That's tough advice for IT folks who may be more comfortable with technology
than psychology or sociology. However, you're absolutely right!

Thanks for the link.

- Mary

That's tough advice for IT folks who may be more comfortable with technology
than psychology or sociology. However, you're absolutely right!

Thanks for the link.

- Mary

E2.0 is also about people just as much. Pull the people out of it and it falls flat on its face.

I've been musing this topic as much as just change and about week ago wrote that E2.0 is about people, and people don't scale http://bit.ly/1tOmgX

If you can't engage people, don't talk about E2.0. You won't sound good.

Dennis

It's a clever use of feedback loops to establish value and create the
perception of peer pressure. I wonder how many folks engaged in E2.0
implementations provide the usage data to management, yet forget to provide
that data to the rank and file as a way to bolster the feedback loops.

Thanks for some excellent guidance, Dan.

- Mary

Touting activities, and rewarding activities, whether by simple call-out (most posts, most valued posts, most views, most comments, etc.) or more explicit “rewards” (and not necessarily money, BTW), creates an ongoing feedback loop – at some point, as long as people continue to see value, the system levels out and wouldn't require visible feedback – but even then, it still helps.

Contrast this with many pre-2.0 systems – no sense of how content is used, who is using it, perhaps who's contributing it, how current it is, etc.. And this is why companies may pay for 1,000 seats of a “1.0″ system, and only have 50 people actually using the system. Not to mention the interfaces very often make it more painful to use the system than any other given alternatives.

Marshaling the evidence makes sense to me. And, I can see how it would be
helpful for a variety of reasons to track this information. However, does
it have an impact on rate of adoption or is it mainly to document the ROI
for management?

- Mary

Yes, stacking the deck would refer to stories as the viral message that's conveyed, while also making all the EVIDENCE (or social proof as some might call it) that the system is being used – # of comments, # of users, most commentors, highest rated, etc.. It's part of making things “transparent” that, in my humble experience, many people miss entirely. If it's not obvious that these systems are being used… a LOT… to great effect (affect?), then while it's not impossible to have success with 2.0 systems, it's a lot less likely.

As I also said in that presentation (and say often) – Luck is not a strategy. It certainly helps, but if that's the strategy, whew, better be rubbing the genie lamp 24/7…

Dan

Thanks very much. I like your notion that stories are more likely than facts to go viral. This suggests that a key part of the implementation should be finding ways to find and distribute those stories. Is this part of what you call in your slides “stacking the deck”?

- Mary

Not to mention that stories or similar approaches are far more likely to “go viral” than mere facts. Infect the early adopters, and spread around as much of the glory and awareness of these stories as possible, and it's much easier to get emergence to happen by setting the stage appropriately.

I did a presentation on virality and emergence, with the example from Web 2.0 that could absolutely be applied to Enterprise 2.0. See:
http://www.slideshare.net/dan.keldsen/emergence...