Collab-Or-Ate

Since I know my blog readers are sophisticated social media users and don’t need advice on this topic, this is only of marginal interest, but I’m quoted in this article on How to Decline Facebook Friends Without Offence.

I’m a co-organizer of this workshop at CSCW ‘10, that will be held February 6th. Consider submitting a paper and join us for the discussion. The position papers are due November 20th.

Collective Intelligence In Organizations: Toward a Research Agenda

Workshop webpage: www.parc.com/ciorg

CSCW workshop descriptions: http://www.cscw2010.org/program/workshops.php

When: 6 February 2010

Where: Savannah, Georgia, USA

Description

A new generation of web tools is penetrating organizations after successful adoption within the consumer domain (e.g., social
networking; sharing of photos, videos, tags, or bookmarks; wiki-based editing). These tools and the collaborative processes they
support on the large scale are often referred to as Collective Intelligence (CI).

This workshop will focus on CI tools for collaboration in work-related settings, especially for task forces now increasingly common
in industry and government. The workshop is aimed at refining the problem, summarizing pioneering work on CI in general (i.e.,
exemplars of practices and tools), and ultimately developing a research agenda that specifically addresses the problem of
supporting CI among knowledge workers in organizations. Participants will present studies of task forces suggesting specific design
requirements, CI tools, and/or new methods for empirical or design research on CI.

Call for Participation

The workshop aims to assemble a diverse set of participants with a research or practitioner interest for CI in organizations. Workshop
participants should submit either a position paper (1500-2000 words) or extended paper (up to 8000 words) reporting more substantial research.

Topics of interest include:

– Empirical studies of work practices in organizations: e.g., case studies of task forces illustrating practices and design requirements
– Designs of new software tools or proof-of-concept prototypes supporting CI in task forces, communities; or in-depth evaluations
of tools already deployed that support CI in organization
– Theoretical contributions on collective intelligence, crowd sourcing, and community-based learning in organizations, which can directly
inform design and research
– Cases of multidisciplinary research showing the interplay between field studies, analysis of requirements, and development of CI tools

Dates

– 20 November 2009 — submissions should be sent as a PDF or Word attachment to ciorg@parc.com [2-3 researchers will review each submission; based on a shared evaluation scheme, the reviewers will assess the significance of the contribution, its relevance to the workshop themes, and its clarity]
– 18 December 2009 – notification of acceptance [accepted paper titles will be posted here and shared through a wiki]
– 6 February 2010 — workshop to take place [participants will be asked to prepare a brief summary and read all accepted position papers prior to the workshop]

Workshop Organizers

Gregorio Convertino, PARC

Antonietta Grasso, Xerox Research Centre Europe

Joan DiMicco, IBM Research

Giorgio De Michelis, University of Milano – Bicocca

Ed H. Chi, PARC

Later this month at Communities & Technologies 2009, findings on Beehive and social capital will be presented. I did this research with Chip Steinfield, Nicole Ellison, and Cliff Lampe, colleagues at Michigan State. Chip, Nicole and Cliff have done tons of research on Facebook, found in their interesting set of papers.

The four pictures shown here are from Beehive and show IBM employees all around the world going bowling. There are so many pictures just like this shared on Beehive, highlighting coworkers informally socializing and having fun together. In terms of social capital, we hypothesized that this type of informal sharing and communicating on Beehive could be associated with closer bonds with coworkers and increased access to distant colleagues.

By adapting the survey instrument Chip, Nicole and Cliff use for measuring Facebook intensity and social capital to the IBM & Beehive context, we found that even with limited use of Beehive, over a relatively short amount of time, there are associations between types of usage and different types of social capital:

• When someone is using Beehive for meeting new contacts, they report a greater interest in making these types of contacts at the company in general.
• When someone is using Beehive for keeping up with known colleagues, both in their workgroup and in their extended network of loose ties, they report having closer ties with their immediate network (bonding social capital), a higher sense of citizenship (willingness to help the greater good of the company), and greater access to both new people and expertise within the company.
• And finally, the more intensely someone uses Beehive (meaning more frequent visits and stronger associations with the community on the site) the higher they report their social capital is, across all measures. They have closer bonds to their network, they have a greater willingness to contribute to the company, they have a greater interest in connecting globally, have greater access to new people, and a greater ability to access expertise.

The paper is Bowling Online: Social Networking and Social Capital Within the Organization and the official abstract is below:

Social capital facilitates knowledge management in organizations by enabling individuals to locate useful information, draw on resources and make contributions to the community. This paper explores the relationship between social capital and use of an internal social network site in a multinational organization. We hypothesize that SNS use contributes to social capital within the organization by enabling users to form networks of heterogeneous contacts and maintain and deepen existing relationships. Survey findings show that bonding relationships, sense of corporate citizenship, interest in connecting globally, and access to new people and expertise are all associated with greater intensity of SNS use.

The full conference program includes a lot of interesting papers.

I’ve been invited to Enterprise 2.0 to participate on a panel called Lessons Learned From Internal Communities. It will be moderated by Peter Kim and here is the abstract:

Forget the theory. Proof exists that internal communities work. Today’s media continues to hype the rise and fall of public social networks, leaving many managers to question whether community has a business application. However, smart companies have already implemented internally focused collaboration platforms that offer the best of external functionality with the appeal of a network with dedicated business focus.

This session will highlight the lessons learned from three professionals who are responsible for internal community efforts: Joan DiMicco from IBM Research, Jamie Pappas from EMC, and Patricia Romeo from Deloitte.

I’m excited for it because myself, Jamie Pappas from EMC and Patricia Romeo from Deloitte are going to share the stories we’ve heard and seen first hand from our respective internal social networking communities (Beehive, EMC One, and D Street). When the three of us have chatted we’ve discovered that many of the IBM, EMC and Deloitte stories are the same:

• High adoption rates: employees use these sites more than traditional intranet directories and information repositories
• Viral adoption and word of mouth drives adoption, more so than top-down requirements and instructions to join.
• Appropriate behavior: each company has thought through issues of inappropriate content in detail and provides guidelines to the users, but for the most part (we’re talking ~99.9%), employees know what is right and wrong to say on these company-internal tools
• The list of benefits of these tools goes on and on, centered around the theme of people connecting with each other. Some of our top benefits:
  • humanizing the workplace
  • finding informal information
  • expertise location
  • assisting new hires and acquired employees integrate
  • crossing information silos
  • providing a forum for employees to share their opinions with management.

If you’ll be at Enterprise 2.0, please stop by! (The panel is Tuesday, June 23, 1-2pm.)

Tomorrow, at the ACM Group conference, Rosta Farzan, PhD is going to be presenting a paper on the work we did together last summer.

R Farzan, JM DiMicco, B Brownholtz. (2009) “Spreading the Honey: A System for Maintaining an Online Community.” Full Paper, Proceedings of the ACM GROUP Conference, May 2009.

Last summer, when Beehive had been running for a full year, it had plenty of content — 100,000 pieces of content, in fact. So we realized the problem on the site was not generating new content, but rather finding the existing, interesting content. This problem is usually tackled in a few different ways: by displaying lists of recent content and most-viewed content (which we already did on Beehive) and by asking users to rate or vote on the best content.

We decided to design a custom system that encouraged a larger group of users to participate in the process of rating content than one usually sees in standard rating systems. We did this by picking a rotating board of users that has the power for one week to give “honey” to content they liked. Each board is picked based on their activity on the site and you can’t serve on the board more than once every four weeks.

We feel strongly that having a diverse group of users involved in selecting the best content brings a richness and diversity to the promoted content that reflects more of the IBM community. Because the Beehive community is large (>50,000) and IBM is even larger (>300,000), we didn’t want to have a small, and in some ways elite, group of enthusiastic raters driving up the visibility of a small set of content. Rather, we wanted to have the power to promote content distributed over a larger group, over a longer period of time.

To find out more about the system and, IMHO, impressive results, read the paper! The screenshot to the right is what you see on the home page of Beehive every time you log in and it shows you the content that this week’s “honey bees” picked as the best of the best.

This is not the most interesting blog post, but I need to make public my personal notes on what papers were interesting at HICSS. So here is the list, with my short summaries and links to the papers.

Agents of Diffusion – Insights from a Survey of Facebook Users, Rebecca Ermecke, Philip Mayrhofer, Stefan Wagner

On viral adoption on Facebook

Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter, Courtenay Honeycutt, Susan C. Herring

How people use the @ reply mechanism in Twitter. Did you know that 30% of messages get replies?

A Conceptual and Operational Definition of ‘Social Role’ in Online Community, Eric Gleave, Howard T. Welser, Thomas M. Lento, Marc A. Smith

A theoretical paper on determing social roles in an online community. Best paper award for the Track.

Hello Stranger! A Study of Introductory Communication Structure and Social Match Success, Daphne R. Raban, Stephen T. Ricken, Sukeshini A., Grandhi, Nathaniel Laws, and Quentin Jones

Social introductions.

Mycrocosm: Visual Microblogging, Yannick Assogba, Judith Donath

Overview of the mycrocosm service.

Cyber Migration: An Empirical Investigation on Factors that Affect Users’ Switch Intentions in Social Networking Sites, Cheng Zengyan, Yang Yinping, John Lim

What triggers migration between different social network sites?

A Life Cycle Model of Virtual Communities, Elham Mousavidin, Lakshmi Goel

The lifecycle and stages of an online community

Knowledge Workers and the Realm of Social Tagging, Ralph Boeije, Gwendolyn L. Kolfschoten, Pieter de Vries, Wim Veen

Social tagging by workers.

Groupware for Design: an Interactive System to Facilitate Creative Processes in Team Design Work, Arjun Venkataswamy, Rajinder Sodhi, Yerkin Abdildin, Brian P. Bailey

How do you design groupware that is specifically supposed to support the creative process of team design work?

Cultural Diversity, Perception of Work Atmosphere, and Task Conflict in Collaboration Technology Supported Global Virtual Teams: Findings from a Laboratory Experiment, Souren Paul, Sumati Ray

I already blogged about this one and how it is an interesting finding about conflict and cultural differences in distributed teams.

Blogs Are Echo Chambers: Blogs Are Echo Chambers, Eric Gilbert, Tony Bergstrom and Karrie Karahalios

Are bloggers talking to like-minded bloggers?

Employee Adoption of Corporate Blogs: A Quantitative Analysis, Sunil Wattal, Pradeep Racherla, Munir Mandviwalla

Model of when/why employees start blogging.

Monetizing the Internet: Surely There Must be Something other than Advertising, Eric K. Clemons

Great title and interesting discussion of some other possibilities for making money on the internet, besides through advertising.

Another interesting paper at HICSS:

“Cultural Diversity, Perception of Work Atmosphere, and Task Conflict in Collaboration Technology
Supported Global Virtual Teams: Findings from a Laboratory Experiment”
by Souren Paul and Sumati Ray

The main findings:

• perceived work atmosphere is positively related to participation in work groups
• participation increases task conflict which is required for high quality decisions (see pre-existing literature on the value of conflict in teams!)
• the findings highlight the importance of developing favorable perception of work atmosphere inculturally diverse virtual teams.

Conclusion: perceived work atmosphere is critical in shaping the performance of virtual teams

Here is the paper’s official abstract:

In this paper, we focus on work atmosphere and
conflict in global virtual teams and report the
findings of a laboratory experiment that involved
twenty-seven cross-cultural virtual teams. The
members of the teams used IBM’s Lotus Sametime to
work on decision-making tasks. The findings of the
study reveal that in collaboration technology
supported virtual teams, the cultural heterogeneity of
the team members influences their perceptions of the
work atmosphere, which in its turn influences
members’ participation in group work. We also find
that the number of occurrences of task conflict
related discussion among the group members is
positively related to their participation in group
work. The findings of the study are interesting and
provide motivation for future research on work
atmosphere and conflict in virtual teams.

When I initially heard about Twitter, I thought it sounded crazy and way too mega-ego and, hello, why would I care that you just got a haircut? Now that I have been using it, oh, every day, for the past 6 months, I guess I have to admit that I find it is kind of useful and appealing. I finally put it together what is so appealing about it. Twitter is a persistent chat room. It is Babble!

Babble is similar to a multi-channel textual chat system except that its conversation persists over sessions, allowing both synchronous and asynchronous talk. Its aim is to support everyday, opportunistic interaction among members of a workgroup. [link]

I never used Babble (it was built in 1997 and used internally at IBM before I joined), but it is one of the projects that inspired my thesis research. Its key concept is social translucence:

Social translucence is the idea that we should make some (but not all) cues about the presence and activity of users of digital systems available to one another. [link]

Twitter fits this criteria and has a lot of the same features as Babble:

• you can communicate either synchronously or asynchronously (txt, mobile, browser, etc… )
• you can see who is present (Twitter’s following and followers pictures)
• you can see who is active (Twitter’s time-sorted list of who said what)
• you can selectively determine who sees your posts (direct messages, @ messages, broadcast)

The main differences between Twitter and Babble are:

• Babble has a graphical visualization showing who is currently engaged in the conversation
• Twitter’s “groups” are not bounded. Even though you and I might be following each other, my group is probably different than your group. It is possible there could be 0% overlap, but we could still communicate.
• The cultural norms of Twitter are pretty distinctive in that people use “tweets” to give casual updates on their latest thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. The updates are not solely focused on workgroup interaction, like Babble was conceptualized to be for. But I see this as Twitter’s unusual strength.

It would be great if Twitter had some social visualization capability. (Maybe it does? Anyone know?) Then it really would be Babble, adapted for the flexible, ad-hoc type of collaboration and communication we do in this post-2000 world.

If you haven’t read them already, I highly recommend these papers on Babble and social translucence:

Socially Translucent Systems: Social Proxies, Persistent Conversation, and the Design of “Babble”, by Thomas Erickson, David N. Smith, Wendy A. Kellogg, Mark Laff, John T. Richards, Erin Bradner. In Human Factors in Computing Systems: The Proceedings of CHI ‘99. ACM Press, 1999.

Social Translucence: An Approach to Designing Systems that Support Social Processes by Thomas Erickson and Wendy A. Kellogg. In Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. Vol. 7, No. 1, pp 59-83. New York: ACM Press, 2000.

While off in our ivory tower this week, we missed the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco. Some interesting stories that came out of it:

• Ross Mayfield says SocialText will be a better sell in this economy than IBM and Microsoft’s solutions because SocialText is cheaper. I don’t know the prices, but this sounds pretty logical.
• Facebook and Twitter don’t plan to become profitable any time soon. I think this is a good sign that the fun isn’t over yet.
• LinkedIn has released some “all work, no play” applications. Will be very interesting to see where this takes LinkedIn.

Read here that Standard Chartered Bank is using Workbook, by the start-up WorkLight.

WorkBook: A Secure Corporate Overlay for Facebook

WorkBook allows employees to securely interact with their peers using the hugely-popular Facebook service. WorkBook combines all the capabilities of Facebook with all the controls of a corporate environment, including integration with existing enterprise security services and information sources. With WorkBook, employees can find and stay in touch with corporate colleagues, publish company-related news, create bookmarks to enterprise application data and securely share the bookmarks with authorized colleagues, update on status change and get general company news. Employees can freely use Facebook, with the WorkBook overlay, with no danger of information leaking outside the organization or access being granted to unauthorized personnel.

It is after 7pm on a Friday night, so I don’t have any comments to make at this time.

If you are working in the area of social networking within the workplace or organization, please submit a position paper to our CSCW 2008 workshop on Social Networking in Organizations! We expect it to be a great collection of people interested in this topic. Position papers are due Sept 26th and the workshop is Nov 9th in San Diego, CA. (We are excited to be part of a great line-up of workshops this year.)

Workshop on Social Networking in Organizations

Workshop Website: http://research.ihost.com/cscw08-socialnetworkinginorgs/

Overview:

Social networking websites, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, are heavily used by students to maintain friendships and by professionals to maintain contacts with others such as potential customers and recruits. Technologies such as email, IM, and weblogs were initially adopted by students and consumers for personal use and then moved into enterprises, having a significant impact on business environments. Social networking technologies seem to be following suit, perhaps more rapidly, but we are just beginning to explore how these applications are being used inside enterprises and large organizations. To what extent are they used to maintain or establish external ties to family, friends, and professional colleagues? To what extent are they being used to meet internal team or organizational goals? How are organizations responding?

This workshop will assemble 15-20 people with a research or applied industry interest in social networking in organizational or enterprise settings.

Those wishing to participate in the workshop should submit a 1 to 2 page extended abstract describing their research, experiences, or analyses of social networking software.

Important Dates:

Friday, September 26: position papers due
Friday, October 10: notification of acceptance
Sunday, November 9: workshop in San Diego, CA

Organizers:

Joan DiMicco, IBM Research
Werner Geyer, IBM Research
David Millen, IBM Research
Jonathan Grudin, Microsoft Research

Just randomly checked today and in less than 1 year Beehive has signed up more IBM users than Facebook, the largest social networking on the Internet! (39,300 vs. 39,236) We only have 64 more people, but I’m pretty confident we’ll keep the lead, given our adoption rate. (For some indication of adoption rates, in the last 2 hours, 30 people joined Beehive and 7 people joined Facebook’s IBM network.)

Have you heard of BizNik? It is YASNS, for business folks. Their homepage promotional banner declares that using their site you can “build relationships, promote your business and share your experience!” and these 3 basic actions resonate remarkable well with what we’re seeing on Beehive, inside of IBM.

We conducted a study of why people at IBM are using Beehive and our analysis reveals that workers differ from typical users of Internet social network sites, who have been shown to use SNSs primarily for keeping up with off-line friends (see boyd & Ellison, 2008). Within the walled garden of the enterprise, where there is a higher level of trust and an emphasis on work, IBM employees choose to reach out and meet new people rather than only connecting to those they know. They also share details of their life outside of work (“share your experience”) which has not been found with any frequency in other enterprise social software tools . And lastly, if motivated by career advancement goals or a desire to champion a project idea, they use the social network site strategically to connect (“build relationships”) and spread their message to a large audience (“promote your business”).

Luis Suarez, an IBM employee and one of our earliest and most enthusiastic Beehive users, has an article in the New York Times this week where he shares his amazing story: I freed myself from email’s grip. Luis has replaced his regular use of business email with phone calls, instant messaging, his wikis, his blog, and Beehive. There an interesting set of comments in response to his article on Lifehacker.

It is exciting that Luis sees our social network site Beehive as part of his set of critical business communication tools. Part of his reason for this is that Beehive is a public forum where he can answer things once, rather than many individual times.

My primary hypothesis as to why Luis and other employees are excited about checking their Beehive profile page and dread their email inboxes is that while the email inbox is one huge, enormous, always-growing to-do list, a social networking site is by definition social and there is a much lower level of obligation to reply or do anything in response to messages on the site. In many cases, there is no expectation to reply to that “friend request” or that friendly comment on your family photo. You are free to enjoy the environment and contribute content and comments when the mood strikes, and that is it. Who wouldn’t want to hang out there, as compared to within their piles of email?

If someone asks you something within Beehive that is 100% about work, it is similar to when a colleague asks you about the project while you are on your way to get coffee. You are available and willing to hear the question. You can defer the question or even ignore it, but in all likelihood your colleague is likely to get a response from you because you are in a context of being social, open and friendly.

So, can, should, or will social networking sites replace email? They can’t, shouldn’t, and won’t because they aren’t task-oriented inboxes. Employees crave an obligation-free communication environment, which is why they flock (buzz) to Beehive. And while they are there, sharing with each other, there many instances where the topics turn to business and real work gets done. But if social networking sites replace email, they wouldn’t be any fun any more!

The Associated Press wrote an article that talks about our social networking project Beehive: Next generation of business software could get more fun:

You can tell just from looking at the Beehive program under development at IBM Corp. that something is different. Beehive’s color scheme is bright yellow, not IBM’s standard blue. The cheerfulness reflects the fact that Beehive is meant to encourage far-flung co-workers to like each other more.

Beehive is an online portal for employees to describe their expertise, so valuable knowledge doesn’t get lost inside the bureaucracy. Those kinds of tools are common, but Beehive adds an unusual dose of Facebook or MySpace. The 27,000 IBMers using Beehive can post pictures, video and one-sentence updates about themselves. They can share lists of “things I can’t live without.”

Such personal touches often are missing when people work at a distance from one another, says Joan Morris DiMicco, an IBM researcher developing Beehive. Co-workers in different locales can’t wander into each other’s offices and see family pictures on the desk. They don’t shop at the same places or have children in the same schools.

These tidbits, DiMicco believes, help people understand each other better. And the usual communication tools like e-mail, instant messaging, phones and even videoconferencing do only so much to fill the gap.

The Associated Press: Next generation of business software could get more fun
USA Today: Virtual apps try to build camaraderie, productivity
CNN: ‘Virtual watercooler’ makes workplace more fun
Washington Post: Next generation of business software could get more fun
Red Orbit: Virtual Communities Boost Employee Productivity

Next Page »