We’ve probably all heard this term, and the mental image conveys a sense of crisis and urgency. The origin is even more explicit, it comes from a (possibly apocryphal) story of a man faced with an urgent choice of certain death on an oil rig that was burning or potential death from hypothermia (or sharks) by jumping into the water below. According to the story he jumped and survived.
However the decision facing us in the meeting when I heard the term used was not a crisis, nor was there any urgency (except that imposed by our own project), nor was their a fire, and whatever the decision no lives would be lost.
So what does the term mean now?
In this case, judging by the context, the sentence meant “we need to define the business reason for this change”. But that’s far less exciting than leaping flames and swirling smoke.
Cyberslacking refers to the use of a company’s computer and internet connection for personal activities when one should be doing work.
It’s not the occasional email, or lunchtime facebook status check that’s deserves the name, it’s the excessive use of work time to play on the internet. Those times when you look up one little thing and 30 minutes later you’re in an internet black hole arguing, or buying another light sabre or watching cat videos.
It’s not a new thing, as early as 2000 reports flagged the cost of lost productivity as more than 50 billion USD in the US. The same report notes that companies were already taking action, putting in place specific internet use policies and firing the greatest violators – such as employees spending as much as 8 hours a day on gambling sites. More recent estimates put the costs to a business at 35 million per year for a company of just 1000 people, if each employee cyberslacked for an hour a day.
Some companies see this as a loss of productivity, effectively money down the drain and seek to monitor or to limit access to all non-work internet sites for all employees.
Employees find their own strategies; blocking access on work machines means they’ll use their own devices, trying to watch over their shoulder leads to cheeky solutions like the “look busy” button on Last Minute’s Australian site (it used to be on more of their sites, but apparently only the Australians kept their sense of humour).
There is some research showing that people who take internet breaks at work are more productive. I’m inclined to agree, if people are busy with meaningful work and producing great results, brief internet breaks are not going to cause a dramatic drop in productivity. In fact if managers focus on results the fear of productivity loss goes away.
This holds true even in extreme cases; the guy playing on online gambling sites all day is unlikely to produce the expected quality of work – addressing that issue early could have a better outcome for both the company and the employee.
This focus on results is one of the key principles of the Results Only Work Environment (ROWE), in fact in a ROWE the time spent on the job becomes irrelevant, employees are trusted to use their judgement to plan their workdays. In my view it’s a much healthier than putting increasing layers of monitoring on employee’s use of internet.
We often place a negative association on displays of egos, and references to ego surfing on the internet are generally negative or sarcastic.
But ego surfing can be a smart thing to do.
Just as companies manage their online presence and their online reputation so should you, I think this should be an ongoing action, but I’m sure people think of it more when they’re job seeking.
If you’re a random, unfamous person like me, the occasional search on major search engines will be enough. Here’s how I do it;
Use a browser I don’t use very often
Log out of any accounts, particularly Google
Clear browsing history and cookies
Search for my name, and the name of the blogs I write
Search for the key topics I write about in the hope that my name/blog appears connected to those topics.
It’s important to use a “clean” browser to do this as Google will give you adjusted results based on your location, browsing history and login.
If you find content that shouldn’t be publicly available you have a few options to remove it; WikiHow provides a list of actions you can take. In some cases Google will remove content that they index if it could lead to identity theft (although they won’t remove your date of birth). In some situations EU residents can ask to be “forgotten” by Google when information is dated and has a negative reputational impact.
There are therefore two very good reasons for searching your own name; to check that your name isn’t associated with negative information and to make sure that the content you are publishing is building your reputation in your field of expertise.
So, be honest, when was the last time you went ego surfing?
Although this sounds vaguely poetic, it has a specific meaning in the world of information systems. It has particular relevance for large systems.
Done well, it makes content management a whole lot easier.
I’ve heard this used most often in relation to company intranets – large companies where the intranet must serve a mass of information to thousands or hundreds of thousands of employees.
In many large companies intranets grew rather randomly, each business line created their own intranet site, as connectivity improved these were joined together allowing employees to browse from one site to another. But the business retained control of all the information that was available on their site, and employees tended to enter the maze of the the company intranet via their business line home page. Very often this works out well.
In companies of this size there are a policies and defined processes on a wide variety of subjects. Many relate to the employee’s own situation; holiday/vacation entitlement, performance review processes or claiming expenses. Others relate to the company’s operations; finance, brand guidelines, recruitment. Often there is a potential legal penalty if the employee does not follow the policy.
In an intranet that is a collection of connected sites the policies tend to be copied and republished multiple times. Which means keeping those versions up-to-date and consistent becomes difficult and introduces operational risk. Imagine an employee in a far-flung office following the finance policy she has downloaded from her local intranet, relying on it to conduct business, and finding out later that it’s months out of date.
The idea behind the single source of truth relies on improved connectivity between local intranets, and a strong information architecture so that a piece of content – in this case a policy – is published in just one place. It may appear in more than one place across the intranet, but in fact each appearance of it is drawing from the same place; that single source of truth.
To deliver this companies must have a connected intranet, a fully thought-out information architecture, a good content managements systems, technical know-how, and governance on the publication and storage of documents. It’s not easy to put this in place in large companies, particularly as intranets are often the “poor cousin” in terms of digital spend.
Obviously the content management should become easier and cheaper, but the really big benefit comes from a risk and compliance stand-point. Having a single source of truth means that you know people are using the same policy across the company, this lowers the risk of errors being made, errors that might leave the company financially liable or create a reputation error. It’s a cost avoidance benefit that can be hard to quantify – until such an event occurs in your company.
I was reading an article on Wal-Mart’s e-commerce business recently and I came across the term “to move the needle”. Since I spend more time sewing on buttons than I do driving cars at the moment the first mental picture I had was troubling. Turns out not that needle.
The expression refers to moving the needle on some instrument of measurement such as a car speedometer, possibly more specifically the analogue Vu meter used in audio recording. In a more abstract form asking whether something “moved the needle” is just asking whether there was a noticeable improvement in the results.
In the Wal-Mart article they were referring to the e-commerce side of sales, which at 0.3% of US sales (by value) is barely impacting the billions in total sales. So although sales are at over $200 million it’s not yet moving the needle. I may not be the only one unfamiliar with the term, the headline reads “Wal-Mart’s e-commerce business: Can it move the needle, be material?” I’m pretty sure those last two words have been added since I first saw the article.
In another take on moving the needle, Lisa Earle McLeod applies the term to personal changes, and shows how making small, consistent changes is significant. She says “You don’t accomplish big things overnight; you move the needle every day.” Exactly.
I got a grumpy tweet last week, during the Thursday #ESNChat session, for using the term “breaking down the silos”. I felt bad, until then I’d been agreeing with much of what Greg had been saying.
The tweeter suggested I read his blog post which explains why he hates the term so much.
So I did.
I agree with the first part of definition of a silo he gives;
According to dictionary.com, a silo is “a structure, typically cylindrical, in which fodder or forage is kept”.
But I’m not convinced by the second part
In the business context, a silo generally represents a wall or boundary put up by an organization to keep them focused on accomplishing their goals and keeping outsiders from interfering with progress.
In my experience silos form in large companies to support the hierarchical structure of the company. It rests on an old model of thinking about work; that managers know what needs to be done and are responsible for directing all those under their responsibility to complete that work.
For me silos are are an outcome of an overly hierarchical company culture, one where people are unwilling to share knowledge, solve problems together or co-operate in any way. The business directory defines silo mentality as;
a mindset present when certain departments or sectors do not wish to share information with others in the same company. This type of mentality will reduce efficiency in the overall operation, reduce morale, and may contribute to the demise of a productive company culture.
Visible signs that your organisation is in silos;
people talk about “us” and “them” meaning different departments within your company
you need agreement from management of two departments to get co-operation from another department
you need permission from a manager to approach someone in another department
departments in your company store their information online in team sites or shared drives that are only accessible for department members
you do have lunch with colleagues, but only ever from your own department
your personnel directory is searchable by name, or department, but not by expertise
when you look for specialist expertise, for example a Spanish-speaking tax expert with experience in Latin America, you start by emailing someone who speaks Spanish
Greg, in his blog post, pointed to some good reasons for building silos within a company; allowing people to focus on the work at hand, and legal or regulatory reasons.
Yes there is a need to focus on the work, and that may mean that a project team shuts itself off from the organisation in some way. Yes in regulated industries there may be a need to put boundaries between certain parts of the organisation; the term used for this in banking in Chinese walls. In agencies temporary boundaries are often put in place around a project to prevent sharing of client information.
In general I wouldn’t consider anything temporary as a silo; just as you don’t move a grain silo easily, silos within companies take time to be established. I agree that there are regulatory boundaries to be considered, and while I’m probably guilty of understating those in my enthusiasm for improving knowledge sharing across a company, I’m certainly not thinking of them when I call for us to “break down the silos”.
I watched a TED video that talked about what might be one of the greatest silo breakdowns ever, and it comes from the US military. General Stanley McChrystal states;
The fact that I know something has zero valueif I’m not the person who can actuallymake something better because of it.
He explains that it’s almost impossible to know who is the best person to use each piece of information, and that the army therefore moved from a “tell only who needs to know” to “we need to tell, and tell them as quickly as we can“.
It’s this philosophical shift I am referring to when I talk about breaking down the silos. In some companies the need is urgent, but I’m going to stop using the term, not in deference to Greg, but because it’s too urgent; from now on the term is “tearing down the silos”.
Game makers will ideally include all motivations in the course of the game to maximise engagement, but marketers will choose to focus on the motivations that align with their brand. For example Nike’s brand is based on the famous “just do it” mentality and their Nike+ uses aspects of gamification associated with accomplishment, by allowing successful users to unlock motivation talks from elite athletes.
Social Networks also use gamification to encourage activity, the most famous example is probably 4square with over one hundred and fifty active badges, some related to activity on 4square but others, such as the Met Lover’s Badge, connect to the marketing campaigns of companies and organisations. Enterprise social networks, including ours, also use badges to reward activity and connections.
Educators and health professionals try to use gamification principles to increase people’s motivation for positive change. However it can be challenging to integrate this external purpose setting with the user-centred design principles of a game. Or, as discussed on the Psyche’s Circuitry blog; The game doesn’t care.
Not everyone responds well to gamification techniques, when we introduced them to our enterprise social network a small group of people thought them horribly childish. The result being that we’ll allow you to switch off display of badges on your own profile – although you’ll still be awarded the badges.
Big Data is often touted as a solution to all our problems, a panacea for all ills often by people who struggle to define it. So what is big data and what kind of problems has it solved?
Big data refers to sets of data so big and complex that they cannot be analysed by traditional methods and tools, but which release new value when analysis is achieved.
Google translate is an example of a problem solved by the use of big data. Although the translations are imperfect they are often good enough to have an understanding of what the writer intended whatever language it was written in. Google does this by statistically analysing millions of documents online that exist in multiple languages and figuring out what is most likely to be a correct translation. The more documents available that have been accurately translated by humans the more accurate the Google translation will be.
Big data analysis has been used in predicting maintenance needs for UPS, New York city council and various car manufacturers. It’s been used in healthcare to predict the onset of infections in newborns, and outbreaks of flu.
So it sounds like it could solve some tough business problems, and it can. But it has limits.
messiness of data means tricky to anaylse and interpret – google translate occasionally gets the translation between Dutch and English completely wrong, and this is a language pair that must have millions of documents, you need good analytical expertise and data governance to get the valuable insights out of the data.
hidden biases in data collection, for example if you’re relying on smart phone data you are probably selecting against the lowest income earners.
privacy concerns; relating to the collection, use and reuse of data. People may not realise that if enough anonymised data is combined it is possible to identify an individual.
And sometimes all that extra data may induce a sort of paralysis by analysis, a belief that you could make the perfect decision with just a little more data.
Right now we’re only beginning to unlock the value of big sets of data, and it’s still very much in the hands of the experts. It’s going to take some re-learning for managers/business leaders to ask questions that big data can answer, and to understand that correlation does not imply causation.
A colleague came to me a while back really excited about a potential new supplier. The social solution they offered was perfect, fantastic, value for money and a turnkey solution. “Just think, we could have this in place in four weeks!” he said.
I think he was a bit underwhelmed by my reaction.
So what is a turnkey solution? Wikipedia gives this definition
The term turnkey is also often used in the technology industry, most commonly to describe pre-built computer “packages” in which everything needed to perform a certain type of task (e.g. audio editing) is put together by the supplier and sold as a bundle.
The solution offered was theoretically turn-key that should be easily implemented. According to my colleague they’d implemented such things before.
So why did I find it hard to believe the four week timeline? Because in ten years of implementing technology solutions I’ve learnt that as soon as a solution needs to touch employee or customer data systems we need to follow tough procedures to make sure each step is taken correctly and with due concern for the protection of that data. That takes time, certainly more than four weeks.
So is anything a turnkey solution or is the term a myth?
The search engine we have in place on our external site behaves in this way. I think from the time we’d signed the contract until it was implemented was days rather than weeks. It’s an external tool, relying only on public – and published data. Although the supplier didn’t label it as such while they were selling the service, it is a turnkey solution.
When you hear the term used by a supplier think hard about your own company’s requirements and processes, what is turnkey for the supplier may not be turnkey for you.
a sufficient number of adopters of an innovation in a social system so that the rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining and creates further growth.
When people will adopt depends on where they sit in the adoption lifecycle, and if you’re managing the implementation of a innovation into a company it’s crucial to help each group in their own adoption process. Critical mass is usually said to fall between the early adopters and the early majority, although some research puts it further into the early majority phase.
The five categories can be defined as:
innovators – eager to try something new, need little training
early adopters – quick to try something new, seek out new experiences, see benefits of the innovation
early majority – open to new ideas, will try something if the purpose is clear, influence to colleagues
late majority – want proof it works, safety and systems around anything they use,
laggards – reluctant to change, sometimes only change because their existing tool is obsolete, or no longer available.
Not everyone is the same type for all innovations I’m an example of someone who can be an early adopter with one innovation and a laggard with another – I joined Linkedin in about 2005, but didn’t get a smart phone until last year.
Critical mass, where the growth in adoption becomes self sustaining, is reached when the early majority start to take up your innovation.
I’m trying to apply this to our implementation of an Enterprise Social Network, we have a total target audience of about 65,000 and so far 45,000 have signed up to use the tool. So that sounds like we’re already into the late majority – job done.
Except signing up is a low impact activity and doesn’t reflect a real use. It just means the person has agreed to the terms and conditions.
So I’ve been looking for some other measurable behaviours which we could consider as a threshold for use.
We see a monthly report on active users. To be considered an active user you need to have done something – anything – in the time frame measured. The activity could be five useful answers to five other users or it could be a comment or a like. So it’s a very broad measure, but by this measure we are into the early majority as of January – just.
We have implemented badges on our enterprise social network and this might give the best measure of where we are on the adoption lifecycle. The lowest level badge, the “starter” badge rewards a low level of activity; a post and a few comments and you’re there. By this measure we’re about to enter the “early adopters” stage. However badges were only introduced 6 months after launch so they under measure the adoption activity.
Looking at all these measures, the data per country, and reviewing how the Enterprise Social Network is used I believe we’re still with the early adopters across the company, but we’re into the early majority in the two countries with the largest numbers of employees. This is huge progress. Now the challenge is to embed this Enterprise Social Network in the company, my real measure of success is when it’s just how we work.