New Focus For Wiki That!

Dave Pollard (“How To Save The World”) observes the lagging adoption of social networking tools and he is wondering why. He notes that…

One of the purposes of the new flood of social networking tools is to try to organize, facilitate and improve the effectiveness of conversations and collaborative activities. The power and promise of these tools was and is considerable, and a year ago Steve Barth even predicted the demise of group e-mails (in favour of next-gen wikis and other more dynamic tools). But most of these tools remain underused or hardly used at all….

Amen - on both counts. For all the hype in the blogosphere, I have seen very few examples of social networking tools actually being used in the enterprise, nonprofit, or civic arena.

Pollard identifies three categories of the population by the percentages each has adopted certain types of tools – the majority use phone, email, and face-to-face meetings; 20% of the population uses Skype, discussion forums, and weblogs; and a mere 2% use collaborative Web 2.0 tools like wikis. 20% seems high for that middle group and I am fairly certain the majority of that 2% in the last group are still from the technical developer ranks.

David Wilcox (“Designing For Civil Society”) agrees with Pollard’s observations and has seen the same thing in the world of civic involvement.….

It's reassuring, if depressing, to find global networker and commentator Dave Pollard reflecting my own more limited experience of the extent to which people use online tools. He identifies a 80/20 professional digital divide…. My general experience is that maybe one in ten people in nonprofits and public organisations that I meet go beyond basic email and web.…

Amen again (and 1 in 10 is way too high). Wilcox also makes this very insightful observation …

So many commentators on social networking concentrate on the 2 per cent of enthusiasts, throw in more tools and exhortation, and I think can just end up making people feel yet more depressed and disempowered.

In other words, if you ain’t in the choir, the preacher ain’t talkin’ to you.

Pollard and Wilcox have pointed out how Web 2.0 is missing the mark and this cuts to the chase of where I want to go with this blog going forward. I want to have a more dedicated focus on nonprofits. I’ve added nonprofit-focused organizations, blogs, support sites, and volunteer opportunities to my blogrolls and I’ve gotten rid of the esoteric navel-gazing blogs that pretty much have no impact on anybody’s life (A-listers or not).

Web 2.0 bloggers are obsessed with ‘the next big thing’ in mash-ups, social sites, open source gizmos, or public wikis. As soon as a topic gets some traction, everyone in this very small but vocal community is talking about it ad nauseum. While there are some anecdotal examples of effective real world uses for Web 2.0 tools, most of it remains a mystery to the real people in civic or work groups who could actually use and benefit from it.   

All these technologies and heavy traffic sites appear to be ‘ends’ in and of themselves as opposed to a ‘means’ to an end – which is what small groups of people working to a defined goal really need. Personally I think we need a lot less ‘talk’ about Web 2.0 technologies and start demonstrating some actual ‘walk’ with examples of where it is (or should be) working.

So why am I focusing on wikis and nonprofits? Not that I’ll stop writing about Enterprise opportunities since all mission based groups have the same attributes and challenges, but the Enterprise arena has some special obstacles that I have just grown tired of banging my head on.

The problem with the Enterprise arena (aside from the usual cultural issues) is that many of the changes an organization could employ are good but implementing them requires a literal pit stop. Since the daily business of business doesn’t allow for pit stops, one is constantly trying to change the tires in the middle of the race. It just doesn’t happen without a pit stop and a crew that knows what it is doing. When a pit stop IS approved, the pit crew doesn’t seem to know a tire wrench from a pineapple.

The nonprofit arena on the other hand has some special opportunities that would be incredibly satisfying to have a hand in realizing and the cultural obstacles are not quite so frustrating as they are in the Enterprise. Doing things effectively in the Enterprise world is hardly ever appreciated and, as I mentioned in a post some time ago, cheap solutions are not taken seriously in the Enterprise world. At least in the nonprofit world, doing something effectively AND cheaply is seen as a virtue.

Real work in the nonprofit world, like the Enterprise world, is small groups collaborating for the purpose of actually achieving some defined objective. We are constantly involved in multiple dynamic groups and concurrent projects. Whether you are an Enterprise worker or a nonprofit volunteer, you are typically working in 10-20 groups or projects of varying size, scope, and members at any given time. 

It never changes. What also never changes is the convoluted way these groups operate and the missed opportunities of the Web 2.0 wave (which is the essence of the Pollack and Wilcox posts). 

Wikis hold a huge potential for nonprofits to radically improve their service delivery model - far more than any other Web 2.0 tool. I want to see that light go on for as many nonprofits as I can motivate.

But, nonprofits also have a problem (again, aside from the culture and resistance to change) - It’s the lack of any incentive for using it. What would motivate nonprofit supporters and participants to use a collaborative social networking tool instead of email?

What if, in the course of using this new and effective way to collaborate for services delivered, there was a financial payoff for the nonprofit, as well? Isn’t there a way for nonprofits to realize significant revenue like the current online ad channels do?

There is a way to do this. I have a model in mind that can generate lots of ad revenue for nonprofits as a passive revenue stream (the more they use it, the more they make) but that is something I’ll be pursuing through other avenues.

Comments

[Bill Seitz]

You mean greater effectiveness isn't a sufficient motivator?

Ad revenue is a motivator for people who are navel-gazing, not for people who are focused on getting things done.

[Kris]

Bill - no, trust me, greater effectiveness is NOT a sufficient motivator. I've been in the enterprise and volunteer world since well before PCs were even heard of and, with the exception of email (which was driven by forces outside the typical enterprise), any improvements in effectiveness are fought tooth and nail.

The target audience I am talking about IS focused on getting things done and is not chained to the PC. Its just a convenient tool to get email. They ARE frustrated at the convoluted way normal groups in the civic and enterprise world operate and communicate. These people could leverage Web 2.0 tools if they only knew about it. Web 2.0 prognosticators could show them the way if only they had something to actually accomplish.

Maybe clicking on ads is a motivation for people with nothing to do but surf the internet gazing at other people's navel-gazing, but I doubt the ads OR the ad revenue is much of a consideration for the typical navel-gazing blogger. Ad 'revenue' is a motivator for people who own the ad channels.

There is a synergy to be had here by active group supporters, Web 2.0 tools (especially wikis), and ad revenue for nonprofits who can benefit from both the productivity AND the additional funding.

By the way, I am actually fairly new to the wiki world and your comment prompted me to check out your work - interesting stuff.

[Hans Henrik H. Heming]

I don’t agree with you. Maybe it’s my bad English skills, but if I have understood you right you say that there is no corporate use for the tool provides in the web2.0-arena – The Social Software Landscape?

My own little company – based in Copenhagen, Denmark – uses the tools provided in the Social Software Landscape as a profound toolbox to provide alternative processes to complex innovation/knowledge problems.

But isn’t it so that the discourse, when it comes to Web2.0, is based on advantages established in the external communication area as PR or advanced marketing? And that the results here are limited in comparison to internal use?

Just some thoughts…..

[Kris]

Hans - I am starting to think that perhaps I am the one with the bad English skills.

Seriously, this blog is nothing if not a forum promoting the use of wikis in the enterprise and civic arena. The only reason I started writing this blog is that I see opportunities for wikis EVERYWHERE. I didn't say there is no use for Web 2.0 tools in the corporate arena. What I DID say is that I have seen very little adoption of these tools in the corporate arena and that has been very frustrating.

Your "little company" is no doubt very young and its employees (you) understand the benefits of these online tools. Unfortunately, you and business people like you represent an infinitesimally small percentage of the business population who recognizes these benefits. I made the point in my post (as did Pollard and Wilcox) that nonprofits have also failed to adopt these tools but my theory is that the benefits are equal to the corporate arena AND the obstacles to adoption will be lower.

Yes, of course the discourse is intended as external communication to generate awareness, experimentation, traction, and adoption. My point is that the 'external' piece of that is not happening. The discourse is primarily within the ranks of the Web 2.0 bloggers talking amongst themselves. The awareness of the phenomenon barely registers with companies that are more than 10 years old and it is in these companies tha 99%+ of the population works.

Hans, the problem with the discourse on the blogoshere to date is that it is all about those 'cool early adopters' who get it. Very few writers/consultants out there are taking on a more adversarial approach to challenge those who need to use it to go out and try it and to challenge those who get it to get out there and start force-feeding it to organizations that really need it.

Yes, it's all about the discourse but the preachers need to go beyond preaching to the choir. I suppose that one irony of the Web 2.0 trend is that for such a great communication medium, the intended audience is not only not hearing the message, they aren't even aware the communication is taking place.

[Hans Henrik H. Heming]

Kris – thanks for clarification :-)

I agree 100% with you. Years back – in 2003 and 2004 I wrote a lot my self about corporate blogging and the use of different social tools. At a point in time I got stuffed up with all the blogpost telling the “stupid crowd” what was right and wrong. At that time I decided not to talk about the possibilities but showing by doing…….I’ve done since.

Your right – the potential is huge out there, and the development in the companies like Microsoft and IBM is telling us that we are on the right track. We are reaching the tipping point with high speed…..

…..but of course it’s going to slow – my bank is telling me all the time :-)

AND – I’ll begin to read your VERY interesting blog more regulary – you deserve that!