The short answer is yes, viral adoption can work BUT only in certain situations. This is my attempt to pin down some of the factors I’ve observed out in the field...
...these are the anti-patterns I’ve actually seen:
Posted over on the Headshift | Dachis Group Asia Pacific blog.
For a successful SharePoint implementation, you can’t forget the most important ingredient — getting the platform used.
If you are reading this article, it is likely because you’ve heard whining in your office or you’re tired of repeating the same message over and over to improve user adoption of your SharePoint implementation.
You may be a frustrated project manager or business champion who spent countless hours on budgeting, planning, governance, information architecture, training and timelines, only to find that the last task in your SharePoint project plan that has no due date is USER ADOPTION. And to your horror, no one is taking your words seriously and people don’t care. The bottom line is this: for you to get people to take advantage of your hard work, you have to add one more task assigned to yourself — don’t give up.
Unfortunately if thinking about "user adoption" is the last step, then you've already failed. Written by a software vendor, this article - underpinned by an assumption that the software is perfect - advises people to Break Down the Resistance, Stop the Whining and then Babysit, aka Enforce change. This approach is more than overtly paternalistic and I'm surprised they don't just recommend getting rid of the users who are blemishing the hard work of the technocrats. Part of me wonders if this attitude is just symptomatic of the Microsoft SharePoint ecosystem being geared towards software development and implementation, rather than a well rounded mix of people, process, technology and content (like we do at Headshift | Dachis Group). What do you think?
Social intranets are now maturing to the point where some organisations are moving on to their 2nd iteration of software tools. In this instance, following a 12 month trial with Yammer, the Department of Education & Communities in NSW (aka "DET") have migrated to Socialtext. They are calling their social collaboration tool, Maang (an Aboriginal word for 'message stick'). This is a big deployment, with over 150,000 users having been automatically provisioned into Socialtext compared to the nearly 10,000 users of Yammer!
One of the things that impressed me about DEC's approach is how well they supported their initial pilot (they were a case study at Intranets 2011 in Sydney) and it looks like that work is continuing with the new platform - they are thinking beyond just the technology.
Its quite likely that as organisations experiment with social collaboration tools and look for the best fit solutions (and there are many dimensions to this) then such a transistion is something that many will need to manage. For example, during my time at CSC they moved from multiple wiki experiments, then a corporate pilot of Confluence before finally settling with Jive SBS (just after I left).
Note: I couldn't embed the Prezi above, you'll need to click through to view it. However, there is some great background information you can spot there about the supporting policies and guidelines that DEC have built around Maang.
At last week’s E2.0 conference in Boston, I was surprised and pleased by the way my “in-the-flow” phrase has gained common currency.
I was also surprised, but less pleased, by some of the “best practices” I heard flying around. Whether in keynotes, sessions, or just hallway conversations, I heard a lot of claims of dubious merit, claims like:
- Start with a small pilot and let it grow virally
- Invest heavily in community management, because a community is only as successful as its managers
- Workers won’t use social software without personal incentives
- Workers who don’t belong to the Facebook Generation don’t “get” social software.
- Social software adoption requires a culture of collaboration
- You shouldn’t launch collaborative tools without a collaboration strategy
There’s a common theme behind all this advice: You should be scared of launching enterprise social software, because achieving adoption is really hard, really time-consuming, and really expensive.
Sorry friends, but I’m calling Bullshit.
I had to read Michael Idinopulos' post a couple of times to make sure I understood it.
Basically - in a round about way - he is describing two things:
I agree entirely - and this makes the AHA case study a great example.
But lets address this issue of organisational complexity.
Sometimes a simple intervention - like introducing a new technology - can make an immediate impact. But we don't actually know why, although we can observe the benefits when it works. Do the same again in a different situation and you take a gamble on the outcome. For systems of engagement, this is the problem of copying macro level case studies when change actually happens at the micro level of individual groups and individuals. Sometimes it only takes an influential blocker, a critical system that doesn't integrate well, a policy that can't be side stepped or a group that has already picked their own solution - suddenly the dynamic changes.
I use those words deliberately, because the character of some organisations is to be conservative, others are prepared to to be more reckless. Smart organisations take a design-led middle ground. They don't follow knee jerk reactions to new technology, but they don't fall for shallow thinking either.
To help make that point, here are some different case studies (I'm focusing on enterprise microblogging, as there is a level of commonality between them - but this also follows on from some earlier posts):
Each of these examples had a different journey (Micro), but each had a positive story to tell (Macro).
Incidentally, the CIO behind the case study that Idinopulos described has written a detailed post describing the "15 Key Steps for Successful Implementation". This isn't simple, but the steps make it less complex; and its all about finding that fit so that users can get into the flow easily.
Don’t ‘deploy and run’: You can’t just roll-out a new technology and expect all employees to pick it up instantly. Yes, a lot of social business software is intuitive and easy-to-use, but you should ensure that people know where to start. Hold training sessions across the company and provide them with best practice tips. Too make the technology feel more familiar, upload logos or branding and get people to populate their user profiles
There is a lot of motherhood statement-like advise out there, but I think this point is worth highlighting. Unless you work in a small company filled with early adopters and no staff turn over, you should never, ever deploy and run.
So called 'motivational speakers' don't motivate people to change behaviour.
Throughout my career I have been involved in organising, planning and developing a huge number of away days, events, conferences and the like. When you start working on ideas for the agenda, more often than not someone will suggest getting a 'motivational speaker' along. This suggestion is normally met with everyone getting very excited, throwing in ideas of who they could get and checking budget to see if it is possible. Everyone that is, except me.
Why am I so resistant to this idea? What it is about the whole concept of 'motivational speakers', whoever they may be, that I just don't seem to get or be enthused by?
Simply put I don't think they do what they say - motivate, and especially motivate people to change.
You don't motivate people to change; you just need to involve them as participants instead.
Nice video, posted to YouTube, to promote the Victorian Department of Justice's Social Media Policy. In truth, if you removed a couple of the specific departmental and Victorian references, this is pretty much a generic introduction to the common sense stance towards social media in any large organisation.
It would be nice too if the source of this video was made available under a CC remixable non-commercial license, so that other organisations (particularly across government and the non-profit sector) could reuse it.
Ironically, "Adding comments has been disabled for this video."
This of course highlights the fact that the video is good, but proof of its effectiveness will be in what I assume is a bigger package of training and capability development within DoJ.
I'm not a fan of "leader as hero", which was my initial apprehension when picking up Open Leadership. The sub-title, How social technology can transform the way you lead, also conjures up the image of CEOs issuing moral boosting messages to their staff in 140 characters or posting on their subordinates’ Facebook wall.
Luckily this book isn’t really about that, so don’t let my first impressions put you off.
Li explains in chapter 4 that the title of the book was the result of a simple crowd sourcing exercise - she picked the most popular title voted by people in her social network. Personally, open strategy or open management might be a better description for the subject matter of this book. "Giving up control is inevitable” is the title of the first chapter, but in fact this book is all about control, just using a different kind of management style and business strategy (at Headshift | Dachis Group, we call it Social Business).
The book is divided into three parts. The first part sets out the case for change. The second part, which is described as strategic, is actually a combination of strategy planning and tactical implementation. The final section really starts to focus on issues of leadership and managers related to those following an open strategy.
Through out the book you will find lots of dot point action plans, tests, check lists and also pointers to a set of free resources available on the site that accompanies the book.
From an implementation perspective, I found the section in chapter 6 discussing Organisational Models for Openness particularly interesting. This is something I've talked about before and also discussed in the online engagement guidelines I helped to develop for the Australian Gov 2.0 Taskforce. Li cuts this problem slightly differently with three models:
Li quite rightly doesn't recommend one model over another and instead explains the key issues around choosing a model. This leads into a more practical discussion about roles, responsibilities, training and incentives. This chapter, along with Chapter 5 which focuses on guidelines, could almost be read as stand alone pieces and provide some good implementation advice.
To back this up the last chapter contains case studies. While the majority of the cases follow a well worn path of well known brand names, the inclusion of the State Bank of India was a refreshing inclusion. The US Department of State on the other hand was slightly ironic in the era of Cablegate. However. all the case studies are well written and hit the mark on providing informative stories about the journey to "open leadership" and covering the socio-technical issues involved in each example.
Putting aside the case studies chapter, the final section of the book in chapters 7, 8 and 9 really start to get into the issue of dealing with the managers who are responsible for the top -down change required to move to an open strategy. I suspect that the intended targets of this book are unlikely to read and self-analyse their own behaviour and attitudes unless they have already made a step towards making that change. In other words, Open Leadership isn’t the social business version of Who Moved My Cheese.
Instead, what these chapters present is an fantastic field guide for people inside organisations who are agitating for change or who are responsible for implementing an open strategy across their organisation.
Re-reading my review and flicking back through the pages of Open Leadership, I’m suddenly struck by the thought that this book is like the grown up, better experienced and more refined sibling of The Cluetrain Manifesto. The idea of organisations pursing an open strategy really has grown up and the technologies that support it continue to mature. This books sets the scene for management and how to start thinking about dealing with it.
If you are interested in discussing open strategy, the challenges of open leadership and becoming a social business then please join us at the Headshift | Dachis Group Social Business Summit - Over 4 weeks - across 4 continents - 4 Summits will be convened. Sydney, 2 March - Austin, 10 March - London, 24 March - Singapore, 6 April.
Michael called his book, User Adoption Strategies, but I think of it more as the User Adoption Strategies Encyclopaedia... :-)
The emphasis of this book is on describing a range of strategies that will work for second wave adopters, rather than a magic formula approach. He does provide a user adoption model to follow that pulls these strategies into a manageable framework, but within this approach there is still room for these different options to be fitted together into what he later describes as the user adoption "jigsaw". This model consists of four steps:
However, as Michael points out, this puzzle can be extended to fit complex situations, where different strategies need to be used at different types or with different groups. He also reminds us that this approach can take days or weeks to finalise, but then may take months or years to put into practice. As I said, this isn't a magic formula approach!
I also like the idea of the User Adoption Analyst. Even if this isn't a formal role in your own project, the job description provides some great pointers on the activities that someone in your project should be doing as part of your rollout. I know this because it pretty much reflects my own role in projects I've been involved with in the past, both as a consultant and in my past life at Ernst & Young!
However, it is important to recognise that by covering the breadth of user adoption strategies, this book isn't intended to be an academic report or even a deep management-thinkers text. The essentials of every strategy is covered in terms of what it is, how to use it, when to use it and why it works. In many cases, this should be enough to get you started but of course there is always room to explore the nuances of a particular strategy further or to understand the theory behind it in more detail. I only mention this to manage expectations - no single book can make you an overnight expert. What I mainly like about Michael's book is that he has pulled together a great reference that covers all the major approaches that you should consider.
Its also worth noting that Michael has clearly put a lot of thought into the structure of the book, with the chapters grouped into three main sections:
This is the kind of book that once you've read it, you'll find yourself returning to the core chapters in the The Model and the Strategies section time and time again to sense check your approach and to remind yourself of the most typical approaches you should consider.
Overall, this is another practical book from Michael and I'm happy to recommend it.
Finally, I should give a quick nod of appreciation to Michael for the acknowledgement in Chapter 4, where he quotes the tag line of my blog:
"Its not not about the technology".
BTW I've previously reviewed Michael's earlier book, Seamless Teamwork, over on my old blog.
Last week I had a long talk with a mid-level executive about the rollout of a new employee engagement program in his organization.
(You know it’s gonna be bad when the words “rollout” and “program” appear together. “Rollout” alone is a dead giveaway.)
He told me that he was reluctant to throw his own enthusiasm behind the program, because he wasn’t sure if it was fair to ask the people who work with him to give any more than they were already giving. He just couldn’t get engaged in the engagement program.
This executive isn’t lazy, or lacking in ambition, or afraid of the challenge of employee engagement. He believes that, more often than not, employee engagement is usually a scam.
And he’s right. Employee engagement is a scam.
Hmm. If employee engagement is bad, what about employee engagement with with social computing tools?
Actually, as this post and the comments with it go on to discuss, employee engagement can actually cut both ways depending on the motivation and world view of those behind it. Having said that, I suspect it is actually harder to manipulate people through employee engagement that this article gives credit for. Certainly, its why I worry about the past history of change failure in the projects I'm involved with.
Bearing that in mind, employee engagement with social computing tools is probably no more or no less a scam that any particular employee engagement initiative might be. However, I do see some additional problems with using these technologies that might be perceived as being at the employees’ expense if not thought about with some care:
Address these issues up front and I think social computing can contribute positively to an employee engagement initiative.
