Joanna kicks off with a presentation about what should be understood by engagement in enterprise 2.0. Engagement is the Leitmotiv of community management. Engagement is linked to the employees' awareness of being part of a systemic organization.
A first step of building a successful community is that to acknowledge that the community already exists. The community should be more than sharing ideas. And it should be related to the corporate strategy.
How do you prove the value of the community for the organization? Prove that these new kinds of interactions are genuinely productive, help transform fruitful interactions into capitalizable assets, make individualism and collaborative behavior compatible through 'gamification', and, give some feedback about the Return on Engagement.
Also provide moderation guidelines for the community. Resist the urge to control the community, bridge between those that express themselves easily and those that don't and deal with conflict quickly and openly. (Although conflict is not seen too much because employees mostly engage in communities with their full name.)
Jon Mell shares an interesting example of a company that allows communities to be set up (using a tech platform), sets up metrics to measure the engagement in the community and if it doesn't live up to the engagement metics, they'll kill the community.
Jerome shares the Alcatal approach. He mentions that they have about 500 (official) community managers in place. They are an important part of the corporate strategy and change the strategy of the company regularly. 60k employees are in the social platform.
The discussion was mainly about if structure and/or management is needed for community (tools).
I asked a question, based on the above: Would you say a vibrant community is one that a company can try to kill but lives on anyway?
Another question was about the business case for a community.