id="info"

General discussion

Locked

Chat or CHANGE? (Rant or Results)

By gsbigger ·
The Gilbane Group recently published their 2008 report about the challenges and opportunities of social networking (by Geoffrey Bock and Steve Paxhia). <get your copy here - http://www.octopz.com/media/files/Gilbane-Social-Computing-Report-Summary.pdf>.

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'?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

31 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Did you include every biz-speak buzzword you could?

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Chat or CHANGE? (Rant or ...

"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?

Collapse -

I think you need to...

by NotSoChiGuy In reply to Did you include every biz ...

...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.

Collapse -

Crowd-sourced editing

by gsbigger In reply to Did you include every biz ...

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?

Collapse -

Give me time to read your link.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Crowd-sourced editing

At 50 pages, it's going to take a while to digest. Fortunately, it's got pictures :)

Collapse -

The results are in

by Tig2 In reply to Chat or CHANGE? (Rant or ...

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.

Collapse -

Repeatable?

by gsbigger 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?

Collapse -

It used to be so.

by dawgit 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

Collapse -

eMails - (our)Mails?

by gsbigger 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?

Collapse -

what about the information process don't you understand?

by dawgit 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.)

Collapse -

(mis)Quote

by gsbigger In reply to what about the informatio ...

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...

Back to Networks Forum
31 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Hardware Forums