Book Review: New Age of Innovation; Prahalad & Krishnan

If you're interested in large scale change and innovation then you'll find this book fascinating. On the one hand it felt like there was nothing startlingly new to me yet on the other it was neatly put together in a readable way that made sense.

A key premise is the current trend of personalisation and how value is based on the unique experience we all want. The authors refer to this as N=1. Current technology drives this, social networking, web 2.0 etc. How can we co-create value with our users and consumers? What are the challenges with managing who owns the knowledge? All good questions. They also suggest we need to make the most of collaborative networks, electronic and face-to-face, be flexible and ensure scalability. I liked the section on scalability and in my mind there is more in here than what they covered. This is a key element and is also linked to their second premise.

The 2nd key premise is the one that resources need to be global and they use another little formaula: R=G. Here they suggest the issue is that access to resources is more importnat than providing products; namely it is the solutions that matter rather than the kit or pieces. I think I agree with this. Again, scalability comes up.

They mention social movements and how they figure in the process as well as organisational transformation. There was nothing much new in the organisational process other than the context of the infomrational technology infrastructure - well, that is rather new and for some people rather perplexing.

If you've not yet engaged with Web 2.0 and new technology then this is definitely worth a read.

Book Review: Groundswell by Charlene Li & Josh Bernoff

The authors define a groundswell as “…a social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions”. mmm that sounds like an important thing to know about if you think you're a traditional institution, or if you think you're breaking new ground, or if you're a consumer wondering why you're starting to feel left out the loop.

What I liked about the book was the examples and case studies. Usually I skip these, however, I foudn these ones riveting reading. Who needs thriller novels when the business world presents us with such chaotic and roller coaster events. Fabulous.

I also found the way the book was constructed and organised to be very helpful, especially when faced with a disconcerting topic. Far from being disorganised, the underlying structure helped get the message through.

Read this book and it will move you on from thinking about "all we need to do is have the odd blog and a fancy web 2.0 website" and get you into strategising about your social media presence. I have always been convinced that social media is not just for the youngesters and this book has all the examples and conceptuals models to help you create some of your own thinking for your business to prove it is for everyone.

The book has, as you would expect, a great website. http://www.forrester.com/Groundswell/index.html It is good to see them practising what they preach. They have a blog and there is also a social media profiling tool you can download and use.

I'm not one for giving 5 stars to a book, but this one deserves it. I might just read it a second time.

Why one to many is not a large scale change strategy

Large scale change is about the numbers.  If part fo your strategy for large scale change is to develop or use networks to communicate your message then you need to understand the mathematics of networks.

If you don't know about Sarnoff's Law, Metcalfe's Law and Reed's law - then watch this video, which if nothing else, explains why broadcasting messages is low impact. It's 10 minutes long but hang in there - it's the best explanation I've heard for a long time.





The numbers:
Sarnoff: 1 message to 20 people: network score of 20

Metcalfe: Email and telephones connect humans and help small groups form: because everyone can connect to everyone, the potential is 20 x 20, meaning a network score of 400.

Reed: the value of the network is exponential in social networking, going beyond the establishing communities.. So it's 2 to the power of 20 which is 1,000,000.

Reed's Law is about scale.
Social networking matters.

Social Marketing Podcasts from the Open University

I had a proud moment when listening to Michaela Firth via iTunes talking about Social Marketing. She is really a leader in this field and I'm glad we've shared coffee and brownies over the last ten years. The Open University has a series of podcasts that I recommend to anyone working in the field of trying to spread behaviourally related  good ideas to a wider audience.

Social marketing - Audio

by The Open University

View More from this Provider

To listen to an audio podcast, mouse over the title and click Play. Open iTunes to download and subscribe to iTunes U collections.

Description

Have you ever wondered how marketing techniques have been used to promote positive social change? In a series of lively interviews, Professor Gerard Hastings of the Institute of Social Marketing, faces questions from members of ISM-Open (the Institute of Social Marketing at the Open University Business School) on issues such as the ethics of social marketing, branding and advertising, and the morality of shocking or scaring people into changing their behaviour for the better. This material forms part of the Open University course B324 Marketing and society.

Social marketing	View In iTunes
What is social marketing?	View In iTunes
Critical marketing	View In iTunes
Ethics and advertising	View In iTunes
Evaluating social marketing programmes	View In iTunes
Ethical brands	View In iTunes
Ethics and social marketing	View In iTunes

To share or not to share?

I've spotted a proliferation of new initiatives within the NHS in England attempting to encourage staff to share their knowledge online. While this sounds like a useful and pragmatic action to take I wonder what the implications might be.

The main exhortation is about encouraging staff to share what has worked well for them. I expect there will be many who would like to share, though inputting your information into a fairly anonymous database is at the higher end of the perceived risk continuum. Without knowing who (as in a person) will be editing or reading the information, many people will be hesitant to "share" in this way.

The proliferation of different places to share is also confusing. In their own way, each organisation requesting sharing is doing so for the right reasons. However, how do you choose - NHS Networks, NHS Institute, NICE, own organisation's database... random sharing with colleagues using other online networks, professional groups?? Each organisation requesting sharing is doing so for it's own reasons and these reasons may not be easily identifiable by those who are targetted.

For some healthcare staff and their organisations the incentive to share may feel like a perverse one. In a competitive market there may be a disincentive to provide information about how well or how innovative you have been. In my experience the best results are seldom shared because of this restriction. So what we do get shared is often the less innovative and more obvious results of projects and changes.

I think the issue is not "to share or not to share". Sharing is only part of the story. Sharing is only of value if there is someone listening and looking. If the main group looking at what is shared is the group who owns the database then the value of what is shared is quite limited. The real issue is in encouraging staff to look and listen, to be curious and to accept that in just about everything thing they do and every problem they have, someone, somewhere has already addressed it - and this information is already available.

So if you're developing databases to captured shared information then a few pointers to consider:
a) how much of your time, budget and strategy is devoted to encouraging the look and listen?
b) how unique is your database? How will it be found and why should those who are searching use your database?
c) In what way can you build on or link to existing databases so you build a wider knowledge base rather than divide up a crowed space?
d) How can you move from the transactional share and disseminate approach to one which is based on the concept of interaction, dialogue and learning?

Lessons in how online communities work

A few months ago I set up a Facilitating Change Forum using the social networking system Ning http://facilitating.ning.com/ This was in part to provide people who may be a bit afraid of social networking with a sandpit where they can test and play. Then it was also as a means for connecting those with an interest in Facilitating Change.

Separate to this I have been building my online presence using Twitter http://www.twitter.com.

What have I learnt so far:

1. The adage of giving stuff away to get something back is true virtually as well generally in life. The more I post "useful" stuff on Twitter, the more the followers grow. And the more I get back. I needed a solution to a problem, posed the question on Twitter and someone (who I didn't know) replied in minutes with a fabulous answer.
2. Letting go, going with the flow - or whatever aphorism works for you - really is necessary. I have just spent 20 minutes actual time and 8 hours elapsed time signing up to a NHS system where I now have to ask permission to join a community. I've lost the will to communicate by now. Access needs to be easy and without significant restriction. I feel for communities to work online they need to be fresh, flexible and open rather than hindden behind walls and barriers.
3. There is not only widsom in the crowd but also leadership. Having neglected the Forum for a few weeks I feel proud to see a number of people (some of whom I have no idea who they are - and this really doesn't matter) take a leadership role in welcoming new joiners and in stimulating discussion. Wow, this is truly distributed leadership in action.
4. Like all natural systems, getting started is like pushing a snowball uphill. Then all of sudden it takes off. With Twitter I nearly gave up, persisted another week, and hey presto I reached a criticial mass of usefulness. Same goes for a number of virtual ways of working like using team spaces. It is so easy to have a go, hit a huddle and then drop out the race.

What have these online communities got to do with the spread of good practice and large scale change? They are a great way of sharing messages, asking questions, discovering new ideas, keeping up to date, reducing isolation etc.

Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/sarahfraser

Check out Patient Safety Twitter Feed http://www.twitter.com/patientafety

Join the Facilitating Change Forum at http://facilitating.ning.com/

Watching conversations; the impact of social media

Normally we'd hear conversations, but now we can also watch them. How? With the growth in social media use, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, we are able to hold conversations out in the open, for anyone to read or interact. So what used to happen in relative private between a few people is now something that can be available to many others.

There is obviously a good side and a not-so-good side to this. For the paranoid / those who like to control what is said, then this is a very scary notion. Do you know who is saying what about you / your organisation / your product? There are a variety of systems around that search the online conversations and let you know when someone does speak up on your topic (New Stuff for Change Agents for some links to these sites).

On the good side, think just how rapidly information can pass from one person to another. The first photo available from the plane that landed on the Hudson river was posted on Twitter - within minutes of it happening. The online network then spread it about very quickly.

How will you be tapping into social media in 2009 in order to enable the spread of good practice and large scale change?

Examples of social media to spread good practice in healthcare

I often get asked for real examples of what some people feel is theory only - basically, how are healthcare organisations using the variety fo social media possibilities to help creat/capture knowledge as well as transfer it / enable change. There are many of these - you can do your own searches and find things specific to you. I have listed below a few interesting ones:

a) Facebook: South Central Health Authority in England has an organisational profile on Facebook. Anyone can become a fan of the organisation (a novel thought in itself!) and then through Facebook - as a fan - I receive details of its public health campaigns (photos etc) and I have also been targetted through Facebook to answer a survey (which I then passed on to some of my Facebook friends).

b) at http://www.trainingpod.co.uk/ is an example of a hospital using audio podcasts to reduce training costs

c) Derby hospital in the England is handing out iPods preloaded with video instructions to their Radiology students as a means of enhancing the textbooks and the learning process http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7780647.stm

d) A good example of a wiki is one supported by the National Library for Health (UK) which is focused on developing support materials for the commissioning process http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7780647.stm ANyone can log in and add their twopennyworth and experience.

Social media is a practice not a theory...

Sharing knowledge through social networking

There are hundreds of social networking sites around but this new one looks interesting and if it works it could reshape how we share knowledge and learn from, with and among our online friends.

www.ileonardo.com is where social networking meets a social form of knowledge management. You can upload content and create notebooks where you can collaborate with other users. You can see the information that your friends are working on. In this new era of open source knowledge and rapid dissemination, this feature has some significant advantages. It could rewrite the concept and dynamics of what is traditionally known as the opinion leader.

What I like about this site is how it moves on the concept of spreading good practice. It forces us all to think about how much we want to to share and with whom.