Showing posts with label governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label governance. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Developing Governance for Wikis

Trust is the most essential element in the success of a wiki on your intranet or extranet.



Trust and transparency are absolutely necessary

Social networking applications like wikis, socialware, blogs and groups are sometimes implemented in the simple expectation that they will yield magical results. No thought is given to governance, and its role in driving success. Instead, social apps are driven by hype and expectations set by the fantastical growth numbers in public applications like FaceBook and Twitter, or the marketing around applications like SharePoint.

(Every organization with a SharePoint installation thinks it’s doing social networking. The reality is that if they have SharePoint they don’t have a clue about it: they most likely have a multitude of virtual webs that are defying unification in any sensible way.)

Let’s take blogs as an example of hype. Reading about blogs it’s tempting to think they are easy money spinners. The reality is that most blogs are never ever read, and those that are read need tens of thousands of hits per day to generate significant revenue.

Figuring out how to generate those hits is a big challenge, and this is no less true for your intranet or extranet wiki. Simply installing a wiki in the belief that it’s a better mousetrap won’t change anything. You might as well order a blue one or a yellow one, depending on your taste. Making a wiki work takes planning and effort. Self-organization, a key tenet of social networking, will only do so much.

To appreciate this, take a look at almost any group on FaceBook and figure out what are the tangible outcomes. Mind you, it’s not as bad as the narcissism in the wittering that goes on Twitter. Frankly it’s more interesting watching a pigeon toe-walk across an intersection. There’s more thought going on, and an identifiable context.

Governance Models

A successful wiki needs a governance model. There are three types of governance model:
  • Prescriptive

  • Descriptive

  • Reflexive
A prescriptive governance model is rule driven. Usually the rules are proscriptions with severe consequences specified: “Thou shalt never do such and such…severe infraction…full force of…including dismissal.” This is the first preference of most bureaucracies. By nature bureaucracies are driven by fear, not trust, and thus not open to innovation or to re-inventing their purpose. All organizations seeking to survive in a constantly changing world must periodically re-invent themselves.

A descriptive governance model is interpretive. It is based on guidelines. The organization trusts that its employees are mature enough to understand the guidelines, and to interpret them from day to day. The interpretations are usually context-specific. Sometimes the employees may make mistakes, and this is critical. Mistakes must be accepted (fear must be driven out), but this is where many organizations start to fail.

For example, a magazine publisher once derived great pleasure by finding typographical errors when the presses rolled, and calling the editor to complain. Many employees working in similar environments become fearful of what the CEO might think, and self-censor. This defeats the purpose of social-networking tools like wikis.

Governance has to be internally consistent. For example, if it claims to be a participatory democracy then no aspects of governance or content should be excluded from discussion and decision. Administrators at any level cannot suddenly declare fiat.

A reflexive governance model does not rely on outside authority for legitimacy. Governance is managed by the members of the social network. This model is entirely dependent on self-organization. It is not suited to business or government because it cannot be aligned with corporate business objectives.

Similarly, a prescriptive model cannot be aligned with corporate business objectives. The rules become barriers to achieving the innovation that defines social networking. Simply, if you need to be prescriptive, don’t plan to implement social-networking tools except in very narrow task-oriented ways.

A descriptive model based on trust is the best way forward for most organizations.

Developing Trust

Governance has to be based on mutual trust. Trust is a two-way street. Show trust and you will receive trust. Many people think that trust must be earned; whereas trust relationships develop when you first extend trust, inviting the other parties to reciprocate.

As shown in the opening graph, the trust effect is vitally important in a social network. The more open an organization, the more the participation rate increases. If the degree of trust is too low, the participation rate doesn’t reach an inflection point and the wiki stagnates.

This is best illustrated with the issue of moderation. Most wikis can be set so that content can be moderated or not. This goes to the heart of the trust issue. Managers worry inordinately about “what if someone posts some terrible thing?” The knee-jerk response is to require that all content be scrutinized by a moderator before it is released publicly. This is the old Web 1.0 publishing model.

If you don’t want to be as open as Sun Microsystems (see below), there is a middle ground. Don’t censor content but let other users flag questionable content. Flagged content can then be hidden by the wiki application and referred to a moderator for review and re-publishing.

This lets the members of the wiki exercise a form of peer review independent of management.

Building Trust

In a descriptive governance model, the discussion is steered so that it has an outcome that is aligned with a business objective. In effect, when people know the objective they can (and will) self-organize. Trust is built by:
  • Formalizing online deliberation

  • Becoming a trusted venue for controversial discussions

  • Being consistent
Be very focused. The narrower the purpose of a wiki, the more successful it will be. The obvious exception is a horizontal application like an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Most wikis are vertical applications in a specific domain.

Structure collaboration so that it has momentum toward an identified outcome. People should know the answers to questions like “what are we trying to do” and “why are we doing this”. Synchronize the collaboration with phases of workflow, so that in a sense it is gated. Recognize that gating decisions do not require 100% knowledge.

Encourage consensus building and accurately reflect dissent & minority positions.

Sun Microsystems shows trust by being very open. It allows any employee to create a public blog. Sun has only three governance directives:
  • Don’t do anything stupid

  • Write about something you know about

  • Make it interesting

NRCan also shows trust. Its wiki principles are:
  • Collaborative work environment
  • Free & open access

  • Code of conduct

  • No firm rules

  • Guidelines & procedures

Developing Governance

So how do we develop governance? The starting point is to strike a governance committee consisting of key stakeholders. This committee’s first task is to develop a clear understanding of the purpose of the wiki. The purpose should be expressed as part of a written charter that establishes the scope of the wiki.
Some of the issues that the governance committee needs to address are:
  • Decide basic values guiding organization & governance committee

  • Define success & cost-benefit

    • Establish performance measurement

  • Establish operating budget

  • Set expectations of participation committee members

  • Set expectations about attendance at committee meetings

  • Establish accountability framework for:

    • Committee

    • Committee members

  • Establish evaluation criteria for committee

  • Establish recruiting criteria & means for committee members

  • Define subcommittees

  • Establish training resources for committee members

  • Establish conflict resolution

  • How do members of the wiki committee deal with decisions when we disagree

  • Are committee meetings open

  • Should committee members promote the wiki

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Engaging Citizens through Social Networking

The rise of social networking tools on the Internet is changing the relationship between citizens and governments. Governments that fail to adapt risk a disconnect with their constituents and younger employees, and a rise in social unrest. Governments adopting social tools will engage their constituents in a more productive dialogue.

David Shaw © 2009

Social Networks

The rise of Web 2.0 social networking tools on the Internet is changing the relationship between citizens and governments. While the outcome is unknown, social tools may eventually facilitate the General Assembly of the world’s citizens. Already they provide a means for governments and other organizations to engage their constituents in a more productive community dialogue.

The shift has been so rapid and pervasive that it is hard to remember a world in which we were dependent on librarians and bricks and mortar reference libraries. Today, led by Generation Y, the NetGen, we use:
  • Google for answers
  • Wikipedia for information
  • FaceBook for socializing
  • MySpace for artistic communities
  • LinkedIn for business networking
  • Instant messaging for networking
  • Blackberry or iPhone for always on communications
  • Other ways of networking online
Depending on the authority, the NetGen was born 1981-1996 or 1977-1996 (6.5 million in Canada). Generally, baby boomers are defined as born in 1943-1960; and GenX in 1960-1980. The existence of these three demographic cohorts in the workplace creates a tension that should be understood not just by the HR department but also by managers and technologists seeking to adopt the collaborative web.

In particular the NetGen values speed, freedom, openness, innovation, mobility, authenticity and playfulness. Having grown up with open social applications they expect the same in the workplace.

Similarly citizens are adopting these tools to interact on a massive scale. Previously, governments only had to attend to special interests and lobbyists. Ordinary citizens could write letters, or organize a protest, and then be forgotten. Today, they can organize quickly on a national and international scale.

But without supporting governance frameworks, practices and guidelines it is hard for traditional organizations to achieve significant change. Fortunately, as Amazon shows, the technology can also be architected to resonate automagically around desired outcomes.

Still, in most cases NetGen will have to show the way in the workplace.

Web 2.0

Web 2.0, coined by Tim O’ Reilly in 2005, is an eclectic mix of technologies, social ideas and applications. Concepts such as Government 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 use Web 2.0 components in real-world collaborative applications.

Web 1.0 was largely static and proprietary. Organizations developed, revised, reviewed, approved and published content in mostly flat web pages.

O’Reilly’s map of Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is participatory, interactive, collaborative, and features a rich user experience. It is the collective commons. Typical components (mostly open source) for building collaborative applications are:
  • Wikis
  • Blogs
  • Forums
  • Messaging (chat, SMS text, etc.)

First Generation

The first generation of Web 2.0 applications embraced collaboration and connections in a limited way. For example, deploying wikis here and there will not drive volume in the desired outcomes.
Adopting wikis in an an organization in a static way

Wikipedia, while being an enormously successful collaborative platform, does not leverage social connections in any significant degree. Even FaceBook fails to capitalize fully on social connections. FaceBook is just a large address book.

FaceBook makes connections mainly between friends. If A knows B and B knows C, then it suggests A and C should be friends. FaceBook collects user profiles on books, movies, TV, groups, interests and so forth, but it doesn’t use these to build and match people on this type of synthetic profile.
Only 10.5 % of Wikipedia’s users are active

Second Generation

The second generation is typified by market leaders like Amazon and Google. Both are always exploiting your connections in the long tail to present you with new choices. As you make new selections, your connections morph and you are given a new list of choices. Amazon, for example, makes connections between books viewed, purchases, rankings, reviews, discounts and more.

All automagically.

These techniques are starting to be applied in issues-based wikis such as President Obama’s changegov.org and WhiteHouse.gov, and the Globe & Mail’s Public Policy Wiki.
Simple wiki framework that converts issues into an agenda

Driving Automagically

The challenge today is to integrate social tools using open APIs and semantic web techniques with fit-to-purpose social graphs. The goal is to drive volume in some desired outcome. The outcome could be sales, problems solved, reports written or whatever. To achieve this, the objects have to have properties, connections and a context.
Every object has properties, connections and context

But how do we amplify the signal above the noise threshold? One obvious way is to leverage existing connections. This drives word-of-mouth which begins to resonate amongst the connections. But it is impossible for even the largest organizations to attract and build resonate networks on the scale of Amazon, FaceBook, Google, or MySpace.

Connect supply to demand by amplifying word of mouth

There is no sense in trying to turn your public-facing application into an alternative social destination. It is much more effective to leverage existing networks. A variety of open standards makes it easy to rapidly develop complex social applications that interface with FaceBook, Google, LinkedIn, MySpace, etc.
Portal framework interfacing with FaceBook

After you’ve identified the desired outcomes, it is feasible to start to make connections that drive success automagically.
Social graphs resonate to drive new connections

Collaboration

Peering works well when the product is information or culture, and when tasks can be bite-sized chunks. People are motivated to participate by feeling good or by self-interest.

Personality types that feel good are those that like to solve problems, and/or build things. Those that are motivated by self-interest want to gain experience, exposure and acknowledgement, and connections.

Whatever the motivation, social networks in government quickly become a place to:
  • Share solutions about problems
  • Vent about experiences
  • Learn from each other
  • Solve problems
Critical success factors in achieving this are:
  • Leadership
  • Meritocratic principles of organization
  • Can’t be controlled but can be steered
  • Mix of hierarchy and self-organization
  • Narrow subject focus, charter
  • Promote self-organization
  • Voluntary participation in shared outcome
  • Mechanism for weeding out weak contributors
  • Openness – don’t protect all of the intellectual property
  • Roles & guidelines

Best Practices

Some best practices that have been derived in social applications are:
  • Solve real world tasks
  • Enable self expression
  • Embrace self-organization
  • Expose friend and associate activity
  • Drive communication
  • Browse the social graph
  • Build communities
  • Don’t restrict choice
  • Drive the head and the tail