Blog

01 July 2008

Links last week - 080629

The following is a selection of links collected from 23rd to 29th June. Shared via Google Reader, FriendFeed and Twitter. Organised roughly by library category: Systems and the elements - People, Information and Technology.

Systems

People

Information

Technology

Microsoft

And finally, funny image of the week, courtesy of Bob Sutton's blog:

What to receive this list via email? Instructions to subscribe can be found under Newsletter

posted by Joining Dots at 1:31 PM.   Permalink 0 comments links to this post

25 June 2008

The value in Twitter

This is a post about Twitter. If you've never used or heard about Twitter, the Wikipedia page for Twitter will give you a brief introduction. Come back when you've read it. :-)

I love Twitter. Twitter has introduced me to some great people and really demonstrates the value in weak connections. Strong connections inevitably create an echo chamber - if you are talking to the same people sharing the same interests and opinions, deja vu becomes familiar :-) I remember reading a Japanese quote once, went along the lines: "If more than two people are in agreement, at least one is not required." Kind of makes sense. (I've got a feeling it was as harsh as: If two people are in agreement...) Weak ties broaden your horizons and connect you to a whole new group of people. Diversity thrives on weak connections. And diversity is great for challenging assumptions and generating new ideas.

People often ask if Twitter is just a simplified version of Instant Messaging. Nope. With Instant Messaging (IM), you have a list of contacts you can chat to. But to chat means to specifically start a conversation, to interrupt. With Twitter, you can talk at will, regardless of whether or not anyone is listening (simple tip: Tweet rubbish and nobody will). If people don't want to be interrupted, they simply ignore Tweetsville. They don't have to set their status to Busy or pretend to be Offline to avoid a conversation. To Tweet or not (and to follow or not) is entirely optional, for all sides of the conversation.

Instant Messaging (IM) is about strongly-connected networks. You start a conversation with someone who is on your contacts list or if you know their IM address. You can't see other conversations unless you are specifically invited into them. There is no serendipity in IM. Twitter is about loosely-coupled networks. You can view every Tweet from every person with an open account (you can have a hidden one if you want). By default, you get see Tweets from people you choose to follow. It's up to you if you want to respond. And up to others if they want to reply.

Whilst some users stick to the 'What are you doing' theme (and offer 'too much information' about their dietary habits - you know who you are, Marmite sandwich lamb), it can offer so much more - great for sharing links, one-liners, ad-hoc conversations and making announcements. And Twitter has one IM feature that is brilliant - the ability to send a direct message (but only to someone who is following you). Direct messages are also sent out as emails and text messages to mobile phones. Fantastic if you don't have the mobile phone number and want to get in touch.

Not convinced? Here are some examples:

  • I spotted Guy Kawasaki's tweet and was able to review a draft copy of his upcoming book, sent comments via email and he gave me some start-up advice in return. Happy days.
  • Comcast spotted Mike Arrington's rants about his broken Internet connection and got in touch to sort it out. His rants turned into praise of equal volume. (He has 20,000 followers on Twitter. Most churches would dream of such participation.)
  • I muttered and moaned about Zoho in a Tweet. They responded on Twitter and Email within the hour.
  • Steve Clayton was asked a question he didn't know the answer to (amazing, but true), a tweet for help and the answers flocked in
  • I saw Euan Semple tweeting to some chap called Sleepydog. I met said Sleepydog, aka Toby Moore, at a conference last week. We even Tweeted where we were sitting to organise a meet-up.
  • Loic Le Meur announced an early bird special for his LeWeb conference in December on Twitter... and then tweeted with updates about how many tickets were left. Would they have sold so quickly without Twitter?
  • I saw Euan Semple tweeting to some chap called Stephen Dale. Started following him. He saw me tweeting with Rob Gray whom he had also met. Rob introduced me to Stephen in London two weeks ago.
  • When a blogger was arrested in Egypt, he managed to send a quick SOS on Twitter (no time for anything else) and people who saw it helped get him released. His interpreter has not been so lucky
  • I hear about important news first on Twitter. Stuff that matters inevitably gets talked about by someone in the network. Even the BBC seems to Tweet about news before it appears on their 24-hour TV channel

By the way, all the above links lead to Twitter pages. If you've never visited Tweetsville before, you'll need to create an account and login to view what they say. What's the worst thing that could happen? Waste 5 minutes of time.

Just about any business could gain benefits from using Twitter. It taps into what seems to be an innate animal trait - the desire to communicate, instantly. To synchronise. (I had never looked at it this way until Ken Thompson's brilliant session at the NLabs Social Networks conference). Anything that connects with our genetic make-up has value. And, alas, the potential to be exploited. Although that has yet to happen on Twitter (service is to damn unreliable!)

The challenge for Twitter is that I would never pay for the service. It's a feature, not a platform. A lot of people have asked how can Twitter monetise it's product. Getting users to pay for it is never going to be an option. (More so, whilst the service is still unreliable and prone to unexpected downtime.) Twitter is a messaging tool. People are no longer used to paying for messaging tools, whether it's IM or email. The current forms of online advertising work in information-seeking environments, not human-seeking ones like communication tools and social networking sites. But Twitter has some serious value tied up in its rather clever feature. Analytics could discover patterns between conversations, links and networks...

Next stop: FriendFeed. And it's a platform, not a feature...

Further reading:

posted by Joining Dots at 4:00 PM.   Permalink 2 comments links to this post

24 June 2008

Multitasking is inefficient and valuable

Last week, multi-tasking was back in the news, this time covered by The New Atlantis: The Myth of Multitasking.

The conclusion is the same as always: multitasking is bad and you are better off doing one thing at a time.

The one argument that is absolutely correct is that multitasking is less efficient than only working on a single task at a time until it is completed. Every time you switch tasks, you cause a delay because you interrupt your train of thought. If I stop writing a report to talk to someone, when I return to the report it will take a few seconds (if not minutes) to get back on track. That's a cost.

But nobody seems to talk about the negative effects of singletasking. If I only ever did one task at a time, through to completion, that one task would benefit by being completed faster than otherwise. Every other aspect of my life and work would suffer. I would probably lose weight because I would have to skip a few meals if the task takes longer than a few hours (OK, I'd call that a benefit). I'd probably lose friends, colleagues and customers because they would think I never ever ever return phone calls or emails (as opposed to just having a rubbish ping quotient). I'd miss the breaking news that makes my current task redundant (stick that in your economic calculations - stopping now would be more efficient than continuing with something that doesn't need to be done.) I'd die because I would stop breathing and my heart would forget to beat. Oh, do these anti-multitasking studies forget the small point that being alive is to multitask constantly. Thank goodness we're good at it!

Yes, there are times when focusing on a single task is the best course of action. That's why our subconscious kindly takes care of the essential multitasking we need.  If I'm on the operating table in hospital, I want the surgeon's full attention. If I am sat in college, 100% focused on what the lecturer is saying, I will perform better than my peers in the final exams. They will probably beat me to the job by having a better social network! (It's not just about what you know...) If I've got a deadline to meet, Twitter just isn't that important. As with most things in life, it's about balance and context. Not simply that one is good and the other is bad.

The biggest concern about multitasking seems to be that it damages how you learn. All I know is that when the subject of learning is interesting and engaging, everything else just disappears into the background and time flies by without you noticing. Ask any kid playing on their games console. We're also pretty good at singletasking, when we need or want to be.

To see the other side of the Myth of Multitasking, here's an old blog post that covers some balancing research: Attention Span Myths.

posted by Joining Dots at 9:38 AM.   Permalink 1 comments links to this post

Designing Teams

Whilst driving back from a customer meeting yesterday, I was listening to a debate on the radio. The discussion was about the number of women in government, specifically: should there be 'quotas' to ensure a required percentage of government officials are women? Some countries have taken this approach. As you would expect from a debate, the panel was split 50:50 for and against.

I don't like quotas. They risk demeaning the person in role: "Oh, she only got the job because they needed more women..." That is such an annoying statement to make because the same base argument can be used against most people in most roles. It makes the huge assumption that the woman is there instead of the 'best possible person for the job'. How often is the 'best possible person for the job' actually in the job? As opposed to the one with the right connections to secure the position. I'm not saying that idiots are allowed to hold positions because of who they know (although... no, I'm not even going there). Rather, there are plenty of people sharing roughly the same level of skill and expertise. Out of them, the one who gets the job is most likely to be the one with the right connections or is the right 'fit' for the team.

This applies in pretty much any scenario. Think of the last conference you attended. Was every presenter the absolute leading authority on their subject matter? Probably not. At the conference I attended last week, the final presenter (Jim Benson) made the following comment, to reiterate the value in social networks:

"I'm here because of my blog and social networking, nothing to do with how well I did or do what I do."

That didn't mean he wasn't any good. The organisers weren't just dragging people off the street to present. Rather, he had connected with the organisers first and foremost through social networking tools like Twitter. They didn't have firsthand experience of his skills, but his reputation and connections provided enough confidence and trust to ask him to present.

Many human systems have an imbalance of power at the top, usually weighted heavily towards middle-aged white males. Rather than try and force change through quotas, I'd like to see a different approach. First, identify the make-up of your audience (be they citizens, employees or customers). And make-up isn't just about gender, race and age. It should include aspirations, issues and preferences. (Are Apple products designed for boys, for girls, or for people who love gorgeous gadgets?) Then compare the ratios to your leadership team. Do they match? If not, why not? Have you explored all channels to find people for your team? Or have you relied too heavily on your inner circle (and/or rewarded contributions that got you to where you are).

If the make-up of people at the top of an organisation doesn't remotely represent the make-up of people at the bottom or the target audience, it is unlikely that the organisation has the 'best possible people for the jobs' in the jobs. Either because of corruption or because the current system deters the right people from coming forward. Neither reason is good. You can get away with it, as long as you don't have any competition... (as depressingly demonstrated in Zimbabwe this week.)

I don't like quotas, I would rather see leadership teams resolve their imbalances for the better good of the organisation. But in the absence of incentives (particularly true in government), are quotas the only way to break traditions and redesign the 'fit' for the team?

posted by Joining Dots at 7:45 AM.   Permalink 0 comments links to this post

23 June 2008

Nlab Social Networks conference

Last Thursday, I had the pleasure of attending the Nlab Social Networks conference, held at De Montfort University in Leicester, UK. Big congratulations to Sue Thomas and all involved with organising the event. What was particularly great about this conference was the level of networking that took place between sessions. Arguably, we could have done with double the time allowed for coffee and lunch. Unheard of at your average conference...

All the sessions were great but three stood out for me (a.k.a. I took some notes). Here you go:

The Future of Work: Amplified Individuals, Amplified Organisation - Andrea Saveri, The Institute for the Future

Andrea introduced a new term (for me, at least) entering the workplace: Amplified Individuals (perhaps a flavour of AI that will really happen...) Amplified Individuals are highly collaborative, highly improvisational and highly augmented.

Highly Collaborative: Able to tap in to and contribute to the intelligence of crowds. Act as social filters for massive amounts of information (demonstrated in the use of tools such as del.icio.us, Flickr, Diff, Friendfeed etc.) Enable the use of prediction markets (see related blog post: More on idea markets)

Highly Improvisational: Create ad-hoc resources and infrastructures, as and when needed to achieve a specific goal. Have the motivation and know-how to bypass traditional constraints and form new relationships within and across organisational walls. Serena Software are a great example of this, what started with 'Facebook Friday' (see related blog post: Web Wisdom) became their new intranet (see recent news: How one CEO Facebooked his company, Fortune)

Highly Augmented: Employ systems, tools and hacks to enhance cognitive abilities and coordination skills (the drug Provigil, aka Modafinil, crops up again).

Amplified Individuals possess Superhero powers for business, including:

  • Mob-ability - ability to work in large groups, a talent for organising and collaborating with many people simultaneously
  • Influencing - able to be persuasive in multiple social contexts and media spaces
  • Ping Quotient - your responsiveness to requests from other people for engagement
  • Protovation - fearless innovation in rapid, iterative cycles (i.e. prototype first, discuss requirements later...)
  • Multi-capitalism - fluency in working in different capitals: social (reputation), financial, intellectual, natural (green)
  • Signal/Noise management - able to filter meaningful information
  • Co-operative radar - able to sense, almost intuitively, who would make the best team for a particular task (across employees, partners, customers, etc.)

Bioteams: What we can learn about nature's social networks - Ken Thompson, Swarmteams Ltd

It's difficult to describe Ken's session, because it mostly involved an experiment requiring audience participation. And my inability to use my mobile phone (ruins my Ping Quotient) at anything more than a snail's pace interrupted note-taking. You can try it for yourself at the Swarmteams web site. It's an interesting concept. You create a group on a web site. People can then join the group by sending a text message from their mobile with the line 'join group username' (e.g. 'join nlabs joiningdots'). The web site sends out a question, and everyone in the group receives it on their phone and can send a response back, all via text messaging service. (Great, given I have 3 billion unused text messages on my phone contract.) And the web site gathers all the messages together in a single folder. It's a little like Twitter. And is a great way of organising groups on the fly for a niche event, or to gather feedback on a given subject (i.e. a perfect tool for those Amplified Individuals).

What was most interesting was Ken's reasoning behind this idea. The use of short instant messages to communicate (or, rather, synchronise) is common place in nature - the bee's waggle, fireflies flash, ants waft pheromones. Be it motion, or emitting light, sound or smell, most animals have the need and method for instant short-term communication. Humans do too, but few organisations recognise, acknowledge or take advantage of the tools freely available...

If you're interested in the connection between nature and business, here's some books I have enjoyed on this subject:

Social Networking beyond the Dogma: Let's Make Some Money - Jim Benson, Modus Cooperandi

Wasn't sure what to expect when I saw the title of this session. But Jim delivered some grounded comments about why businesses should be using social networking tools. His use of concept maps, rather than traditional slides, to convey his message was very effective. I'm planning to try something similar when I get the chance (it reminded me of a comment Euan Semple made a couple of years ago, about how the software interface for collecting knowledge should be like walking through a village...) Here's a sample of what was said:

  • Small businesses do not need more stuff to do... but they do need advice, peers, customers and partners, all of which comes from communities
  • Communities create value through participation, which takes time
  • Time is expensive therefore invest it wisely
    • Understand intangibles, which include more clients, future services and business partners
    • Employ judgment - in the use of social tools like networking sites and review sites
  • Learn - your community, your limit, your market - by experimenting
  • Start now - small and directed, what fits immediate needs and your personality

Finally, Steve Clayton did a great kick-off presentation about how Microsoft has approached blogging and social networking. My non-amplified self sulks at giving him links when I'm wallowing in the lower ranks of Technorati :-) but his presentation is available online. Multiple hat tips to all the speakers. They delivered some great content and I have captured a mere sound bite of it here. And thank you to everyone I met on the day and have chatted to since on Twitter, some great conversations all around.

References:

And hat tip as always to Wikipedia for assisting with references. (Even if I did have to navigate past the band Fire Flies to locate one of the pages.)

Related Blog Posts:

Filed in Library under: Social Networks

Technorati tags: Social Networks | Social Computing | Collective Intelligence | Smart Mobs

posted by Joining Dots at 2:34 PM.   Permalink 3 comments links to this post

Links last week - 080622

The following is a selection of links collected from 16th to 22nd June. Shared via Google Reader, FriendFeed and Twitter. Organised roughly by library category: Systems and the elements - People, Information and Technology.

BillG crops up a couple of times this week. Not surprising, given his impending semi-retirement from Microsoft. Fewer links but the quality of the posts is high (IMHO). And if you do one thing, watch the video at the end. Enjoy.

Systems

People

Information

Technology

SharePoint

And finally, fun video of the week - Don't talk to the police! If you're a law-abiding citizen, you might just want to watch this...

Link to Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 (the lawyer) / Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2 (the cop)

What to receive this list via email? Instructions to subscribe can be found under Newsletter

posted by Joining Dots at 11:16 AM.   Permalink 0 comments links to this post

20 June 2008

Advanced Savers

I try to use trains a lot (even more so now, thanks to rising fuel prices) and there is one pattern in particular that really irritates me. Regardless of train operator, it appears all ticket collectors have been on the same 'How to reduce your passenger levels' training course.

The announcement overheard today went along the lines (the train was about to depart the station):

"If you have an Advanced Saver ticket, it must be for this train. The departure time will be printed on your ticket. If your ticket is for a different time it will not be valid. You will be required to purchase a new ticket for this journey if you choose to stay on the train."

In other words, get off the damn train if you bought a cheap ticket and it wasn't for this time.

Now, to be fair, the rules are pretty clear when you purchase Advanced Saver tickets. But here's the irony. This train was the last one before rush hour started. There were all of 5 people in my carriage. Why oh why would the train operator want to throw people off an empty train? It creates the double-whammy of saving nothing (the reduced weight is unlikely to make a dent on the amount of fuel used to run the train) and potentially adding to over-crowding on the next train, exacerbated by a bunch of pissed off customers.

By all means, have the rule. But for goodness sake, allow the ticket collectors to use their brains. If the train is empty, turn a blind eye. Gently remind the passenger about the rules and make it clear that an exception can be made this time only because the train isn't full. You have happy customers and more space available on the next train, which might be busier than yours. If the train is full, enforce the rule to the letter. That's only fair to those who have paid for tickets specifically for this train.

I love what technology can do to make systems better. But oh so often, there are simple changes you can make to improve services, sales and profits. And they cost nothing at all.

posted by Joining Dots at 3:00 PM.   Permalink 0 comments links to this post

15 June 2008

Links last week - 080615

The following is a selection of links collected from 9th to 15th June. Shared via Google Reader, FriendFeed and Twitter. Organised roughly by library category: Systems and the elements - People, Information and Technology.

Theme for this week? Quality. Some outstanding posts. They must have put something in the water...

Systems

People (and cognition)

Information (and process)

Technology

Search

SharePoint

And finally, funny video of the week. For anyone who thinks they can/should control social networks and the conversations that take place within them. It will be as easy as herding cats...

Link to Herding Cats on YouTube

Closing comment. If you watched the full video, you'll know from the end that it is an advert for EDS. The mistake EDS made? Any IT company can slice off the closing logo and you'd never know. IBM got it right by introducing the blue border top and bottom throughout their ads.

posted by Joining Dots at 12:00 PM.   Permalink 0 comments links to this post

14 June 2008

What sports car are you?

The latest fun time-waster quiz going around, spotted via Eileen. I love the car but not so sure about the description. One of the elite? Not a chance. I'll take the rest though :-)

I'm a Porsche 911!

You have a classic style, but you're up-to-date with the latest technology. You're ambitious, competitive, and you love to win. Performance, precision, and prestige - you're one of the elite,and you know it.

Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.

posted by Joining Dots at 8:21 AM.   Permalink 1 comments links to this post