nuance intelligence

LinkedIn rolled out a new feature recently (but not to everyone at the same time – the US, India, Australia and New Zealand got it first) called Endorsements, a one-click method of identifying what skills your contacts possess. It’s an easy-to-use function that might end up being worthwhile, and I’m inclined to play with it a bit and see if it adds some value to my LI experience.

A few thoughts:

- An Endorsement isn’t nearly as powerful as a Recommendation. It requires virtually no effort to endorse someone; I’d put a much lower value on it as an assessment tool.

- I don’t think the etiquette is exactly clear yet but it seems less likely to inspire responsiveness than Recommendations, again, due to its ease of use.

- The single biggest problem with Endorsements, to date, is the annoying popup that LinkedIn is using to drive people to the tool. By asking you to ‘endorse’ a bunch of people without requiring that you look at their entire list of self-identified skills, LI is adding a lot of randomness to the Endorsements that are getting made.

Done right, I think Endorsements could be a useful sorting screen when assessing a new contact (or a potential new hire) to see what peers think someone’s best skills are…but right now the randomness of the tool encourages people to select what’s in front of them instead of what they think the person is really best at. So, not perfect yet, but an intriguing idea that could be worthwhile eventually.

If you are involved with higher education, or e-commerce, you have probably heard of the latest-greatest innovation in learning, the MOOC, or massively online open course. MOOCs are free distance-learning, web-based classes that are open to anyone who chooses to enroll. Stanford University pioneered the concept and a couple of Stanford professors teamed up to found Coursera, a for-profit company that manages MOOC offerings from a number of august institutions, including Stanford, the University of Virginia, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and others. Yes, okay, higher education is obviously late to the party in terms of finally figuring out online+education=more people getting educated, but…they got there eventually. [NOTE: I've gotten a couple of messages since this blog was published from people who pointed out that MIT and the University of Manitoba are probably more deserving of the 'MOOC pioneers' label. If you want a longer discussion of the origins and complexities of MOOCs, read this excellent paper on the subject by a fellow at Korean Open National University.]

I signed up for Introduction to Mathematical Thinking, taught by Stanford’s Keith Devlin, who has more credentials than I can shake a stick at including buckets of awards and lots of published books and articles. There were plenty of other classes that might have been a more natural fit for a businesswoman with a liberal arts degree, but I’m a glutton for learning. And it seems to me that one of the benefits of this great educational experiment must be the opportunity to learn something outside of your comfort zone, from a pre-eminent expert in the subject, without any risk to your academic record. Sort of like taking a pass-fail course as an undergrad, only without the giant tuition payment (without direct contact with the professor, or your TA, of course, but, hey, it’s FREE.)

However, this approach can come with collateral damage to your ego. Did I mention that I am not so great at math? I never took high school calculus and I think I spent most of algebra trying to figure out how to get the hot guy that sat across from me to notice me. So I was, shall we say, a little behind the eight-ball coming into the class.

I’m having a blast. Yes, I failed the first online test, but I really am absorbing a lot of information – set theory! the use of logical combinators! – and I expect that I’ll make it through the final exam.

But now let me do something I actually do well, which is analyze the social/business aspect of MOOCs. How could you make money off MOOCs? Here are a few places to start:

1) Sell stuff. Some of Coursera’s offerings come with handy links to buy a textbook related to the class. So some of the usual suspects (Amazon, authors of textbooks) will make money there.

2) Data. I don’t know how Coursera is tracking our data, but with over 50,000 of us signed up for just this one class, that’s a lot of name/email/etc captures, and I’m sure the Stanford smarties can find a way to aggregate and monetize it.

3) Advertise. There are myriad opportunities for advertising in the spaces around the course itself, as well as the communities that are springing up to manage the needs of students in a virtual environment. I’m enjoying the ad-free look that Coursera currently sports, but I’m not expecting it to last.

4) Online domains. I really like StudyRoom, a virtual space where I connect with other students and some TAs (who are volunteers) and ask questions about the assignments. Virtual worlds could help students in many different learning environments, not just MOOCs – the challenge is going to be building the right communities, even when you don’t have 50,000 people enrolled in a course.

So, how are the universities – the content providers – going to make their buck? They’ve got plenty of options. I think the real issue is going to be moving their bureaucracies. Prevailing model: offering education for a carefully selected group of paying customers (students) who want a very exclusive product. New MOOC model: making money from a system that offers education to any customer (student) who wants it, and monetizing the infrastructure that gets built around the system.

MOOCs also have a direct impact on the brands of the universities who choose to offer them, and I’d say it’s 100% positive impact thus far. There’s the social service aspect – offering education to all comers. And the perception that a university taking part in the MOOC experiment has to have some cutting-edge thinkers. Good stuff. It will be interesting to see if Coursera eventually accepts MOOC offering from less-than-august institutions, or if it sticks to A-list schools. If they do, they’ll have competition…if not, they risk devaluing their brand. [NOTE: Since I wrote this blog, Coursera has begun offering some courses from not-A-list schools.]

For my part, I’m loving the experience. I realize I’m a rat running through a higher-ed maze, but it’s a nice maze, and they’re giving me great rewards for pushing the buttons.

Let’s face it, political conventions are not terribly newsworthy. Except for the rare event of a teleprompter breakdown, or an Academy award-winning actor having a heart-to-heart with a chair, nothing that happens is likely to be surprising. Did the Republicans nominate Mitt Romney? The Dems nominated Barack Obama? Gee, what a surprise!

Enter Twitter. Oh, Twitter! How we love what you’ve done for democracy!

ABC’s coverage of the Democratic National Convention last night included a selection of tweets, near real-time, fed by their inclusion of a caption listing the hashtag #dnc2012. So, we got to see some reactions from people watching as they tweeted about the event. Now THAT’S more like it!

From the perspective of a heavy social media user, TV is always sort of boring. The fun part comes when you get to see what your circle of friends and acquaintances thought of what you were mutually, but separately, watching. So, ABC took a step in the right direction. Maybe others did, too…I’ll confess to not having the patience to wade through more than one broadcast.

The reactions of the non-media – aka, the electorate – are more interesting to me than most of the content of the actual convention.

What I’d like to see is something more like a stock ticker at the bottom of the screen, with constant, real-time updates. It should have an ‘off’ option, like closed-captioning. Or, not. Everyone will eventually get used to a constant stream of information from any viewing device.

The DNC convention floor

LinkedIn is so absurdly useful. It doesn’t have the addictive quality of Twitter or the mindless fun of Facebook, but it’s a great business tool. You can use LinkedIn to find a new job, develop professional skills, or learn about new resources for your work. So, you’ve gotten your act together to the point where you’ve got a profile and some connections, right?

No? If not, that’s where you should start. LinkedIn will guide you smoothly and quickly through profile setup and finding your first few connections.

Now what?

1) Connect to more people. The biggest networks are not always the strongest, but you should connect with anyone you know at least slightly, and with whom you have a decent level of professional comfort. You can do this by checking out the People You May Know box (upper right-hand corner of your home page) or by looking through your current connections and linking with people they’re connected to, who you know, too.

2) Look at Groups, and join a few. This is a good way to see what people in your profession/industry are talking about, and can be a good way to grow your network. It’s okay to join a bunch of groups and leave those that don’t meet your needs. Try some out and see where the interesting conversations are happening.

3) Read your News. LinkedIn offers a newsfeed, similar to Facebook’s, except that instead of scrolling through baby pictures uploaded by your high school friends, you’ll see which of your connections got promoted, who’s moved to a new organization, and who’s recently posted to their blog…things you can bring up the next time you run into them at a networking event or a meeting.

4) Check out jobs. Yes, even if you’re not job-hunting. Reading listings of jobs that LinkedIn thinks you’d be interested in (and their algorithms seem to do pretty well picking jobs for you, as long as you’ve filled out your profile adequately) will give you insight into the job market, and into what skills are considered essential skills for your function by other employers.

5) Write a recommendation or two. Everyone likes to see other people writing nice things about their work, and if you offer a couple of unsolicited recommendations for colleagues whose work you respect, you might get a couple written for you, too.

The blogosphere has spoken, and its judgement was swift and harsh.

I don’t disagree – Goldman Sachs muffed the response to Greg Smith’s spectacular resignation-via-OpEd (in the New York Times! Oh. Snap.)

Yeah, they coulda done better. A lot better.

However, I don’t necessarily think the buck stops at the crisis PR team who got the ‘pleasure’ of taking on this juggernaut of a corporate mess.

First of all, Goldman’s side of the story got told, and fast. So, points for speedy PR action, Goldman folks.

But their tactics appear to have included impugning Smith’s character, trying to damage his credibility and cueing up comments from former colleagues saying he’d never work in finance again.  Goldman’s fingerprints are all over pieces like these.

Their milquetoast statement on the matter was equally unimpressive:

“We disagree with the views expressed, which we don’t think reflect the way we run our business. In our view, we will only be successful if our clients are successful. This fundamental truth lies at the heart of how we conduct ourselves.”

Ugh. Defensive. Overly broad. I could go on, but, well, ugh.

So, was this all PR’s idea?

I wonder.

I’m envisioning a powerful company leader placing a raging early morning phone call to his communications team: ‘bury the bastard who just embarrassed the firm in front of the whole world. I mean, BURY HIM.’

Maybe PR put down their coffee mugs and urged a more measured response. If so, they lost that fight.

When PR doesn’t have a seat at the table, you will not see companies making their best communications decisions under pressure.

Was Goldman’s public relations fail the result of a) bad PR leadership or b) weak PR leadership?

Either way, this company has problems.

Getting the most out of LinkedIn is not just a matter of posting your resume and accepting ‘link’ requests. If you’re using LinkedIn as part of a networking or business development strategy (whether it’s a personal strategy or one to support your business), you need Groups.

There are a multitude of public relations, corporate communications and internal communications groups. Not all are equal – some have plenty of activity, good discussions, are managed actively and well and offer insight into the profession as well as good job leads and contacts. Others – not so much.

Start with LinkedIn “Groups You May Like” to see what LI’s algorithms pull up for you. This list will also provide a gauge for how active the groups are and who’s in those groups.

Any ‘best groups’ list is subjective and reflects the interests of the blogger, but for what it’s worth, here are 5 groups that I’ve found worthwhile.

1. Internal Communication – Lots of good discussions, and some retainer recruiters are using this group. Large UK membership and it is managed well.

2. Corporate Comms Executive Network – Members are mostly from the UK and North America, the level of discussion seems to be pretty good, and quality jobs are listed fairly frequently.

3. CommScrum – Geared toward high-level internal communications strategy and the discussions are great. Lots of members from the UK and many senior-level members.

4. Corporate Communication – A very large and active group; this is the one to join if you’re looking for a communications or PR job in India, as India-based recruiters post jobs frequently here.

5. Public Relations and Communications Professionals – Another very large and active group – more noise and commercial posts seem to get past the moderators than in some of the other groups but still a good one due to the diverse membership and for job prospecting.

Okay, you’ve made it all the way to Part III (or have you? here are Parts I and II if you’re looking to catch up), so you still want your company to have a wiki. Right? Here’s how to go for it. Start by asking the key questions:

1) Who gets to play? Who will have access to the wiki? Who will find the contents useful? Is this a wiki that’s strictly for internal use, or one that’s primarily customer-focused? Are you hoping to bring your employees and customers together so both can contribute in some way? Define the parameters of your desired community. Most of all, what’s the purpose of the wiki? Knowledge-sharing? Collaboration? Define your business goal.

2) How will it get built? Create a strategic plan for the wiki that includes:

- a statement of purpose or charter, explaining who/what/why

- a communications plan showing how you propose to get the wiki populated

- metrics that will help you determine whether or not you’re reaching the goals you defined earlier.

3) Who’s on the team? You will need IT, some legal guidance to get rules-of-the-road established and (most important) an enthusiastic cadre of people who are willing to create content on topics for which they have a reasonable claim to expertise.

4) What about the details? Budget? Infrastructure needs? What software are you going to use to build it? Who will do the technical maintenance? What about the ‘gardening’ of the wiki, or content management?

5) Can we take a second look at that strategic plan? Go back and include details from #4.

Now, you’re ready to build the wiki. Get the technical project plan written, and implement. Muster your initial contributor group, start adding topics and you’re off and running.

Like any other system, your wiki initially will have hiccups and rough spots. Have a pilot phase with a willing group of users; this one step will save you lots of apologies later on, and (more importantly) will help you develop a better, more easily navigable wiki that will keep users coming back for more.

If you’re looking for inspiration, check out a few of these successful wikis:

- World of Warcraft has a justly famous wiki that is a deep resource for the game’s passionate and community-oriented players.

- SAP has a wiki for users and developers, the SAP Community Network.

- Oracle’s developer-oriented wiki

- The Disney wiki is largely fan-written and is quite comprehensive, covering everything from Disney history to the company’s films and theme parks.

So you want to build a wiki. Of course you do – good wikis are great knowledge-sharing tools and are a fantastic way to use social media to measurably improve your organization’s capacity for collaboration.

Not so fast. Wikis have downsides.

Here’s a list of the top 5 problems faced by aspiring corporate wiki-builders.

1) Content vs. participation. A brand-new wiki is an empty box. There are no articles or topics, and nothing much to see. So you have to populate the wiki with good content. But it’s hard to get people to visit the wiki (and populate it) without having some reason for them to visit the wiki. Like good content. See the problem?

2) Maintenance.  Like a garden, wikis need someone to organize content, help users by adding internal links and structure, and ‘prune’ where necessary in the rare cases where inappropriate content ends up in the wiki (or in common cases where a bit of editing will offer clarity and brevity.) So you will need to add, if not head-count, then at least a new task for someone in the organization – the ‘wiki gardener.’ That person will have to have a rare hybrid combination of social, technical and writing skill. The more traffic the wiki gets, the busier the gardener gets.

3) Longevity. Wikis, like websites, lose their relevance if the information they provide isn’t kept up to date. Most organizations will have more wiki ‘readers’ than contributors, so if you want a diverse selection of content, you’ll have to go ask for it from time to time. You’ll also have ask knowledgeable people to read it for accuracy and quality.

4) The IT side can be messy. Your organization’s existing content management system might offer wiki functionality. If so, and you are only looking for an enterprise wiki, you can vastly simplify wiki construction by using what’s there (if the functionality meets your needs.) If not, you are looking at an IT challenge at some level.

5) Buy-in. If you’ve gotten this far, you’ve probably correctly concluded that you aren’t going to be able to do this by yourself. Correct! You will need willing participants in many parts of your organization who will be willing to contribute to the wiki, as well as buy-in from various departments (IT, corporate communications, legal, and sometimes HR.)

If you still want a wiki, Part III will talk about how to get started.

Wikipedia turned 10 this year. It’s fabulously useful.  Wikipedia has upwards of 3.8 million articles, and that’s just the English version – if you don’t dig/read English, you can check out one of the 269 other languages in which Wikipedia is available. Wikipedia has also provided a shining example of how awesome crowdsourcing really is…and how much a dedicated bunch of volunteers can do. Wikipedia remains a non-profit, supported largely by the contributions of users (and some prescient foundations and companies.)

So, what lessons can a for-profit enterprise learn from Wikipedia’s success? How can we make wikis work for us?

Imagine giving your organization a multi-directional communications platform that is the ultimate resource on any topic related to your business that your people think is relevant enough to share and discuss. Now imagine that all the good stuff that everyone in your organization knows (or made or drew or wrote or videotaped) is all right there, ready to be used by other team members, and vendors and customers, depending on the goals of your wiki and who has access.

Wikis are an amazing knowledge-sharing tool that enable organizations to benefit from anyone who cares enough – or is ambitious enough – to contribute. Wikis should be set up to allow anyone inside the company to contribute. That way, they tap the intellectual capital available at all levels of the organization.

A well-trafficked wiki offers peerless research opportunities for the organization’s leaders. If you want to know what is interesting to your employees, look at what is going into the wiki. And wikis are one way to establish two-way communications within an organization, on a broader scale than email could ever accomplish.

Wikis have a few downsides, too – which I’ll cover in Part II.

It take a village to raise a wiki....

“Nobody’s expecting much”

by Ian Harris

I once heard a story about a young British Member of Parliament, who was about to give his first speech on the floor of the house: his so-called maiden speech.

In Britain’s House of Commons, it’s the tradition that a maiden speech has to be delivered from memory. The Member of Parliament isn’t allowed to read it – instead, he or she must ‘deliver it cold’.

This young MP was certain he knew his stuff, and could normally talk with confident authority about the subject he’d picked. But before the speech, he was consumed with nerves. Over and over, he imagined himself failing spectacularly – corpsing in front of all the ‘old hands’ and looking like a fool.

On the day of his maiden speech, the MP perched nervously in his seat next to a veteran ‘old timer’ who had been an MP for years. When he was finally called to speak, he was about to rise when he felt a hand on his shoulder. It was the ‘old timer’ MP. “Enjoy yourself,” the kindly voice whispered, “But remember, nobody’s expecting much!”

“Nobody’s expecting much” should be your motto mantra in internal communications, too.

So many internal communication managers pump out business-as-usual content. Buzzword-ridden memos. Un-targeted newsletters. Communication that leaves staff wondering “what’s in it for me?”

All business audiences are expecting the usual rubbish. You can choose to either meet their expectations by being awful, or surprise them with relevant, fresh content that contributes to their professional lives in a new and original way.

Ian Harris runs www.internal-communication.com, a blog about internal communication