How do we evaluate the strategic use of collaboration platforms?

The earthHey smart people, especially my KM and collaboration peeps, I need your help!

I’ve been trolling around to find examples of monitoring and assessment rubrics to evaluate how well a collaboration platform is actually working. In other words, are the intended strategic activities and goals fulfilled? Are people using it for unintended purposes? What are the adoption and use patterns? How do you assess the need for tweaks, changed or deleted functionality?

I can find piles of white papers and reports on how to pick a platform in terms of vendors and features. Vendors seem to produce them in droves. I certainly can fall back on the Digital Habitats materials in that area as well.

But come on, why are there few things that help us understand if our existing platforms and tool configurations are or are not working?

Here are some of my burning questions. Pointers and answers DEEPLY appreciated. And if you are super passionate about this, ask me directly about the action research some of us are embarking upon (nancyw at fullcirc dot com)!

  • How do you do evaluate the strategic use of your collaboration platform(s) and tools in your organization?
  • What indicators are you looking for? (There can be a lot, so my assumption is we are looking for ones that really get to the strategic sweet spot)
  • Does the assessment need to be totally context specific, or are there shared patterns for similar organizations or domains?
  • How often do you do it?
  • How do we involve users in assessments?
  • How have the results prompted changes (or not and if not, why not)?

Please, share this widely!

THANKS!

Working in Complex Spaces from my Favorite Curmudgeon

Earlier this week Chris Corrigan pointed to a great blog post from one of my favorite curmudgeons, Dave Snowden (Dave, yes, I think a cacophony of curmudgeon’s is perfect!) on the heuristics of complexity.  Dave wrote in (Of tittering, twittering & twitterpating) the following:

We need to draw a fine line between legitimate experimentation and slipping into magpiedom and the legitimacy probably depends on the degree to which there is a coherent narrative around the core activity.

Aside from that I made a serious of points that apply more generally, as well as to the foresight community who were my primary targets. They included:

  • The whole success of social computing is because it conforms to the three heuristics of complex systems: finely grained objects, distributed cognition & disintermediation
  • I an uncertain world we need fast, real time feedbacks not linear processes and criticism includes short cycle experimental processes which remain linear.
  • The real dangers are retrospective coherence and premature convergence
  • Narrative is vital, but story-telling is at best ambiguous
  • Need to shift from thinking about drivers to modulators
  • You can’t eliminate cognitive bias, you work with it
  • Extrinsic rewards destroy intrinsic motivation
  • Messy coherence is the essence of managing complexity

I suggest you read the whole post for context (and humor).  I could ruminate on any of these, but I have my peeps coming into town starting today for the Seattle KM4Dev Gathering (Dave, we’ll still try and tempt you!) so I’ll just say this one is my focus for the week: “Need to shift from thinking about drivers to modulators.”

As we explore next week the practice of “managing knowledge” for international development, this could be a cracking good opener… Now I need a visual. Any ideas?

The Value of Hybrid/Blended Learning

faoblended Image from From http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2516e/i2516e.pdf

Via Stephen Downes came this snippet that caught my eye.  Discussing design models for hybrid/blended learning and the impact on the campus ~ Stephen’s Web.

Tony Bates writes, “Despite all the hype about MOOCs, hybrid learning is probably the most significant development in e-learning – or indeed in teaching generally – in post-secondary education, at least here in Canada.” I think that if you look inside universities, this is true. But outside formal education institutions, the hybrid model is virtually nonexistent.

Hm, in my world, which is definitely outside post-secondary education and not in Canada, blended models are front and center. So I thought I’d leave Stephen a note and get Mike Culligan, a colleague from LINGOS and Last Mile Learning, to chime in. Here is what we replied in the comments. I have added some links to mine which were not in the original comments!

Re: Discussing design models for hybrid/blended learning and the impact on the campus

I wanted to give you a heads up that the hybrid model is indeed alive and well outside of formal education institutions. FAO’s most successful learning programs are now blended (particularly good examples in S. Africa around Food Security Policy learning projects) , LINGOS.ORG has been getting very good results w/ blended and showing significant resources savings from their traditional F2F offerings, and better results than pure play elearning, and other organizations in development are moving in the same direction. Little old me too – much of the capacity building/structured learning I facilitate is now blended. I think the problem is these different worlds don’t talk to each other very much. [Comment] [Permalink]

More examples – International Development

I work with LINGOs – the international development organization Nancy White mentioned above. In addition to the examples she provided, there are more examples from Plan International, Management Sciences for Health, etc.

> One of the programs with the longest track record is the Virtual Leadership Development (Program http://www.msh.org/resources/virtual-leadership-development-program-vldp ). Operating since 2002, the program’s website describes the learning experience as follows:

>”Rather than giving a few top level managers off-site leadership training for one to two weeks or more, the VLDP trains up to 12 teams of four to 10 people virtually over the course of 13 weeks. The VLDP requires approximately four to six hours of individual commitment per week. Team members work independently on the VLDP web site with additional support from the program workbook. They also participate in on-site team meetings within their organizations throughout the program. During the VLDP, each team plans and develops an action plan that addresses a real organizational or programmatic challenge facing them.

I recently completed a desk study with Scott Leslie for another organization (and I think we’ll be able to share it soon!) to review their elearning options and again, the blended learning option was high on our analysis. My work a couple of weeks ago in Kenya with leaders of agricultural networks which focus on learning across various ag domains again identified blended as a significant option, allowing both the deeper focus and relationship that we can wring out of F2F, with the ongoing, “home-based” learning that the network members can do online.

Formal, informal and in-between, blended RULES in my experience. What about in yours? Stephen, your post also reminded me we still have a lot of network weaving to do to help this type of learning permeate across the membranes of the .edu, .org and .com worlds!

I don’t do KM, I do Knowledge Sharing…

(One of those blog posts that was started ages ago and finally finished…)

A couple of months ago I was surprised to see a tweet that identified me as one of the top 25 “KM” people on Twitter. What??? After digging around, it turns out they use LittleBird and the algorithm relates to who I connect to on Twitter, who connects to me, and my “KM” related words. Since I tag a lot for #KM4Dev (Knowledge Management for Development) I think this is why I showed up on the list. And because I have a pretty darn good network.

But lets get back to this KM thing, particularly since the KM4Dev community meeting is coming up in just over a week here in Seattle (hosted by moi and some good friends). I tend to emphasize that information can be managed, knowledge can be shared. The social aspect of knowledge and knowledge sharing is critical. People ask people, they tend to ignore the best practices data bases. Here is a little blip about this from 2011 at a Knowledge Share Fair in Rome.

“Knowledge sharing is necessary to do complex work in a complex world”

And…here is the top 25 list. The other 75 can be found here.

  1. weknowmore
  2. David Gurteen
  3. Dave Snowden
  4. Stan Garfield
  5. Nancy White
  6. VMaryAbraham
  7. Jack Vinson
  8. Euan Semple
  9. Alice MacGillivray
  10. knowledgetank
  11. Ian Thorpe
  12. Richard Hare
  13. Peter West
  14. Gauri Salokhe
  15. Chris Collison
  16. #KMers Chat
  17. Stuart French
  18. KM Australia
  19. John Tropea
  20. KMWorld Magazine
  21. Christian DE NEEF
  22. Mario Soavi
  23. ewenlb
  24. KM Asia
  25. Steve Dale

What I find very interesting is that many of these folks are involved in KM in international development. Are we just more tweety? More sharing? More social? Or we like to goof around a lot on Twitter! 😉

Oh, and I got a BADGE!
Most Influential in KM

OK, back to work….