The Importance of Social Networking to Information Work

Collaboration software was designed for the information worker and it has indeed, helped tremendously by giving people more ways and channels to communicate and work together on content.  However, collaboration - in its more traditional definition - is too limited for what information workers need because it doesn't acknowledge the entire work flow, it typically helps with different points along that process.  What instigates collaboration in the first place?  What is the actionable results from the collaboration?   Who and what are the actors in collaboration and how trustworthy are they?  When are formal processes appropriate and when are more informal processes needed?

I like to think of this information work process as a circular thing, one work flow impacting and influencing others.  The process is sometimes kicked off formally - through perhaps a executive strategy discussion - and other times the process is kicked of by an informal conversation between two colleagues.  To me, the process looks something like - each step informed by the information source:

The other thing about information work that sometimes goes unacknowledged is...if you don't publish, broadcast, and get buy-in you might as well have fell a tree in the middle of Alaska for the amount of impact it will have. So to me information work is not effective if it doesn't get marketed to the audience it is intended to impact. Many, many people do not get this...working slavishly but feeling like they don't get the acknowledgement they deserve because they fail to 'market' their work.

Social networking software adds a critical layer to information work by giving sources (people, groups, organizations) referenceability and trust from people in the network - and making work transparent.  That trustworthyness makes information work go much faster. Social software adds to the mix, giving the participants in information work different ways to informally discuss, promote, and publish information.

However, one thing that social software does not address is that there are also structured and formal methods to operationalize a great idea and all organizations have these structured processes.  Organizations need both the structured formal processes (to ensure reliability, compliance, quality) and the informal processes (to encourage innovation, affinity, and to expose differences & opportunities).  There is need and a place for both...but in order to really help organizations, the formal and informal processes need to be closely linked so that information can be viewed through the lens of an organization's formal structure or through the lens of and individual's perspective...but each view needs to include everything. 

The challenge for collaboration, social media, and content management vendors is to enable customers to associate content with both formal and informal methods of discovery and tracking.  Both matter - and it is not a holy war between a monarchy and anarchy... what we are shooting for is democracy.

Comments

[Larry Irons]

Rachael,

Your question: "When are formal processes appropriate and when are more informal processes needed?" gets to the key issue in my opinion.

In a recent post at Skilful Minds I discussed the overemphasis given to "goals" by many of the vendors selling into the collaboration technology market. My post was mostly focused on Ross Mayfield, but I think equally applies to many of the people selling collaboration technology solutions, and here I'm thinking of Wikis in particular. Vendors too often tend to focus on how their product brings formal process and informal practice together. I tend to think the promise of collaboration is subtler. I hope you dont' mind, but I thought I'd quickly paste several key points from that post which seem to complement your observations.

"...the distinction Ross makes, following Mike Gotta, about the difference between processes (how work is supposed to get done) and practices (how work actually gets done) really indicates a need to keep in focus the range of connections and interactions that social software enables...

Social software offers the prospect of diminishing, though by no means eliminating, the gulf between formal organizational processes and informal employee practices. The key fact is that social software is a way of cultivating shared experience rather than a mere means to an end, or goal, alone. Ross believes 'there is no such thing as collaboration without a goal.'

To use an old CSCW metaphor that is now a cliché in discussions of social software, employees don't only gather around the water cooler or coffee pot to get a drink. They often use getting a drink of water, or a cup of coffee, as a pretext for taking a break, and information sharing happens incidentally as they interact in that informal process, sometimes playfully, with their peers and, in exceptional organizations, their managers. How many people believe those conversations would occur with the same quality of shared experience and information if employees knew the company records the interaction?"

[working girl]

Another issue that isn't address is the mix of professional and private relationships within one social media platform.