Networks·41,424 discussions

Chat or CHANGE? (Rant or Results)

Locked

The Gilbane Group recently published their 2008 report about the challenges and opportunities of social networking (by Geoffrey Bock and Steve Paxhia). .

So, what is next – in the social/business interface? -mere chat or real results?

Let’s just surmise for a moment – imagine what we might conjecture about how to:
– structure a cooperative approach that
– leads us to an equitable consensus about
– mutually beneficial solutions
for our personal life, non-profits and social causes, business results, global survival…

That approach would at the least require a process designed to:

1. Endear and then acknowledge all stakeholder viewpoints
2. Identify current impacts and desired alternates
3. Uncover root cause by objective consensus
4. Enable corrective action(s) by priority, and through cooperation

For ‘casual’ social conversation to become ‘causal’ and create results:

What must change for us to benefit – from ‘chat’?

Topic

Did you include every biz-speak buzzword you could?

In reply to Chat or CHANGE? (Rant or Results)

“surmise … conjecture … structure a cooperative approach … leads us to an equitable consensus … mutually beneficial solutions … a process designed to … Endear and … acknowledge all stakeholder viewpoints … Identify current impacts and desired alternates … Uncover root cause by objective consensus … Enable corrective action(s) by priority, and through cooperation”

Translation: How can social networking help us work together?

I think you need to…

In reply to Did you include every biz-speak buzzword you could?

…shift your paradigm for some out-of-the-box thinking. This would allow a synergy that could actualize a quantifiable outcome.

🙂

On a serious note, I’m reading a book “Working Virtually: Challenges of Virtual Teams” that goes into this subject in some depth. A little dry, but not a bad read at all.

Crowd-sourced editing

In reply to Did you include every biz-speak buzzword you could?

Thanks (but I wasn’t trying to – include them all, missed this one for instance 😉 – and I do count on the ‘ambient knowledge’ that will likely be re-presented here…But enough about ‘me’ – what about the original question?

Give me time to read your link.

In reply to Crowd-sourced editing

At 50 pages, it’s going to take a while to digest. Fortunately, it’s got pictures 🙂

The results are in

In reply to Chat or CHANGE? (Rant or Results)

Take a long hard look at what Anonymous is doing to Scientology- and has been doing since the first protest in Feb. While not a huge change, a group of people with a common goal has managed to effect change in a group of people with a vicious agenda and have done so in a way that is unprecedented.

A “casual” conversation can achieve that kind of result when the goal is common and individual identity gets kicked to the curb. The Gilbane Group needs to look at ALL of the available data before publishing a conclusion.

Repeatable?

In reply to The results are in

Other than the common goals and then the coordination of (some?) resultant actions (and likely many other beneficial and/or tangible results) of this example group:

– can their process be taught/or duplicated, by others, and
– their progress captured in a way that can reduce redundant or ineffective effort being expended elsewhere?

1) How amenable or scalable is their approach? – and
2) Who else needs to know (for their particular initiative)?

Can social networking support this ‘process’ – via a ‘threaded’ discussion format?

It used to be so.

In reply to Repeatable?

We got to were we are today by doing just that. IRC, USENET, and many more. They were the ultimate colaberation devices ever to come up. IM’n didn’t come along until the Internet was mature enough to handle it. IM’s are ok, and they do have their purposes, but for in-depth engineering, e-mails are better. And for many reasons. -d

eMails – (our)Mails?

In reply to It used to be so.

How does our (private copy of our) email advance the process of collaboration with others – who may not have a (or current?) copy?

Same issue for chat (in this or that disconnected forum) where each thread may be a repeat of another ‘conversation’ elsewhere? – or could be the answer that others are still seeking in another forum…(silo).

What is needed – or better?

what about the information process don’t you understand?

In reply to eMails – (our)Mails?

e-mails:

Engineer #1 writes an e-mail that contains exactly what spec #1234 is on project xyz, sends that to Engineer #2 (at a different location) who is also working on project xyz, but in a different approach. Message recieved, perfect understanding. No garbage in the works, just pertainant info. That’s how it works.

IM’n:
A discussion between Engineer #2 and Engineer #1 in reguards to above e-mail to achieve clairity, not to exchange data. done.

The same thing was done 100 years ago.

e-mails = infomation transfer as in data exchange.

IM’s (chat) = cross talk. Short, Quick, & Easy. No essential data, information yes but not data that might be needed for inclusion later. As it (as you’ve stated) might contain superflurious (repeats of other conversations) information. (otherwise known as BS, and not necessary to project xyz.)

(mis)Quote

In reply to what about the information process don’t you understand?

Thanks for your assumption(?) that I don?t understand email 101 ? or one-to-one; and no offense taken 😉

I thought I asked about the next layer out ? about how that ME-to-YOU email:

??could advance the process of collaboration with others – who may not have a (or current?) copy?? (of ours for their insight)

or

??may be a repeat of another ‘conversation’ elsewhere? – or could be the answer that others are still seeking in another forum…(silo).?

Case in point (about email/chat interchange in general):
1) Had there been a third party to our discussion (here) I might not have had to (re)explain or (re)quote myself. Or, that third party might have helped me to have been more clear in the first place(?).
2) I bet that others have discussed the issue of ?email? and how it lacks in collaboration power ? or efficiency, etc. Could either of us (here) have saved a few minutes by knowing what they had already said/resolved?

Are we (here) ‘ranting’ or getting to shared insight and actionable ‘results’..? (with this chat/email) interchange? (My original question..)

Is there a better way…

On point

In reply to (mis)Quote

Re: my two points in the above comment –

NOTE TO ALL ? let?s give credit where it?s due:

Palmetto:
?How can social networking help us work together?
(better(?) 😉 translation of my verbiage describing the original issue )

Saigman:
“Working Virtually: Challenges of Virtual Teams”
(book suggestion about the issue?)

See how many folks also read their comments, and thank THEM…
– I DO!

:|

In reply to (mis)Quote

That was not meant to be personal against you, so thanks for not taking it that way. and no I don’t mean to appear as ‘ranting’, although it could appear to be blunt. The point is the clairity of what exactly you’re looking for. If you want, or are looking for, validation of a specific concept you happen to be fond of… it probably won’t happen. If you’re asking for dialog of justification for or against a particular concept, that can happen.

On- “??could advance the process of collaboration with others – who may not have a (or current?) copy?? (of ours for their insight)” Why counln’t that e-mail just be forwarded to the person that needed the information. That’s done all the time.

On- “??may be a repeat of another ‘conversation’ elsewhere? – or could be the answer that others are still seeking in another forum…(silo).?” This one has me a little confused as to what you’re looking for. I’m thinking of the practice of sending a reply to an e-mail, containing the original. After a while the e-mail grows, and becomes a monster. Or 40 e-mails, from 40 different people, containing the same informational message, in one’s inbox. X-( That can, and does become problematic.

On your “case in point”s- #1) Re-explain? Why? Why would you not just reference them to this site? Then alow them to choise what information they feel is important to them. That would be more effective.
#2) You’re totally correct. Many conversations (to say the least) have been on going concerning this very topic.

I think I understand this concept you’re trying to grasp. The differences are in the time factor. Real-Time vs. Some-Time. If that’s what you’re trying to get set. Many modern Programs now realeased, I’m thinking “Eclipse” and most of the top end CAD Programs include an IM sub-program built into their programs. For the specific purpose of “Real-Time” colaboration. What has had me confused about your questioning, is that in the speed of the progress in computing in todays world, this topic is now old news. It’s already been used. If you want to know how one example of this is approached, I suggest you check out the Eclipse web site. -d

Anyway, I think this conversation is going along just fine. 😐 (If you want to see how hostility is showed around here~ stick around, but it’s not for the faint of heart. :0 ) :^0 -d

You seem to be confusing…

In reply to Chat or CHANGE? (Rant or Results)

Social Engineering (psyc 101) with Information Technology (and physics 601)

‘Chat’ is what ‘teenies’ do.

Information exchange is what Engineers and IT Professionals do.

One is social, (of which I’m personlly clueless, I’m too old to either know or care) the other is technology. Technology is what the Social networks need to use. Social is what we do to get away from it.

Now just what is it you want to know? (with-out the text book wording, in Your own words.)

Clarification 202

In reply to You seem to be confusing…

Somewhere between 101-601 is a movement to converge the advantages of information access (from all sources including social ‘chat’) toward business purposes – moving the value of the talk that occurs around the (now extended) ‘water-cooler’ into the corporate knowledge-base.

Essence of my original question:
Can the structure of ‘chat’ or email support that need? if not, what type K-M system can?

Ex
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=1574

Only to a Point.

In reply to Clarification 202

(Please read my reply below) The point being when acturate, actual, factual information exchanges are needed, the virtual (I’m exponding here) fails. There is just no substitute for personal contact. (even if it’s telephonic) I’m well aware of total computer contact, where there are no actual Humans involved. While it appears to be a great idea, in time the people who need to access (whatever) in the system structure, loose interest and subsiquently move on. (as in the business looses customers.) Here in Germany, the Telecom and others have implimented just such systems, it has caused a lot of backlash.
In a business, Person to Person is always better. (with paper documents as needed.) -d

Bottom Line is Who can you trust?

In reply to Chat or CHANGE? (Rant or Results)

Social networking really is for the high schoolers.

Business networking is geared for the cliche ” Its not what you know but who you know”.

All boils down to self interest.

If someone can further your goals, heck why not use them. Flip side is someone is going to use you if you can further their goals. Nothing wrong with that.

The biggest problem is someone calling foul when what was expected doesn’t happen. For that, there’s CYA.

CYA (…boils)

In reply to Bottom Line is Who can you trust?

– two words that somehow go together(?).

Instead of CYA, can social networking be used to make us ‘JOINED AT THE HIP'(so to speak..)
by engaging in:
– a cooperative approach that
– leads us to an equitable consensus about
– mutually beneficial solutions

Or maybe:
“If we just put our HEADS together…”(instead) 😉

Nah people are inherently selfish

In reply to CYA (…boils)

which is what I was going to say in my previous post but though those words might get a lot of boos and thrown tomatos.

So I can’t see “cooperative approach that leads to an equitable consensus about mutually beneficial solutions” since most people are basically out for themselves. If it doesn’t benefit them, they aren’t going to do it.

The old adage “what do I get out of it?”

I don’t see any benefit to social networking except that its social interaction with other people. Since my experience with social networking has been mostly people who find out I’m into computer and networking and the inevitable, “would you mind looking at my computer”, thinking they will get free computer support. When $$ is mentioned, 9.999 times out of ten, they will say nevermind.

My personal opinion of that Gilbane Group report is that it reads like a marketing ploy trying to convince people that this is an emerging market that people ought to invest in therefore buy a social/business networking product. I can see trying to come up with a product people will buy but isn’t taking water cooler gossip and packaging it as social/business networking going a little to far?

Tomatos ! :0

In reply to Nah people are inherently selfish

You do know you’re talking about Bio-Terriblism there now. I wouldn’t want the PC police and Home Land Special people visiting you looking for your stash of those terrible killer tomatos- 😉 -d

Ah someone caught on to tomatos like potatos

In reply to Tomatos ! :0

old Dan Quale misspelling of potatos …:)

The Killer Tomatos….

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi179831065/

I was thinking that as I was typing :^0

In reply to Ah someone caught on to tomatos like potatos

and don’t forget “Tamitoes” B-)
Dan Quack Quale for President.!. oh-my (pun intended :^0 ) -d

Common Misconception.

In reply to CYA (…boils)

There have been numerous studies done on this phenomenon, in the Uni’s, Corporations, and other institutes. While (psudo) personal interactions do take place in the virtual, they’re of a different type and at a different level than businesses need to operate. They can be used as a ‘Get to Know You’, and in that concept it could have a purpose. But when you need to get down to the niti-grity, they prove to be distracting, and counter productive. Ask IBM how their Second World in working for them. -d

Based on THIS threaded chat conversation- WHAT have WE accomplished SO FAR?

In reply to Chat or CHANGE? (Rant or Results)

Make general comments here – SPECIFIC questions follow on this thread, thanks.

1)Did we ?Endear? & acknowledge all stakeholder viewpoints about Chat/eMail

In reply to Based on THIS threaded chat conversation- WHAT have WE accomplished SO FAR?

I will use T-C/eM as abbreviation for Threaded Chat/eMail in following questions, thanks.

2) Did we Identify current impacts of threaded T-C/eM

In reply to Based on THIS threaded chat conversation- WHAT have WE accomplished SO FAR?

What items were enumerated as undesirable about T-C/eM?

3. Did we identify any desired alternates to T-C/eM

In reply to Based on THIS threaded chat conversation- WHAT have WE accomplished SO FAR?

What alternates conversation formats (is dialogue different from discussion from diatribe..) and were any other conversation ‘platforms’ suggested?

4. Did we Agree on root cause of any perceived T-C/eM problems?

In reply to Based on THIS threaded chat conversation- WHAT have WE accomplished SO FAR?

If so – what was/were the perceived problem(s) – its the primary root cause for each that WE identified in in OUR consensus?

5. Did we Enable any corrective action(s) for the perceived problems?

In reply to Based on THIS threaded chat conversation- WHAT have WE accomplished SO FAR?

What corrective action(s) – by priority, are WE agreed to undertake through our cooperation on the remedy for the identified ?root cause?(s) of any perceived T-C/eM problem?

Did this ‘casual’ conversation become ‘causal’ and create results?

In reply to Based on THIS threaded chat conversation- WHAT have WE accomplished SO FAR?

Does this mode of ‘communication’ and its structure offer:
– a cooperative approach that
– lead us to an equitable consensus about
– a mutually beneficial solutions
for our personal life, non-profits and social causes, business results, global survival…?

F. Did we conclude no one was interested in this topic? (NT)

In reply to Based on THIS threaded chat conversation- WHAT have WE accomplished SO FAR?

.

We? ?:| Who’s We? ?:|

In reply to Based on THIS threaded chat conversation- WHAT have WE accomplished SO FAR?

I don’t see a “We” agreeing to anything, except that “You” are not paying attention. X-( -d

[Author]

Replies