Social Software Helps Rebuilding Efforts in New Orleans

June 27, 2008 at 12:16 pm | In Blogs, BurtonGroupCatalyst08, Enterprise 2.0, Web 2.0, social software | 2 Comments

I’m here at our Catalyst Conference in San Diego and just saw a great presentation from Alan Gutierrez of Think New Orleans.  Alan is a community organizer and, through a stunning set of photos from his city, showed the challenges that New Orleans faced after Hurricane Katrina and how social software in every possible form helped to provide informal, emergent connectivity between people when the formal, centralized organizations had failed.  One particularly poignant photo showed a road sign that had read “deaf child area” defaced to read “deaf government area”.

When necessary, open publishing of information enabled the shaming of local politicians and developers into often doing the right thing.  Information sharing was essential for putting together the individual pieces that formed a larger pattern.  For example, Alan described some shifty deals where a string of perfectly good homes along a street that developers probably wanted to freshen wound up being declared a health threat . Alan: “It’s hard to get local press, but we can get national press and then we get local press and then something gets done.”

Alan described how the idea of community that feeds much of Web 2.0 is a natural fit for New Orleans.  As Alan said, “This is a city that is familiar with community … Mardis Gras isn’t created by the chamber of commerce – it’s created by krewes that pool together to create a float.”

Much of Alan’s work has been around trying to ensure that the rebuilding of New Orleans doesn’t form an excuse for gentrification that replaces the communities in the city with generic, upscale suburbia that displaces existing residence.  Alan: “Life takes place outside in New Orleans … this is a 19th century city and we want to know the city we’re rebuilding is the city we lost; that we’re not building over it.”

Social software – including groups, wikis, blogs, and extensive use of Flickr – provided a way for disenfranchised residents to exchange information, note patterns, and organize to address them when required.  For example, in one case social software was used to pull together a rally of 5,000 citizens to protest a rash of violence . But, as Alan said, the use of these technologies was not just useful but necessary: “If you’re used to meeting people in your community in the coffee shop and if your coffee shop is now gone, you use these technologies because you’re compelled to”.  Today, “In New Orleans, being a citizen means being a knowledge worker”.

Using Interruption Models to Test Interruption Studies

June 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm | In Attention Management, User experience, interruption science | 1 Comment

Yesterday I posted up a set of interruption models.  I mentioned in that post that I’d write another entry on how they can be used to test interruption study methodologies.  I know that sounds pretty arcane – mostly of interest to people doing interruption studies or interpreting their findings.  That may not sound like too many of you, but one survey in particular, from Basex, has gotten into a lot of popular press for its easy-to-digest dollar amount for “unnecessary” interruptions in the U.S. ($650,000,000,000).  It’s used by pop press journalists whenever they write about a fuzzy info-stress topic, but want to show this is really important and add a drop of academic-sounding data.  Any of them wanting to delve deeper can select from hundreds of academic papers on interruption, attention, and human-computer interface (interruptions.net has a great list), but none of those have a big dollar figure to quote.

My attempts to determine the methodology of the Basex study have been unsuccessful so far.  The way I would evaluate its legitimacy is the same way I’d evaluate any interruption study’s legitimacy – by lining it up against the models I’ve presented to see how accurately it would count them.  Clearly not all interruptions are “bad” or “unnecessary” – many of the interruption models I listed have a positive net closed-loop benefit.  A seemingly valid methodology that simply asks people how often they were interrupted (or observes them and records interruptions) and how much time they lost can provide a very inaccurate conclusion.  Each model I list (except maybe the jerk model and blast model) could be easily miscounted by a poor survey methodology.

For example, I believe the Help-me model to be a large proportion of interruptions.  This is where one person needs a little bit of someone’s time to provide a good deal of benefit to them.  A study that just counts interruptions and their cost would only count the costs and not the benefits to the interrupter which is often many multiple higher than the cost.  Only net closed-loop benefit analysis would hunt down the person that interrupted them and determine the value to them and add it back in.  That’s difficult to do in a survey, but essential for an accurate estimate.  Alternately a survey could ask how often you interrupted other people and how much benefit you got.

As another example, the Help-you model is common as well.  This is where someone is interrupted to be told they should stop or modify what they’re doing, perhaps due to new information that’s just come in.  But a methodology that only asks about the cost in time of each interruption in negative terms may miss the positive value the interruptee places on the interruption.

One more example: The Interaction model would throw any survey off if it doesn’t properly define “interruption” versus the simple act of collaboration.  I defined interactions as interruptions that take place within the task the person is currently working on.  Many people wouldn’t even consider this really an interruption.  Survey takers may randomly include interactions fitting this model as interruptions, possibly incorrectly counting each positive benefit as a negative.

Interruption Models

June 19, 2008 at 2:59 pm | In Attention Management, Information Work, interruption science | 3 Comments

Well, we’ve gone quickly through the cycle of seasons here in Chicago, passing from winter to spring to construction.  When working in my home office I’m now faced with a random barrage of interruptions from beeping trucks, pile drivers, and loud workmen that can’t afford walkie-talkies.  Living in a part of Chicago that was fully built 50 years ago, many feel the need to tear down perfectly good houses and erect new ones to match the current style (the “large brick block covering every allowable inch in 3 dimensions” school of architecture).  I think this inspired me to develop a list of interruption models that I posted over at the Collaboration and Content Strategies blog.  I figure I should post them here as well for greater input. These are still open for debate – so your comments and feedback are welcome.

Each has an example of how it would apply, followed with a sample numerical calculation based on the dollars gained or lost by the organization based on the interruption (assume this is $ based on time x fully loaded pay rate).

  • Help-me model: Bill needs a moment of Stu’s time to proceed with his work
    • Value to interrupter (80) + value to interruptee (-20) = Net closed-loop benefit (60)
  • Help-you model: Bill takes the time to let Stu know he needs to change his task approach
    • Value to interrupter (-10) + value to interruptee (50) = Net closed-loop benefit (40)
  • Jerk model: Mick is an jerk that likes bugging other people about fantasy football, hurting both their productivity
    • Value to interrupter (-20) + value to interruptee (-30) = Net closed-loop benefit (-50)
  • Machine interrupt model: Stu’s PC crashes. This distrubs Stu and has no benefit to the PC
    • Value to interrupter (0) + value to interruptee (-50) = Net closed-loop benefit (-50)
  • Break model: Bill’s thinking has been getting less effective and he finds himself spinning on a simple task, so he interrupts himself and decides he needs a mental break.  He returns to work more refreshed and effective
    • Value to interrupter & interruptee (5) = Net closed-loop benefit (5)
  • Interaction model: Stu and Bill are working on a task together, expecting each other’s input, and neither would really consider this an “interruption”
    • Value to interrupter (5) + value to interruptee (5) = Net closed-loop benefit (10)
  • Alert model: A fire alarm goes off while Stu is working, interrupting him and saving his life
    • Value to interrupter (0) + value to interruptee (100) = Net closed-loop benefit (100)
  • Scheduled interruption model: Stu is working hard on a task that requires concentration, but has to stop at 10:00 for a scheduled meeting, which interrupts his train of thought and will require recovery time upon resuming.  For this example, it is assumed the meeting is a project update for another project that Stu doesn’t get much out of but is obligated to attend
    • Value to interrupter (0) + value to interruptee (-10) = Net closed-loop benefit (-10)
  • Lazy model: Mick could figure out his task alone if he applied some time and effort, but it just seems easier to ask his smarter colleague Stu. Too bad Mick will never learn to help himself and will keep bothering Stu
    • Value to interrupter (5) + value to interruptee (-7) = Net closed-loop benefit (-2)
  • Training model: Bill is stuck in his task and needs to ask his smarter colleague Stu for information.  Bill learns a valuable lesson that can be immediately applied and Bill is now that much better at his job
    • Value to interrupter (10) + value to interruptee (-7) = Net closed-loop benefit (3)
  • Blast model: Mick shouts out to the room to see if anyone wants to go to lunch.  No one wants to because Mick is a jerk, so they are annoyed
    • Value to interrupter (1) + value to interruptees (-50) = Net closed-loop benefit (-49)
  • Social interruption model: Stu stops by his co-worker Bill’s desk and interrupts him to find out how his daughter is feeling after she got out of the hospital
    • Value to interrupter (?) + value to interruptees (?) = Net closed-loop benefit (positive?)

I talked this over with Mike Gotta, who brought up the point of reciprocity.  One enters into an implicit social contract that they will be gracious about interruptions in exchange for getting to interrupt others when needed.  The Help-me model should be encouraged as it has a net benefit for the organization, but it can also have a net benefit for Stu if he gets some of Bill’s time the next time he needs it.  He also pointed out that interruptions tied to communities can be worthwhile as people search for expert opinions and information.

For individuals feeling stressed and overloaded this list of models could help guide some introspection about the degree to which interruptions are causing the stress and which models need to be reduced. 

For the owner of an attention management project, surveying information workers for the types of interruptions they are experiencing can help optimize the communication flows and interruptions. 

For anyone presented with an interruption study (particularly those showing extremely high negative impact by interruptions) it provides a firetest of the study’s assumptions.  These models can be run through the methodology of the study to see how accurately it would count the net closed-loop benefit.  I’ll post more on this later.

 

    Back Home and Blogging Again

    June 17, 2008 at 4:02 pm | In Enterprise 2.0, portals, social software, virtual worlds | Leave a Comment

    It’s been a while since my last blog post as I’ve been kept running all over Europe lately doing speaking and visiting current and potential clients in Munich, Copenhagen, Vienna, and London.  My presentation on social computing for the Domino Notes Users Group in Bremen went fine except for my PC getting possessed and flipping slides around on me while presenting.

    IMG_2943

    Now that I’m home I’m decompressing and reflecting on what I was hearing from the corporate and government organizations I talked to about collaboration and portals. 

    • I found a great deal of interest in social software, but the dozen or so organizations I spoke with seemed a bit further behind the U.S. in terms of awareness and piloting.
    • There was quite a bit of SharePoint work going on, but generally in a more controlled fashion than I’ve seen in the U.S.  SharePoint was being stripped down to fit into the rest of the environment, being used as just a web file store in one case and as a low-end content management system in another.  I prefer this approach to the whole-hog implementation that steps on the toes of other installed infrastructure that I see too often.
    • Portals were a hot topic, with most organizations I visited using them, sometimes many of them.  In fact, portal consolidation and governance is as big an issue as it was in my last few visits to Europe.
    • Enterprise virtual worlds came up twice, without much prompting from me.  One governmental agency was very interested in its use for rehearsal and disaster preparedness.

    Now I’m off to work on the Mother of All Expense Reports.  

    Munich Neues Rathaus

    Google Lands Crushing Blow to Email Addiction With New Feature

    June 8, 2008 at 11:44 am | In Attention Management, User experience | 7 Comments

    Well, that headline is what I’d like to write anyways.  But, of course, solving email addiction is beyond the capabilities of a mere software behemoth.  Still, Google took a humorously kitschy attempt in some new lab features for Gmail just released. 

    By going into Gmail settings (the “Labs” tab) and enabling the “Email Addict” feature, you get a “Take a break” link added to your email:

    google addict1

    Then, whenever you click on it, your screen blanks out and you get the following message:

    google addict2

    At least until you reload the page and get back to your email. 

    Cute.  Even though it’s just for fun, it does acknowledge that email addiction is on people’s minds.  Maybe not those of Google or the programmers themselves, as they may have meant this as a satiric swipe at their users who think this is a problem.  After all – why would they want its users to reduce their usage of email and IM when they seem to thrive on more and more personal information from users being stored on their servers?  Google needs bytes to live.  <zombie voice> “More bytes …” </zombie voice>.

    Well, in any case, it’s a nice email addiction / information overload / attention management joke.  And it plays off the idea that people who are addicted to something have little ability to help themselves anymore and need external help. 

    If Google really wanted to help these users I think there are some real features they could have added:

    • Mail arrival schedules (hourly, morning/noon/evening, morning/night, daily): Remember waiting by the (real) mail box for the postman to arrive?  Unless you are expecting something to act on today, why not do that again and break the unconscious habit the rest of the day of checking for it?  You could set it for the frequency (for example, every hour on the hour) and create a whitelist of certain people or messages that get “express” delivery without waiting.
    • Measurement capabilities.  Like many behavioral changes, measurement is often a key starting point and more.  This feature would provide measurements on the number of times email is checked and useful stats on frequency (per day, per hour) and graph when checking was done over time.  Granted this is a bit difficult when it’s just left open, so maybe this feature would have to be enabled and would turn off automatic refreshes.  Once people really see how much they check email reflexively they will be surprised and may do more to curb it if they think this is a problem.
    • Slow delivery.  I find myself checking mail more often when I’ve just sent a bunch of emails because I am now waiting on the responses.  This creates an echo effect then where, for example, 20 emails sent out prompt 12 emails back (some quick, some slow, like clapping in a large cathedral).  I then respond to 8 of those, 5 people then respond back, etc until the echo dies away.  If the emails aren’t very urgent, using slow delivery (they go out in a bundle the next morning for example) would take a burden off for response checking and possibly enable some reflection that would have you change or rescind the messages before they are sent.  The “slow design” movement and slowmail have been advocating an approach like this for some time.  I think you’d turn this feature on as a default and then only flag messages individually if they need instant delivery.
    • Tokens.  What if you only had a certain number of tokens per day or week to spend on checking email?  Maybe you start with 10 tokens in the morning and it costs you one each time you check email.  If administrators are having trouble with load, they could raise the cost to 2 tokens first thing in the morning or right after lunch.  You’d start noticing how often you’re really checking (see measurement above) and start planning out your checking better throughout the day.  I would recommend that extra tokens can carry over to the next day so you’re not encouraged to do a bunch of frantic checking at the end of the day.  Similar attempts to putting a price on email activity have been made for sending email (see Serios from Seriosity).
    • A free e-book on Zen.  OK, this one is a bit out there.  Maybe it’s just me, but while email is ostensibly about communication and human connection, so often it seems to be all about one person and controlling.  Someone checks because they want to see if someone found the joke they sent out was funny, if they got someone else to finally admit they were right or agree to do what they said, if everyone else in the group agreed to their restaurant choice.  What does it mean about me if people don’t respond to me, listen to me, include me?  If my email/IM/message board posting/blog posting falls in the internet forest and no one responds, am I silent and irrelevant?  Like sound, does my message only matter if it causes something to resonate in someone’s head?  A reminder now and then to “be the water, not the rock” and “let things be and take what comes” may be all that some people need.

    Social Networking Occurs Before and After Collaboration

    June 2, 2008 at 1:43 pm | In Enterprise 2.0, collaboration, social software | Leave a Comment

    I’m just putting the final touches on my presentation on social software at the Domino Notes Users Group conference “Social Collaboration for the Enterprise” in Bremen, Germany and ran across a great posting from Gia Lyons (until recently of IBM Lotus, now at Jive Software).  Her description of what Connections does is a good description of the role of social networking in an enterprise environment in general.  An excerpt (full posting here):

    Lotus Connections helps you:

    • Find the ‘good’ people with whom to collaborate, whether they’ve filled out their profile or not.
    • Find information that your trusted colleagues think is good, without relying on unsatisfactory search solutions.
    • Find the knowledge “crowds” that are locked up and hidden away in your company, so that you can lurk-n-learn, or connect-n-collaborate.

    This posting got me thinking about how social networking fits with collaboration.  The conclusion I came to was that it can be useful before or after collaboration:

    • As a prelude to collaboration: After finding and tracking people with whom you share interests, like, or respect, a situation may naturally arise where you wish to connect to achieve a shared goal.  This may take place this afternoon or in ten years, but once the process of growing connections becomes second nature, the harvesting does too.
    • To maintain social links after collaboration: Sometimes collaboration triggers a desire to network rather than the other way around.  In this instance, collaborating on a project with someone lets you get to know them and their skills.  Adding those you have learned to respect to your network leaves the door open to mutually beneficial collaboration or sharing of additional network ties in the future.

    If you’re going to be in Bremen, be sure to see my keynote address on “Sharing, Collaborating, and Networking in the Social Enterprise” on Friday and stop by afterwards to say hello.

    Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
    Entries and comments feeds.