Collaborative Technology & The Knowledge Worker

The heart of what knowledge workers do on the job is collaborate, which in general means they interact to solve problems, serve customers, engage with partners, and nurture new ideas in sectors ranging from scientific research to line level problem solving.  In some sectors knowledge workers can account for up to 75% of the workforce, but we still don’t have adequate metrics to improve its efficiency and minimize the ‘wasted’ time inherent to knowledge work.

The recent influx of both commercial and open source collaborative technology solutions when used by knowledge workers has the potential to improve efficiency and add an element of quantitative metrics to measure success in an industry that has to this point been subjective.  There is potential for sizeable gains from even modest improvements of access to web 2.0 tools such as social networks, wikis, and video conferencing.  Both Cisco Systems and Procter and Gamble have employed this strategy with their international enterprise sales teams and have seen a significant improvement in productivity.

Now comes the important part –  in order to be really effective leaders must consider the behavioral and structural requirements of their industry first by understanding the capabilities their own knowledge workers need to increase their productivity, and not tailor their processes to accomodate the capabilities new technologies provide.  This may mean that out of the box solutions are not appropriate for your organization and require customization.  Like any other product or service; not all collaborations are created equal!

93t

Click on the image to check out McKinsey & Companies interactive tool to assess what collaborative tools are most appropriate for each class of worker!
(Using technology to improve workforce collaboration, James Manyika, Kara Sprague and Lareina Yee, 27 October 2009)

Collective Intelligence Trumps IQ?

I have read several articles recently that indicate the knowledge that can be gained through collective intelligence networks has made the importance of individual intelligence an unimportant factor in the achievement of this knowledge.

Aaron Saenz, editor of “Singularity Hub” a  blog and news network covering the latest in man’s journey towards the singularity (the point in mankind’s future when we will transcend current intellectual and biological limitations by “partnering” with technolgy to initiate an intelligence and information explosion) observes that while IQ scores are only advancing at a snail’s pace decade to decade, CI is expanding exponentially — thanks to Web 2.0 and its wealth of information aggregation services and has as such made IQ an obsolete factor in aquiring new knowledge.

Although it is undeniable that the capacity to gain knowlege through collective intelligence networks is staggaring and there is little doubt that humanity will indeed reach the singularity, the notion that individual intelligence no longer matters seems misguided.  There are many levels and varieties of intelligence, each contributing uniquely to the knowledge of the collective.   The proposed obsolescence of individual intelligence suggests that the contributions of a world full of people with homogeneous intelligence could collectively come up with the same (or superior) advances in knowledge as a population with heterogeneous intelligence.

The theory of collective intelligence as defined by James Surowieki requires 4 factors to be effective: Independance, Diversity, Decentralization and Aggregation.  In other words, the individuals in the collective should have varied levels of intelligence and expertise, be able to speak out and not fall victim to group think and then have a way to aggregate the resultant inputs.  

It would seem that varied individual intelligence is a key requirement to achieve optimum collective wisdom and advances in global knowledge.

What do you think?

To Facilitate or Not to facilitate?

So often the question that plagues meeting designers is whether their session be it strategic planning, product development or otherwise would benefit from an unbiased outside facilitator.

And the answer of course is: it depends on the conditions.

One of our Kingbridge Meeting Design Advisors recently encountered an example of this while running a collaborative technology session with a group working on their strategic plan.
michael air jordan shoes
For the first half of the meeting the internal facilitators had worked with a core group to do the preperatory analysis prior to the idea generation phase where they would utilize decision support technology to leverage the collective.  When the idea generation phase arrived so did a few additions to the group represented by some very high level and influential members of the company. 

It quickly became apparent to both the comany’s facilitators and the Meeting Design Advisor, who was guiding the use of the technology, that one of the new group members had a very dominant personality and was unintentionally stifling the creativity and openess of the group. 

In this instance the facilitators turned to the Meeting Design Advisor (MDA) to help get the group re-engaged.  As an unbiased and unconnected member of the group the MDA was able to intervene.  When the dominant personality would begin to pontificate the MDA respectfully interjected with “So if I am hearing you correctly, you believe that………….. and that the correct course of action would be to…………”  Once the statement had been approved and the speaker validated that their point was clear, there was then a focused opportunity to engage the rest of the group. 

The moral of this story is that there is a reason why the first step for planning an effective meeting is to “know the audience” and plan accordingly.  When there weren’t any dominant personalities or pontificators in the session to stifle the creativity the internal facilitators were able to channel the group effectively.  However, you throw a few senior staff members with strong personalities in the mix and the challenge of moderating conversation often becomes more difficult for internal team members than an unbiased outsider.

So, next time you are planning a session consider your audience, not just their positions but their personalities and the way they react under the pressure of a difficult conversation.  Only then will you be able to answer the question of whether ‘to facilitate or not to facilitate’.

Calling all Healthcare Collaborators

kingbridge_article_img_7As a pioneer and leader in the field of less invasive medicine I have spent over four decades working across many medical disciplines trying to overcome the biases inherent in clinical medicine and disruptive change. Out of this process a number of innovative collaboration technology tools and strategies have emerged.

LibraryMy passion for continuing to research how collective intelligence can give way to collective capability that brings about significant change inspired me to purchase The Kingbridge Centre as a laboratory and resource for pursuing this effort.  My vision for this centre is to create a neutral place where leaders from diverse sectors with different backgrounds can mutually explore effective experiences as well as doing post mortems on unsuccessful ones.

I believe the most significant advances in healthcare will require collaborations between business, government, non-government organizations and academia to improve individual and collective efforts for evolving health systems nationally and globally.

I would like to begin to build a community of collaborative minded professionals by hosting/sponsoring a few interactive forums at Kingbridge this year.  If you are interested in being a part of these forums and have a past successful or unsuccessful collaboration experience to share please contact me either through a comment on this forum or at institute@kingbridge.com.

John Abele

iPad screams "should have crowdsourced!"

I found this very interesting graphic on another techie blogger’s site and immediately realized that despite Apple’s success with their interactive and multi-functional i-Phones and i-Pods that take advantage of user generated apps the company still hasn’t fully grasped WHY these were sucessful.a-comparative-chart-between-two-tablets-2710-1264671723-11
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The success of their technology is in the user interaction with and contribution to not only the applications but the function of the product.  Single function, designer prescribed useage just isn’t going to cut it in the new world of user defined products!  If we already have a touchscreen smart phone that can hold our schedule, store pictures, take pictures, play movies stored on micro SD cards, stream video, read our e-mail to us, choose view mode, play games and pretty much everything all our other electronics can do all in one convenient package………….what would we want with a basic handheld touchscreen tablet that does none of those things but costs twice as much?
Maybe Apple should have asked us??

Stumble Upon It!

ads_promo1Today, as it happens, I stumbled upon “StumbleUpon” which I think is most simply described as TiVo for the Internet.  

StumbleUpon uses  thumbup/ thumbdown ratings to form collaborative opinions on website quality. When you stumble, you will only see pages that friends and like-minded stumblers have recommended. This helps you discover great content you probably wouldn’t find using a search engine.

StumbleUpon offers nearly 500 topics/interests to choose from so each Stumble produces only the most relevant content. StumbleUpon delivers increasingly relevant content as the Toolbar learns (like TiVo learns) what the user has liked in the past and continues to present quality web sites in the future.

Similar to Digg for news stories applied to the entire World Wide Web – could StumbleUpon be the beginning of the end for traditional search engines?

Crowdsourcing in Action

Yesterday, Febrary 5, The Kingbridge Centre as a member of IACC (International Association of Conference Centres) hosted a crowdsourcing session to determine what our clients are really looking for in a conference centre with the intention of course correcting accordingly.

Although not an Earth changing topic, the session did reveal areas that perhaps require more attention and others that require less in the mind of the consumer.   And isn’t that what we are here for: to please the consumer?

It amazes me that something so simple as asking your target audience what they expect from a product or service is so infrequently practiced.  A lot of companies spend a lot of time, effort and marketing dollars to tell us what we need or want yet seldom ask.  The success stories of organizations that place their efforts in sourcing what their customers want (Amazon, Starbucks, iStockPhoto and more recently Dell and HP) have seen exponential growth and increased customer loyalty. 

capture_starbucks

So why doesn’t every organization do it?
Habit?  Disbelief?  Arrogance?  Fear?
You tell me.

Google’s Nexus One – What Happened to Crowdsourcing?

The Google search engine organizes its webpage information based on user visits to sites resulting from keyword searches.
Google crowd sources their map data using applications that allow users to submit data as well as correct it in both Google maps and Google earth.
They also apply to concept of crowdsourcing to many of their user applications such as Google moderator, Google translate and Google traffic.

google-phone-android-nexus-one-3With Google basing their success on harnessing the wisdom of the collective to produce superior web applications one has to wonder:

Why didn’t Google use crowdsourcing to design their new android phone: Nexus One?

The hype surrounding the release of the Nexus One promised a revolutionary smart phone, a clear step above Apple Inc.’s i-Phone.  What was released however was an underwhelming, slightly improved (in some respects and not others) version of the existing android smart phone.

 How does it compare to the i-Phone?
“Coming up with ways in which the iPhone 3GS maintains a formidable lead over the N1 is a cakewalk. The iPhone OS’s interface is less cluttered. There are not only five times more iPhone apps (100,000+ vs. 20,000) but the best ones, such as Tweetie, may be five times better than their Android equivalents. Google doesn’t even seem to be trying to catch up with the iPhone’s entertainment features: Android lets you copy music from a PC but not sync it, and has no provisions for buying or renting video. Bottom line: The iPhone is (still) a more highly evolved, refined device.”  
                                                                    Harry McCracken, Technologizer

Perhaps, Google should have stuck with what works: 
User designed product!

Tweet While You Meet!

twitter_logo_278151120_stdWant to add an element of collective intelligence to your next meeting or conference?  Incorporate inputs from the global community on Twitter!

How often in a meeting or conference have you been participating in a conversation, listening to a presentation or in the midst of the decision making process and thought to yourself “I wish I knew someone with experience to ask or consult”?  Well, simply tweet you inquiry and you will be surprised how many experts you’ll know in a very short period of time! This approach is also effective as an accuracy barometer for content – information at the speed of DSL!  A perfect example of this can be found here, where a conference participant tells of one experience where twitter was a more accurate and engaging source for information than the conference presenters.

In addition to sourcing information and consulting with experts, Twitter is also a great way to gauge the effectiveness of your meeting strategies – as you are executing them.  Imagine, you have prepared a learning activity for your group that you believe is very clear and engaging but as you watch the tweets roll in from  your participants you can quickly gauge whether a course correction is in order.  This far surpasses the traditional meeting evaluation that occurs at the meetings conclusion when the comments will be less candid and conscise because they are no longer in the moment.

Meeting Planners have begun to use Web 2.o applications such as online surveys to engage meeting delegates in the planning and evaluation process, they now need to forge forward and embrace microblogging as a means to continue the process of delegate interaction during the event.  This article “Twitter for Event Planners” is a basic orientation to the application and how to use it effectively for meetings and conferences.

Whether you choose to utilize Twitter to harness information and heighten engagement in your conferences or not, the conversation is happening!

Cultivate a Collaborative Enterprise Culture

Over the last month we have explored cultivating collaborative leadership by developing individual CQ (Cultural Intelligence – What’s your CQ & Cultural Intelligence – Raise your CQ).  Now we will take a look at developing your organizations CQ in order to cultivate a collaborative enterprise culture.

Mary Stacey, founder and Managing Director of Context Management Consulting Inc. in Toronto held a workshop to explore this topic yesterday December 3, 2009 at MaRS Discovery District.

To offer a summary of the interactive session, Stacey suggests that cultivating a collaborative enterprise culture requires that as a leader you must:

1. Pay attention to the culture of your enterprise at every phase of it’s development
2. Develop your individual leadership capacity
3. Develop CQ through leadership DAC
                                                                      Direction: each individual knows the
                                                                      goals and aims of the collective.
                                                                      Alignment: coordination of knowledge
                                                                      and work in the collective.
                                                                      Commitment: willingness of 
                                                                      individuals to expend effort towards the
                                                                      needs of the collective.
stephen curry shoes playoffs
DAC is directly proportional to CQ, that is to say it is a scale where an organization’s DAC can be anywhere on the spectrum between high and low and generally the higher your organizations DAC the higher its CQ.  Therefore, since higher CQ is an indicator of collaborative culture where you sit on that spectrum defines the type of enterprise culture you have.

 CQ 2.0

Where is your organization on this spectrum?

For more detailed information on cultivating collaborative cultures both “Action Inquiry” by Bill Torbert and “Leadership Agility” by Bill Joiner are excellent resources.