Social Media Show and Tell

1971 Lambsie at show and tell Mary Abraham's post 'The Four Chickens Problem' got me thinking. She's been writing and thinking about e.g. enterprise 2.0 (tools) adoption and warns not to throw tools/solutions at the "nearest group of people. She says:

In order to achieve changed behavior (or adoption of a new tool) we must:

  • Educate people as to the actual cause of the problem.
  • Educate people as to the theoretical benefits of the proposed solution.
  • Prove the solution in such an obvious way so that you make the theoretical real.
  • Include monitoring and evaluation to keep proving your case as you implement the solution in their community.

The comments made on this post are interesting to read too.

As I said it got me thinking (and that's why I commented on her post). Because in my experience showing people how I use and enjoy social media applications also helps the 'selling' and 'adoption' of social media/enterprise 2.0/...

I find that with social media you have to dip in to experience it. Can you explain what the use of Twitter is, before you've used it? I couldn't. And by trying it I understood (or try to).
To give you an example. I've been talking to colleagues about social media for some time (- the underlying mechanisms, theory, etc). And some of them caught on quickly. But not many actually went out and tried using the tools. So, I looked for some cases, set up the tools for them and helped them start using them. Now, they're really getting it.

It's a "social media show-and-tell". (Or should it be tell-and-show, relating to Mary's list?) And I don't think this only works for social media, by the way.

Does this make sense? Or are you already doing this in your company? Please share your ideas and experiences!

---

If You Read This and Like It, Tweet This to your Followers:
Social Media Show and Tell http://twurl.nl/u2yhgy

Popular posts

Keep the Intranet Small

Image
This tweet by Jonathan Phillips ( @digitaljonathan ) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box. I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller? Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet  evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets. Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list: -            user requirements: users don't require large intranet -            search/navigation: searching and navigating a small intranet is easier than in a large intranet -            mobile: the content of the
Read more

Enterprise 2.0 Research

Image
There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study? Goals of the study To provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia; To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy; To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business; To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers; To analyse an
Read more

Innovation in Turbulent Times

Image
I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them. This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson." They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship. I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as
Read more