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....

So, your company decided to try out Chatter, or maybe you built a wiki. And naturally you want to measure your ROI. There are lots of great analytics tools out there, right?

Not so fast. What do you want to measure?

A successful social media ‘campaign’ within an enterprise can have outcomes quite dissimilar from those resulting from a successful external social media campaign. There are tools out there that do a great job of measuring transactions, sure. There are even good tools for measuring some subtler stuff, like reach and influence. But if you’re using social media tools inside an enterprise, you probably want to measure their effect on culture and performance. That means collecting and analyzing a different data set that the one you’d seek if you were, say, trying to figure out how many more widgets your Facebook page helped sell…or even, how much your brand awareness increased as a result of your Twitbookspace campaign.

What if you want to measure how your new tool or platform is doing driving internal collaboration? Or knowledge-sharing?

You can measure knowledge by quizzing participants on topics. But what if they’re sharing knowledge on topics you haven’t already identified? And how do you track increases in collaboration?

There’s a ton of room in this field, dear reader – are you entrepreneurial programmers listening? Sure, Jive bought Radian6, clearly someone is already thinking about these issues. But as far as I can see, there’s still plenty of opportunity out there to develop tools to do this kind of analysis. Because, as Rick Ridder likes to say, “If you can’t count it, it didn’t happen.” (I used to work for Rick. He’s forgotten more about research than I will probably ever know.)

So, get on it, IT people…we need more ways to figure out what kind of difference we’re making with these cool new toys.

I can’t really get too worked up about scalping, myself. It seems to me that if the scalpers are willing to go to the trouble of standing on line all night to get their hands on the devices before they run out, they should be able to profit from it. Yes, it’s a drag to pay more, but did you really want to spend the entire night camped out in front of the Apple store? The scalpers actually added value. Pay up.

Part of the beauty of social media is that it makes it so easy to collaborate – on a wiki, on a document, even a co-authored blog. Enterprises that are trying to leverage Web 2.0 business tools need to figure out how to handle the ‘added value’ issue. Traditional companies are used to giving one department, or employee, or a well-defined set of participants, the ‘credit’ for a finished work product. But in an age when they are launching tools that lean towards crowdsourcing, better ways to allocate ‘credit’ have to be established.

People won’t want to add value if they’re seen as ‘scalpers’, just profiting off someone else’s work. So are you going to adapt your culture to a more collaborative model, where ‘credit’ is not as important as being engaged? Or are you going to build widgets into your social business suite that will track engagement and participation, so that credit can be spread equitably among all those who contribute to an outcome?

Jive does this brilliantly, and delivers the results in a way that ‘credit’ is given quite democratically. Search for a topic within Jive, and the search engine will return names (and profile photos!) of individuals within your organization that have contributed productively on that topic in the past.

What other good widgets are out there that allocate credit for collaboration?

Think about who the early adopters were: small businesses. New businesses. Entrepreneurs, consultants, agencies, non-profits, self-published authors, gamers. All these folks were out there experimenting with Twitter, building Facebook pages, blogging away, tinkering with all the new tools that popped up.

Meanwhile, corporate policymakers (yes, that’s YOU, IT and HR and corporate communications and C-suite!) were busy blocking access to social media or setting up their systems to tell internal users accessing those sites that their activity would be monitored.

Big Brother is watching you.

So of course the wise and ambitious stayed away from all that stuff at work. When they went off the clock, they mostly got interested in social media as a toy.

Cut your team some slack, and give them some extra time in their day to experiment, and to investigate the potentially useless as well as the obviously useful. Then remember the social media gap the next time you  think about setting up an annoying, small-minded policy.

Triple Pundit reported on a different angle of this intersection at SXSWi, and called it the “Big Green Disconnect” between tech and sustainability communities, saying “the few green related panels were under attended and often rudimentary,” suggesting that each community is talking a different language.  Our friend and advisor Bill Shutkin had a similar, less politic rant over dinner a few weeks back, along the lines of “do we really need another Twitter app while our energy and financial systems are in crisis?.” Both comparisons were predated by Silicon Valley tech guru Tim O’Reilly’s call in 2008 to “work on something that matters,” where he beat a drum of “create more value than you extract.”

So, now the meme has been released, and some cool kids in technology (largely a comfortable-if-not-affluent crowd from a global perspective) think social entrepreneurship is the next big thing.  Mostly, this is good.  Right?

Well… a great piece in the NY Times on March 14th reported a story that pointed to an important trend — when inundated with snow, the Washington Post was not using Twitter, YouTube or Foursquare, but rather Ushahidi, an IT platform built in Kenya, to map road blockages and resource availability during the disruptive storm.

The article points out, “Ushahidi comes from another world [than Silicon Valley], in which entrepreneurship is born of hardship and innovators focus on doing more with less, rather than on selling you new and improved stuff.  Because Ushahidi originated in crisis, no one tried to patent and monopolize it.  Because Kenya is poor, with computer systems out of the reach of many, Ushahidi made its system work on cellphones.  Because Ushahidi had no venture-capital backing, it used open-source software and was thus free to let others remix its tool for new projects.”

The Washington Post serves an important lesson to the Austin-Boulder-SF-Cambridge crowd of digi-do-gooders and green lemmings at SXSW.  Even thought an important tide is tipping in the consciousness of the web-tools crowd, practical results still seem far off.  And in the (currently somewhat less) well-financed hubs all trying to “the next Silicon Valley,” e-mails about new conferences, magazines and other gathering points for this new intersection are traveling the web today.  The space will surely evolve, but today, the bottom line remains pretty much single in the tech community.

As Triple Pundit points out, much of the progressive IT community is still pretty slow to get even the second layer of complexity in the massive puzzle of global human sustainability, even as they drink the free green beer at a SXSW party called “Good Capitalist.”  In the meantime, the ability to actually get things done is created by people who have a pressing, immediate need for the transformation of data and information into the knowledge and understanding that can affect practical decision-making.  As the back-to-back DC blizzards (a climate anomaly, at least) pressed the city into micro-catastrophe, tools borne out of crisis trumped tools born out of opportunity.

Even though sustainability thinkers like Shutkin debate the value of “sky is falling” framing for the presentation of a new social innovation, we think there’s more Nairobi (necessity is the mother of invention) and less Sunnyvale, CA (wouldn’t if be cool if…) in creating social-purpose IT.  The consciousness shift will be complete when technological innovators realize that the balance is not between making profits and serving people, but between earth’s resources serving 3 billion people or 9 billion.  Until that shift happens, we’ll still be chipping ice off the icebergs for our drinks at the next party.

During what any humble, reflexively sarcastic entrepreneur would think of as a week with no other good interview candidates, we got an email from Teju Ravilochan, co-founder of Unreasonable, asking if we’d be game for the experience.

The results turn out pretty well, it seems (you might need to turn the volume up, or else the onboard speakers on this aging computer are loosing their umpf).

Would love your feedback.

Today, “The Ownership of Conversation” came across the tweetstream.  Enjoy these out-takes:

So, if you think you own an idea… get over yourself.

You don’t own the conversation. You don’t own the idea. You don’t even own the words you used to formulate it.

You can’t copyright a vision. You can’t patent a movement. You can’t possess what can’t be seen.

That’s because…

An idea is bigger than you.

Something to stand for is more important than the person standing for it. A vision is more important than the person providing it. A movement is bigger than the people moving it.

The people are important. Leaders are important. But they are never more important than the principle or the idea itself.

More of a rant than a comprehensive thesis, this post still points out something that’s welling up for a long time.  What do you think?

First post is about the GSSE at CSU, an awesome program that I strongly endorse.  If you’d be so kind, please head over and write a quick comment, to raise the profile of the sustainable enterprise in Colorado on their radar.

One of many laudable aspects of the program is the 50/50 ratio of US and domestic students in each cohort.  As we learned recently at their annual kickoff celebration — hosted at sustainable business paragon New Belgium Brewery, this translates into teams with experience on multiple continents, often boasting 10 languages spoken on an individual project.

Six prospective companies presented their plans as the program’s second cohort.  We expect one or two of these to become strong companies after graduation, if not before.  Here are very brief summaries of the concepts:

• RWI is focused on technology to increase clean water in Africa, with a great start working in Kenya.
• Cradle of Tea is tea made from coffee leaves, and is in an interesting internal debate: to use a co-op model or more traditional suppliers model.
• Latin Health has a dengue fever solution.  When the engaged locals this summer, they learned that student nurses more interested than business students, who wanted to graduate and “get a job.” This brings a new opportunity to nursing candidates, helping them earn money in a new way.
• Ayzh is focused on deploying technology solutions for rural women. Opportunity to take 1.2 bn women out of working 16 hrs per day for no money and no respect. Start with health care. Water filter. Aquaponics. More. Education is core to mission.  Generati g sales in2010.
• Organic Oasis is founded by returning peace corps volunteers, creating a business at an intersection of themes, including aquaponics and microfranchising, providing healthier food, increased profits and smaller carbon footprint.
• Rocky Mountain Hops is focused on creating a marketplace for locally produced hops, with a focus on stewardship and a slow-food related philosophy.

Helping to incubate these ideas, the GSSE faculty is first-rate, mixing teach and academics with their collective background in real-world enterprise, both for-profit and non-profit.  We got to spend time with several members of the team — Carl Hammerdorfer, Tom Dean, Paul Hudnut and Margarita Lenk, each of whom are doing good well.

As the world pays more and more attention to Colorado as a hub in sustainable enterprise, everyone needs to keep their eye to the northern end of the Front Range, where GSSE anchors a key hub innovative sustainable enterprise.