Collaborative Tools, and social media in the work place

[Chuck Zdrojowy]

Collaborative Tools, and social media in the work place: Which ones do you use and how has it impacted work pro or con.

Companies are using different tools, Instant messaging, Lotus Notes, Lotus Quikr, Salesforce.com, sharepoint, email, conference calls, web conferences etc.

Social Media in the form of Facebook and Myspace were once banned by many corporate IT departments. They were viewed as detrimental to productivity. However companies have started to leverage collaborative tools and understand how to leverage social media for more than just marketing purposes.

Communities of practice along industry (automotive, pharma, retail) or specialty (HR, Sales, Marketing, Project Management, Supply Chain) have proliferated on social media platforms. Progressive companies have started to try and learn how to leverage them for the betterment of their customers and employees.

With companies cutting costs by reducing travel and having more people work virtually social media and communities of practice provide a needed communications channel to share ideas and information.

The supply chain industry should be one that can derive great benefit by leveraging social media and collaborative tools both inside and outside the company with vendors, suppliers and customers.

Please share you thoughts on this subject and specifics of what initiative companies are undertaking

Chuck Zdrojowy
[e-mail]
Founder SCNI http://scmprofessionals.ning.com

[Vic Uzumeri]

The more I learn about social and collaborative tools, the more confused I become :-)

I think that we are still waiting for the results of a systematic mapping process that will locate the practical boundaries and fault lines of the major technology genres. That will, in turn, allow us to identify which types of real-world problems will find comfort inside which boundary. Since the preceding sentence is hopelessly abstract, let me offer a specific example to illustrate my point.

One candidate for a bright dividing line is the concept of voluntary vs. involuntary participation.

In the public Internet, social networking is voluntary and driven by individual, personal goals and values. It is also not mandatory. System designers don't need to make a system that everyone can use - just one that enough people can use to achieve a critical mass. If you have ever tried to talk a colleague into using LinkedIn, Facebook, or Ning - and failed - its no biggie. There are lots of other fish in the sea.

In commercial networks, any lack of participation has a real financial cost. If you design a 'social network' for your supply chain and your biggest supplier (or customer) refuses/fails to participate, the entire network concept is compromised. Generally, where money is involved, its 100% or nothing.

One place this has long been a problem is in distance education. I have seen all sorts of cool software introduced in universities. However, students don't take that into account when they pick classes. As the teacher, I have to deliver the course to every registered student. If one of them can't access the 'cool tool' (in a state school: for any reason), I have to maintain a separate back channel. Worse, I have to be the conduit between that student and the rest of the class. The extra effort for the outlier usually exceeds the potential benefit from the community tool. So most teachers are still working with discussion boards and email.

That, I would submit, is an example of the kind of critical fault line that we must understand if we are to apply this phenomenon productively, There are lots of others. The firewall is a biggie. Language and cultural barriers is another. Privacy, intellectual property and sensitive discussion is a third. Fun/not fun is a fourth. etc. etc. etc.

Since I'm pretty sure Chuck threw this up to get my input (or I'm being narcissistic :-), let me point you to a recent blog article on part of this subject: http://www.ipov.net/blog/communities-stakeholders. It tries to address this issue and includes specific mention of supply chain as a key opportunity to get it right.

[Jon Hansen]

Here is a link to an August 2008 article titled "The Web 2.0 Association: A Dynamic Engagement Between Stakeholders Sharing The Same Interests And Goals" that should shed an interesting light on your question: http://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/the-web-20-associat...

I would also suggest that you listen to the April 9th PI Window on Business broadcast which feartured a guest panel who responded to the question, "Is the traditional association model dead?" Here is the link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Jon-Hansen/2009/04/09/Is-The-Tradition...

[Pam Koeferl]

We have used numerous tools in my previous company that worked pretty well for us.

One was Instant Messaging, but initially through AOL and MSN. That caused problems with using them for personal messaging with friends during work hours too much. So we implemented IM through our Lotus Notes system. Not everybody has Lotus Notes and it cut down the personal time and increased the chances of using it for business only. That is a great tool and increases efficiency and productivity.

We also used Salesforce.com (which failed due to a poor launch and not much support) as well as webinars. Webinars are very useful and really do reduce expenses and time. It is only inconvenient when technical problems occur, which sometimes happened. But aside from those the combination of seeing the screens and talking to each other is fanastic. The company also started using webcams so you can even see your counterpart when talking to them. Our headquarters was in Germany, so it was helpful because we didn't have to travel oversees every time there was a project.

The only negative that I can see with the social media is that it maybe affects the relationship you have with co-workers. It might not be as personal as it would be if you met them in person, and it's always nice to know which face goes with the voice you have been talking to.

Pam Koeferl

[Robert Gerace]

We have tried Squidoo, Linkedin, and MySpace with no success; however we have avoided spamming members and tried to rely only on networking, and letting people find our postings via web searches. To date, our most effective 'tools' have been offline conferences, conventions, and in-person network events (in stark contrast to the question posted.)

In 2006 we made a series of about 40 videos that have lived in a back corner of our website at http://www.velocitracker.com, and only recently have we decided to put them up on youtube to see where that goes. They are posted at http://www.youtube.com/RobertGerace with search friendly text.

I'd be interested comments from members here as to their thoughts about potential effectiveness.

Thanks,
Robert Gerace

[Gary Silver]

Good points already made, just a couple of quick observations:

- You're unlikely to find representative opinions of negativity and resistance posted against online communities posted here (in an online community).

- The number of technological outliers (e.g. students without access to the tools) will diminish over time as the tools become nearly as accessible as textbooks.

- Chuck, you missed a couple in your list: SCNI and LinkedIn :)

[Vic Uzumeri]

Gary,

I don't want to belabor the student example. Supply Chains don't deliver to students. But I'm still convinced that the voluntary/mandatory network design criterion is important. In mandatory membership situations, orphans can be real trouble.

For example, the idea that students should be getting better equipped over time makes perfect sense. I hear that statement a lot from administrators and software vendors. But it hasn't happened yet, at least not to a degree that makes full, easy participation a safe assumption. (Note that our distance students are typically late-20s to late-40s adults).

It is certainly true that the fraction of well-equipped people is rising. But in this context, proportions don't matter that much. 80% or 95% still isn't 100% - and that last unconnected % can be a huge pain in the rear. It only takes one student who can't/won't be coached on-board to make an instructor's life miserable. It's never the student's fault - sort of like it's never the customer's fault.

If your business usage model can tolerate leaving a few folks out of the game, then all kinds of cool system designs are possible. If it must have _everyone_ on the same playing field, the choices are more limited.

[Gary Silver]

Vic, I imagine in the academic environment it might be difficult to get 100% technological compliance, and I can appreciate how that makes your job harder, your impatience and frustration. As you know, in the business world it is more reasonable to require mandatory baseline technologies for all who want inclusion in your partnership or network, ... or you may fairly choose to not deal with them. But even with the difficulties you state gaining students (and their related obstacles) technological compliance, I would imagine you are better off using modern communication tools to facilitate working with your 80-95%, and dealing with the exceptions the old fashioned way, rather than going back to only old methods for everyone (even though this complicates your number/complexity of communication processes).

Don't forget, there was a time when NOT everyone had a telephone... TV... PC... Excel... Word... modem... Internet.. E-mail. You have to believe that the laggards will eventually get there.

[Tefen USA]

Tefen has implemented several social media initiatives, including Twitter and free webinars. We are leveraging Twitter mainly as an opportunity for PR and networking. When our partners and directors write bylines, we supply the link, to share our knowledge. In the same way, our webinars are seen as thought leadership and cover topics that our partners are deemed experts, while simultaniously generating leads for our sales team.

Cristina Priamo
[e-mail]

[Bec Manjra]

Our company has set up a forum for Australian supply chain professionals, as this was something lacking in the marketing place (www.australiansupplychainforum.com). Our company bears the cost and does not control the site as such (it's run by members), but it is doing a service to the SC and logistics Aust & NZ community, and is in touch with what is happening. We also set up an Australian SC group on LinkedIn for similar purposes. In a way, it's a little like sponsorship, rather than direct selling. But we like our company to be positioned at the forefront of SC initiatives in the region, including education and training, communication etc. and these sites are part of that initiative.

I don't think many companies can go out into the social media space and expect a direct ROI. It's more of a long-term investment (mainly time) that helps position the company as having initiative and interest in assisting SC professionals to network and develop.

Bec