Developing intelligence in the Enterprise 2.0 world
The objective of this post is to gather info about how the E2.0 world opens up new opportunities and new ways of thinking with respect to developing intelligence in a collaborative way. This can serve as a an input to an Information Management Strategy in the new collaborative world of Enterprise 2.0
Previous/related posts on this:
- The impact of E2.0
- From Enterprise1.0 to Enterprise2.0 way of working
- Collective Intelligence
- Developing content
- The life of an Information Item
Supported Principles and Mindset
- Not only do I have the responsibility to collaborate, but I want to because I see the mutual value – it’s a way of life
- Trust – I trust my colleagues or the open community or are confident enough about myself to dare to put my input/questions out in the collaborative space. I also trust management or more important management trust their human capital (“If #e20 is to succeed, we must show that it is as easy to build trust in people as it is to control them”).
- None of us is as smart as all of us”
- The Wisdom of Crowds – how to pull on internal resources versus (or to complement) external expert resources
- Crowdsourcing Is the New Collaboration
- The value of the information worker
- The nature of collaborative work:
- Any work we do is at one stage or another (if not all) collaborative in nature
- When we collaborate our work is enhanced and enriched (given more value)
(if we live in a true collaborative workspace that gives the right kind of output and receives the right kind of input)
- In any work we do, somebody (or something?) else in our workgroup/company/related companies or organisations (even or most surely competitors)/country/the world, is/has been/will be working on the same or related issues.
- Collaboration is the only true form of information/knowledge gathering
- Any knowledge not shared is worthless
- Measuring the value of information:
Thumbs up, Likes, Voted for
See The life of an Information items : “My life is relative to the use people get of me. If I am not read, referenced or commented on by any humans for the space of say 5 years, I’m gone or stored away”
- We have structured information – the one that fits in fields on a form, often pulled from corporate systems. Can be represented in a form, lists and views. Needs some form of predefined structure and taxonomy.
- We have unstructured and typical conversational information – stored in documents, emails, forums, blogs/wikis, comments, discussion threads, etc. Contains typical emergent information. Information content and structure improves over time. (see: Informatrion Management part of The impact of E2.0: “Traditional hierarchy approach to Taxonomy or the Tagsonomy approach – populate upfront vs structure & data emerges see: 19 November 2009 | Ontologies & Tagsonomies at Taxonomy Boot Camp)
- We have Best practice, process, and governing documents data – and input/discussions to these – (see Handling unstructured/conversational data)
- In the Enterprise 1.0 world, unstructured information can be found in emails and print-centric documents – ie Micrososft Office files. These files are stored in file servers, document management systems or as email-attachment stored in email boxes
- In the Enterprise 2.0 (E2.0) world, unstructured information are typically found in wikis, (micro)blogs, comments, discussions threads, etc.
- Typical characteristic of E2.0 data is that it is emergent – ie it is published before it is finished while it is under construction, with the intention of encouraging input and common/collaborative content development.
- It is this kind of behaviour that makes E2.0 setup a better match than an E1.0 setup in typical knowledge-worker organisations encouraging inovation.
- Hypertext, associative linking and Web Oriented Architecture (WOA) are much better habitats for this kind of development than print-centric, file-oriented document types.
- In an E2.0 setup, referencing or linking information is a key factor. (see Tim Berners–Lee: The next Web of open, linked data)
- Therefore the granularity of referencing should be as detailed as practicable possible – ie. you should be able to link, not only to an article or blogpost, but to paragraphs within the blogpost, or to other key items like comments, illustrations, headings, etc. Anything that is referencable should be able to be commented on, developed, etc.
- So an information case or a common intelligence development is a collection of information items and may be from diverse places or sources .
- Based on this kind of infrastructure, granularity and linking, information may be presented to the user in a very flexible and to-the-point way (in real time, if you like).
- The policy is “Open if not restricted“. All information that don’t need to be hidden is open to the community. For the information items that need to be restricted, it is important that it is not taken out of the context, but presented within the context (eg discussion threads) for those that have access to it, for others, it is hidden.
- Valuing and enhancing the Hypertextual ability to reference and link, combined with granularity, we are in the HTML world sometimes left with a more basic text/content formating ability than those of standard (MS) office document production systems. As long as information/intelligence can be expressed in an understandable way we are satisfied.
To be continued ……