, attendees at SharePoint Summits Indirect, e.g. through the Scottish Information Network

Invitation to participate Face-to-face at TFPL Connect meeting June 2008 Survey and focus groups: by e-mail invitation

Possible to attend focus group, but not complete survey

Interviews: volunteers left contact details on survey

Study contributions

Data set Data derived from Number of contributions

1 Web-based survey 57

2 London focus group 13

3 Glasgow focus group 12

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.

Survey majority from public sector organisations.

Organisation size = median 725 employees.

Data collected, recorded & analysed

Set Data collected Recording and analysis

1 Tool uptake within organisation; governance of tools; attitudes to opportunity and risk; challenges; demographic data

Excel for analysis of quantitative data.Qualitative data coded up and analysed manually.

2&3 Participant reactions to, and discussions of, preliminary results of web-based survey.

Recorded as Word files and content integrated into report under main themes as derived from analysis of survey data. Also posted to TFPL blog, e.g. http://blog.tfpl.com/tfpl/2008/07/index.html

3 Participant experience of implementation: as executed, planned or not yet undertaken

Recorded as Word files and content integrated into report under main themes as derived from analysis of survey data.

Focus group held at IDOX/TFPL offices in London (23/07/08)

Hazel and Shooresh based at Napier in EdinburghFocus group held at

IDOX offices in Glasgow (31/07/08)

Melanie and Belinda based at TFPL in London

Respondents to web-based survey (07-14/07/08) and participants in telephone interviews (28/07 -01/08/08) based across the UK

Uptake of social computing 1

Range in levels of adoption

From non-provision... ... to sophisticated implementations that integrate “consumer”

applications with licensed systems Sense that study may have come “too early”

High number of “don’t know” and “neutral” responses to survey questions

Two thirds of respondents who provided additional free text comments at end of survey noted impacts on social computing initiatives in their organisations were yet to be felt

Interviewees cautious in drawing firm conclusions

Uptake of social computing 2

Levels of access – survey respondents with access Higher levels in public sector (yet greater deployment in private) Licensed plus “consumer” tools: 57.7% Licensed system only: 31.7% “Consumer” tools only: 11.5% Organisations that restrict access: 24%

Encouragement to adopt social computing tools 26.5% “high” 32.4% “moderate” 41.2% “low”

Public sector organisations more enthusiastic than private

Enthusiasm amongst IM and KM staff 1

Levels of enthusiasm for social computing amongst IM and KM staff = high Increases collaboration and improves productivity in general

Facilitates knowledge and information sharing Connects individuals and groups Widens communication channels

Enhances IM practice More obvious and better organisation of resources Consolidation of material and reduction of silos 24 hour access

Induces positive cultural change (especially social networking) Widens employee choice retention (social networking) 55% involved in decision making around social computing tools

“

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 1

Low organisational encouragement in the deployment of tools

41% “low” encouragement Few efforts in change management and training, even where there

has been heavy investment

Implementation concerns 2

Biggest risk Failure to capitalise on opportunities offered by social computing

tools due to poor implementation management Respondents familiar with this risk from earlier experiences, e.g.

intranet developments from mid-90s onwards This risk is not considered in the literature

“Like most things it’s about cultural change. A tool (however clever) can be used well/badly. Therefore usual considerations apply around what purpose does it serve, selling it to the business, understanding business benefits/risks, giving staff skills to use [it/them] properly, providing standards and guidance around use, encouraging good practice.”

Less prominent risks

IM problems Information sprawl (but not overload); archiving; means of

accessing archives; (version control and information quality)

Compromised security (Legal infringement and disrepute theoretically valid, though not

realised in practice); some leakage of confidential information

Lowered productivity Coping with IM problems; failure to adopt social computing tools “If employees are going to waste time, they do not need social

computing tools to do it”

(Anti-social behaviour)

Top tools for IM and KM professionals

Rank Tool Opportunities Risks posed

1 Wikis Information sharing; IM practice; productivity

Information quality in terms of wiki accuracy; leakage of confidential data

2 Blogs Connecting individuals & groups; widening communication channels

Disrepute; leakage of confidential data

3 Social networking

Positive cultural change & widened employee choice

Leakage of confidential data

Tool availability & usefulness

Availability Usefulness

Wikis Wikis

Blogging Blogging

Social networking Instant messaging

Instant messaging Social networking

Microblogging Microblogging

Tool availability, usefulness & usage


Wikis Wikis

Blogging Blogging




Usage

Social networking

Instant messaging

Wikis

Blogging

Microblogging

Tool availability, usefulness & usage


Wikis Wikis

Blogging Blogging




Usage

Social networking

Instant messaging

Wikis

Blogging

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…

Microblogging

Elements of social networking End user determines source of information flow based on “social

network” that he/she builds

Elements of instant messaging Interactions are brief and to the point, real time, “familiar” format

Elements of wiki Public nature of conversations encourages collaborative building of

new knowledge

Elements of blogging Microblog, with easy linking to other resources

Microblogging

Elements of social networking End user determines source of information flow based on “social

network” that he/she builds

Elements of instant messaging Interactions are brief and to the point, real time, “familiar” format

Elements of wiki Public nature of conversations encourages collaborative building of

new knowledge

Elements of blogging Microblog, with easy linking to other resources

Potential to meet needs of IM/KM professional and user preferences together?

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 findings

Findings align to priorities of information management roles: providing access to resources and information governance Wikis as open tools for the capture of knowledge made explicit in

the form of information are rated highest Collaborative value of social networking applications is less

“visible”

Other groups, other priorities e.g. in the same organisations Human Resources staff may see

greater evidence of inappropriate use of tools

Timing Microblogging not mainstream in summer 2008

Priorities of information and knowledge management professionals

Know the value of social computing Attendance at focus groups to enhance knowledge

Sell message on value to the organisation

Play an active role in implementation planning Choice of tools Management of roll-out Design of governance guidelines

Become mediators in social computing business environments

Explore microblogging

“Discussion” exercise part 1

1. Generate “Tweet fountain” for your table http://www.ukeig.org.uk/conf2009/index.html

Steps Individuals need Twitter user names: help invent names for those

who do not already have them (You are one another’s followers) As individuals write tweets on post-its: one 140 character tweet

(English or French) per post-it, including user name Observations/thoughts: “Going to check out Zotero after seminar” News/PR: “My organisation is doing X” Information delivery (current awareness): “Here’s a great resource…” Questions: “Does anyone know about Y?”

Arrange tweets on the wall in order of appearance

“Discussion” exercise part 2

Steps If you would like to respond to a tweet generated by one of the

people you “follow” (i.e. same table members), do so with post-its. Preface them with @username at the top so it’s clear to which tweet you are responding.

Switch tables (together) Check what the other tables have been “discussing”

See if there are individuals whose contributions are such that you would like to “follow” them

If appropriate (and not too chaotic), add responses to the tweet fountains of the other tables

Examplehazelh Learnt quite a bit about Zotero this morning

PB Concerned that life is too short to get involved with Twitter

Emilie Can anyone recommend a good X for doing Y in a small commercial library?

Pascal Looking for reference site for Yammer installation

David Anyone at SLA members’ day like to take same bus home after today’s session?

hazelh @PascalThink they use it at one of the big cell phone companies?

Dawn @DavidCan give you a lift if you’re heading north?

Dissemination

Opportunity and risk in social computing environments

Documents

Transcript of Opportunity and risk in social computing environments