Morgan Stanley Web 2.0 Summit Presentation

After noting good comments on the Web about Morgan Stanley (MS) Internet analyst, Mary Meeker’s Economy & Internet Trends presentation, I had a look at it. It’s worth a flick through. For those not so interested in financial data, can I suggest you start on slide 28. Main points of interest are:

• Mobile Internet usage is and will be bigger than most think (i.e they agree with Cisco’s forecasts).
• Telcos will face serious challenges in managing incremental traffic.
• The mobile applications development ecosystem has disrupted the walled garden carrier portals.
• Improvements in social networking and mobile computing platforms are fundamentally changing the ways people communicate with each other and ways that developers/advertisers/marketers reach consumers.
• Location information changes everything: where we shop, who we talk to, what we read, what we search for, where we go – they all change once we merge location and the Web.

Eric Schonfeld’s posting on TechCrunch is also worth a read. Worth noting in particular is that “She [Meeker] singles out the mobile industry as the one where both the most opportunity will be found and disruptions will occur over the next five years. Moreover, she suggests that the U.S. is poised to lead the transition in mobile to a Web-centric model. (I totally agree). Interestingly, she points to the introduction of the first Android phone by T-Mobile, not the launch of the iPhone, as the key inflection point for the coming era of the mobile web.”

While I agree that the mobile ecosystem in the U.S is moving to a Web-central model, I am not sure that the U.S. can claim leadership in that transition. For example, Japan is about eight years ahead of the rest of the world in mobile commerce (slide 48).  Australia is also a witnessing a similar transition to a mobile Web era, particularly in the way people communicate with each other.

Digital Youth Project

Developed by a joint project of the University of Southern California and the University of California, Berkeley, the Digital Youth Project is described as the most extensive U.S. study of youth media use. The link gives access to a two-page overview and a 53 page white paper released online in November 2008. The study was motivated to find out how:

• new media is being integrated with youth practices and agendas
• these practices change dynamics of youth-adult negotiations over literacy, learning and authoritative knowledge.

The research found that:

• not only that social network and video-sharing sites, online games and gadgets such as iPods and mobile phones are fixtures of youth culture, but that youth find these activities compelling and important
• through online activity youth are developing media literacy and technical skills, exploring interests and experimenting with new forms of self-expression. However, those skills are highly variable depending on what kinds of social groups they associate with.This diversity in forms of literacy means that it is problematic to develop a standardised set of benchmarks to measure levels of new media and technical literacy.
• the digital world provides avenues for extending social worlds, self-directed learning, and independence.
• most of the relationships online are with people they know already in their offline lives. New media is used to extend existing friendships.
• interest-driven networks can lie outside of the boundaries of their local communities. These networks provide opportunities to publicise and distribute their work and to gain new forms of visibility and reputation
• youth engage in peer-based, self-directed learning online.

The last bullet point is one of the more significant findings. Learning from peers contrasts significantly from institutional learning. It raises a new set of issues not just for educators but for employers as well. I can’t help but feel social networking online is producing a turn-around in relationships: it is becoming a matter of not what educational institutions and educational programs can do for youth, but what youth networks can do for themselves.

I would say that Australian youth use of digital media would not be too different from the U.S.

The research findings raise the likelihood of  similar implications for the way that organisations communicate with employees and may question current practices in pursuit of  the ‘learning organisation’. Perhaps it is timely to consider how peer networks should sit alongside organisational learning programs. According to the report, erecting barriers to participation deprives teens of access to these forms of learning. I would say peer networking online has the potential to become a highly productive and rewarding element of working life in the 21st century…given the chance to operate.

Networked citizens: second post

Continuing my review of Networked Citizens (NC) by Peter Bradwell and Richard Reeves.

Social actors becoming defined by their networks

One of the most interesting things about the evolving use of social networking sites is that people are recognising that the relevancy and value of relationships to them are far more important than adding more and more connections. I’m finding the same thing too – I have culled some of people I follow on Twitter. Indeed, taking care about your online relationships is likely to become more important over time as networking influences your identity and your reputation. This recent posting by Chris Brogan goes into some useful strategies to make more of your social networks online.

One of the observations in NC is that our online presence is defined as much by others as ourselves. I think that is true. Content posted by my online friends or connections on Facebook, FriendFeed or Twine is by any measure an indicator of my online presence – in terms of the people that I connect with and the interests we may share – as well as the content that I’m directly responsible for. Anyone looking at my social networking will make judgements about me based not only on who I connect to but what content the connection produces as well.

So the social actor could be expected to be defined in part by their online networks. Understanding social action requires less of an emphasis on the individual (and individualism) and more of an emphasis on networks. As the authors of NC say “the role of networked capital is increasing, and the influence of personal reputation, history and network presence will be vital”.

Blurring boundaries between work and social interaction

NC found that organisations are aware of the way that employees experience the freedoms of network working.  Employee social networks are becoming “…bound up with the success of their careers, present and future, inside organisations and outside” (page 41).  In other words, people are linking with peers over social networks to share knowledge, contribute to group discussion, distribute their work and comment on others, publicise their credentials and gain new forms of visibility and reputation.

Actually, according to the Digital Youth Project research findings, youth in the United States are often more motivated to learn from their peers than from adults. They like the freedom and autonomy to explore in social networking online, which stands in contrast to rigidities of classroom learning that is set by predefined goals. I would say these ways of learning and inter-working with peers online are starting to operate within the work place too. The implications for organisations are significant: it’s a case of not what the organisation can to to improve organisational learning, it’s more a case of what social networks can do for the organisation.

NC found that organisations that develop their own social networking platforms have had variable success with their implementation and impact. Inhouse networks “…provide too formal a script for people’s interactions, writing out the connections between internal and external networking, between work and social life” (page 44). In other words, those organisations simply do not get it. Those organisations have not figured out that they can no longer be in control of work-related networking that utilises employee social networks online. NC found that the most innovative responses by organisations to social networking online is to go with the grain of networks. That is very useful advice indeed.

However, it is not just a case of going with the flow in terms of networking platforms, the nature of the relationship between employee and employer must also adapt to embrace social interaction online. It’s about embracing peer-relationships and peer production. Organisations need to look beyond financial remuneration to connect with employees and their peers. Organisations need to work with the freedoms that come from self-directed exploration and self-expression within peer-to-peer relationships. Or, as Charlene Li might say, it’s about having conversations with employees, not issuing commands that come out of centralised management processes.

Social capital

Another important distinction to make between traditional networking within and between organisations, and social networking online, is that there is no ownership online, either in terms of the employer or individual. Sure, an individual increases their social capital value from networking online, but they do not own the data or the connections contributed by others. Questions about who owns your data are raging right now, and I’m not going to get into that right now. Suffice to say that, just as organisations must free-up some control over their relationships with employees, organisations cannot claim an intellectual property right on the value arising from the blurred social/work networks.

Networked citizens: first post

Well, I’ve finally got around to posting a more substantive review of network citizens (Peter Bradwell & Richard Reeves, Demos). This will be the first of several postings.

On going through the paper a second time I picked up on a lot nuances that I missed first time around. Overall, I feel this is insightful and useful research…it prompted me to think more creatively about the possible social & economic directions arising out of the networked society.

In fact, it led me to develop a hypothesis: as networking substitutes for other forms of communication and media, the network is the medium if you feel that:

· you define yourself in relation to your network(s)

· your values and reputation are significantly shaped by your networks

· your social capital is largely created and maintained by social networking.

Here are a few implications (just to get your mind buzzing):

· employers recruiting networks, not individuals

· marketers targeting networks, not individuals

· political decisions being networked-driven

· coaches guiding networked-players co-coached by others.

One outcome would be that an organisation’s human resources would be much more differently conceptualised and managed than traditional approaches: boundaries no longer apply; resources are no longer considered in terms of individuals.

All very interesting, but the most intriguing issue for me is the ability of networks to empower organisation without organisations (as Clay Shirky would say). This issue goes to the heart of what for me is what the networked citizens report is particularly interested in: how to harness social networking for business advantage in ways that complements the logic of organisations.

I guess that is reasonable. But I wonder if the is the right question.

What are the social drivers that work to enable “the vitality of networks in enhancing innovation, productivity and democracy” (page 12)?

How different are those drivers to organisational experiences?

How do these things stand in contrast to the social and cultural factors amplified through social networking online that “deepen and extend human networks” (page 14)?

From my experience, online social networking is more open and transparent than offline networking. Not completely so, but in many ways, taking the global reach of online networking and the inherently open nature of the internet, online networking deepens connections between individuals and groups of people that is transformative: in the way people socialise, play, create, make decisions, think about things and lastly but very substantively, they way they work.

And yet, the take-away message I’m getting from networked citizens is the need to find ways to manage online networking. I ask: can they be managed; should they be managed (by organisations). I think not.

More on network capital

OK, I’m really pleased with the responses I’ve had to my last posting. I’m certainly keen on looking into social network value…and have started doing so.

Some of the other networking I’ve done over the last couple of months has been triggered or fostered through this blog as well. I’ve had some really useful exchanges with ‘friends’ and followers on other social networking sites recently too, and my networks in Australia, China, North America and the UK in particular have continued to expand. With one exception, I’ve got to say I’m really pleased with the way my social networking activity has gone of late. Kind of like on the road to achieving a vision. That’s got to be good!

I now have several expressions of interest to collaborate that I am keen to follow-up with, and some research referrals to pursue. I’ve read a couple of really interesting papers that I’ve found to be instructive and stimulating (on network citizens and social capital value) and I’ll be sharing my views on these soon. So the richer experience for me of late has been in establishing deeper relationships and less from the weaker links in the form of feeds and tweets etc. Of course, the weak links remain of value – like following and being followed by the Australian Prime Minister (or at least his office) and Leader of the Opposition on Twitter. Actually, Twitter remains an incredibly useful way to find out what others reactions are to events and developments. So, there has been much happening for me, and all of this during a time when I’ve had a couple of breaks from being online.

The exception is that I’ve not had the space or interest to be that active in some of the social networking and social media sites where I have a presence. I guess it is all part of the learning process for me right now…and I am sure new tools to help find, interpret and aggregate social networks and feeds are on the horizon.

I am gaining in social network value…some of which will be useful at work. Sure, I can add value at work while enhancing my own sense of value. That’s cool. But it does beg a question from a general perspective (not personal): how much value is accrued to the firm/organisation from the networking activities of individuals? Just a share of it in fact i would say, with the proportion of value to the firm or individual respectively dependent on context. That’s almost suggestive of some kind of sliding scale or continuum of value.

Enough pondering for now. It’s time to eat!

Measures of network capital

Social networking and social media are changing the way economic, social and political activity is organised, content is created and distributed, and how influence and reputations are built and maintained. The growth and importance of social networking and social media has been outstanding, quick and global.

For business, effective social networking outside organisational boundaries creates value through tapping into cost savings or knowledge networks that lie beyond the capacity of any one firm to retain. Social media has an international reach that is not possible within the confines of traditional media. Traders have customers around the world, nations connect with citizens around the world. For government agencies and not-for-profits, social networking beyond jurisdictional boundaries creates influence and agility. All organisations benefit from the scale advantages of reaching beyond institutional boundaries.

What measures are obsolete now? What theories of the firm, of management and of political science are dated? What the positive and negatives inter-relationships between the established institutions and practices and digital networking?

Who are the masters of networking online? Why are they masters? I’m talking about more than who wears suits and who does not.

Substantive socio-economic changes are under way. How are they…or perhaps, how should they be measured? What are the quantifiable as opposed to qaulifiable measures? How should networked influence be measured? Can these measures be scaled to an individual, a firm, a community, a nation? What should an organisation do to leverage the advantages of social networking and social media? What are the pitfalls or disadvantages of social networking? How do communities, regions and nations compare? What are the cultural, political, economic and geographical influences on the effective use of social networking and social media? Who are the losers? Who are the winners?

Enough questions to be going on with. I intend to get to the bottom of them. Perhaps prepare an index of measures or benchmarks. Who would find such an index to be of help?  I know that many of the questions I’ve posed would have been asked by others, and some of the answers would have been identified.

But I am not aware of an index of network capital. Would that be of interest to you as an individual, to your organisation or to your country?

Contact me at conem2 at gmail dot com.

Social Actor Networks

I’ve noticed that an article this month on ‘digital intimacy‘ by Clive Thompson in The New York Times has had a positive reaction in the blogosphere. I’ve been prompted to share my impressions too, in part through having observed others ‘living their lives online’, in part through my own online experiences, and in part as a graduate in sociology.

Clive asked why people found up-to-the minute updates about other people on Facebook “intriguing and addictive”. Apparently sociologists call this phenomenon ambient awareness – it’s like being able to pick up on someones mood through the corner of your eye when you are in close proximity. Microblogging has taken this to a another level where a user can sense the rhythm of a friend’s life in a way not experienced before. Individual postings may be insignificant on their own, but over time would coalesce into a reasonably sophisticated understanding of anther’s life experiences.

That observation took me back to Douglas Rushkoff’s discussion of fractals and discontinuity. Through being able to see or sense inter-relatedness, what appear to be senselessly chaotic irregularities can turn out to have an underlying order to them By focusing on discontinuity, we can come to understand it.

Now this goes to the core of futures thinking: by focusing on uncertainty, we have a better chance of understanding the forces driving change.

I’ve noted before than social networking can meet basic social needs. Clive’s article brings this out very well. As one user told Clive, using Facebook and Twitter is a way of feeling “less alone”. Another said “things like Twitter have actually given me a much bigger social circle”.

Deeper relationships are still predicated on ‘face time’. But there is value from “weak ties” forged through social media.  According to Clive, “sociologists have found that weak ties greatly expand your ability to solve problems”. Avid users of Facebook and Twitter can come to know much more about themselves.

So another take I have on this is that digital intimacy generates social capital. Understanding online social culture is not just a matter of focusing on social actors, but social actor networks.

As Clive noted, digital intimacy can be very hard to understand until you have experienced life streaming yourself. You need to participate – engage in the stream. Think and act creatively, avoid looking for linear relationships.

The flip side is, what is the social and economic cost of not participating? The divides between those always connected with others online and those that are not are becoming more socially and economically complex.

Beijing Olympics 2.0

I’ve been wondering how many netizens will prefer a Web-based Olympics experience as opposed to network television. During the course of today I have come across:

•  a blog posting to share the web sites around world that will have Olympics coverage
• a Twitter feed called 080808 just for the Olympics
• a mash-up of the Twitter feed and Flickr postings

Just an indicator of what netizens around the world are doing

Social Web’s driving personal, community and organisational change

‘Improve ways for people to connect and communicate and change the world’. That thought has been preoccupying me for some time now. It is time to get productive. This posting threads together some of my reflections. It outlines some ‘headline’ research ideas that I have to gain a deeper understanding and clarity over ways in which the Social Web is changing the World. Change that is in a social, economic and political sense, driven by the use of social networking (eg. Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Friendfeed, LinkedIn, Hi5, Bebo, Orkut, Miki and so on) and all manner of blogs and discussion groups, interactive web sites and messaging that connect people with others to communicate and to share.

Human beings are social, and socialising for many in the 21st century is no longer constrained by location, culture or by social or temporal barriers. In comparison, for many people in developed countries, the 20th century was a time of social fragmentation and isolation due to:

• suburbanisation
• watching TV instead of socialising with others
• social dispersion through globalisation and the ease of international and national travel in search of jobs and new experiences
• social isolation as many travel alone to work in their own vehicles
• kids being home alone while both parents work (and as neighborhoods experience declining social capital as residents interact less).

Social networking sites (SNS) meet a basic social need…to know that we are not alone.  Online connections vary between relationships that are strong (eg. close friends and families) but also relationships that are weak or episodic. That is not to say weak in terms of value – emotionally, professionally, commercially. Some people are ‘hyper-connected’ – they live their lives online, connecting with hundreds or thousands of people.  Others have no presence at all online. What may be the longer term consequences, respectively? What are the comparative benefits to individuals and communities of interest from an expanding array of cultural and social reference points available to them online? What are the comparative risks to individuals who spend much of their time interacting with others online and less time with their family and friends offline?

Organisations have cottoned on that in a fast changing world, they cannot rely on their own knowledge base locked behind IP within internal organisational boundaries. They cannot rely so heavily on timely and relevant expert advice from institutions (edcuation/research/media/consultants). Being competitive means being networked.

I feel that these are big changes. Really big. I’d like to explore the social and economic impacts of the Social Web in much more detail. I’d like to find out what the inter-relationship are between the Social Web and social capital.

My thoughts are being formed by scanning (shifting through masses of information and thinking though the patterns and inter-relationships). I’m referring here to reading, viewing/listening and conversing with others. I’m referring to contemplation, analysis and writing. That’s what I do.

But more than that…much more…has been my own experience as a Social Web participant. I have a modest presence, but an expanding one. I have much more to experience and learn. Even with that, I am amazed about who I am connecting with and the effect that it is having on me.

So this is experiencial research. I know that others have completed research well in advance of me and I’m keen to get up to speed with that as well.  There is much to do.

To tweet or not to tweet

Interesting posting here from Andrew Zahler on whether to hop on the Twitter bandwagon or not. Andrew outlined five good reasons to go for it and five good reasons to avoid it. That prompted me to share my experience and motivations. I joined-up to Twitter just a few weeks ago.

Here is what I commented on Andrew’s blog: 

“I had been holding out until a few week ago. I had held off mainly ’cause, as you say, I have so much info through RSS feeds and the like. Joining Friendfeed helps to keep on top.

But Twitter is fascinating. I’m connecting with really interesting people in ways i would not have otherwise.  Last weekend I watched a sports match live on TV, and shared the event over Twitter with people spread over two continents and three cities. It really added to the emotional connection.

Social media is also of increasing interest to me as a professsonal strategic thinker. Being engaged is part of the research process.”

Twitter has had it’s problems as you may know. Actually, while it’s been frustrating, I’m fascinated by the attachment that many still have to Twitter (including me). It’s like you are not fully dressed without a mobile … I’m not really connected without Twitter.

Of course it is earlier days in social networking terms. How long Twitter keeps it’s hold before a usurper or two comes along is… a matter of time. Goofy2 perhaps. But my desire for connectivity social networking style will not now recede.