Community Development Is Hard Work

So, as we progress along, we still aren't forming "vibrant communities" around business-oriented topics as well as I'd like.

That's for a variety of reasons, but one big one stands out -- it's hard work.

And bridging this gap is turning out to be important.

A Lot Can Get Done On Social Software -- Even Without Communities

Even if we used our social productivity software for simply ad-hoc discussions, debates, information-sharing, etc. -- and didn't have well-formed communities -- it'd still be a good thing, and worth every penny.

But one of our original premises was that communities -- groups of active participants contributing to a greater goal -- was at the heart of achieving substantial business value around this 2.0 stuff.

Why?

More and more, we've got topics that span our stovepipes (er, cylinders of excellence), and we need to get more and more people involved.

Getting them involved doesn't just mean reading some stuff we've pushed to you, it means being a part of the conversation, helping out, etc.

Our Experience So Far

Some communities naturally formed.  For whatever reasons, we had the right ingredients at hand: a passionate topic, someone who was willing to lead and put in the effort, and willing contributors and participants.

Others stalled.  Maybe it wasn't the right (passionate) topic.  Or the person who volunteered to lead didn't put in enough effort, or know what to do.  Or, perhaps, no one really cared outside of a small group.

Since this is all a learning experience, we're watching, and trying to figure out as much as we can.

We've learned that the persona of the community manager is essential.  This person has to be (a) passionate and somewhat knowledgeable of the topic at hand, (b) put in consistent effort for a sustained period of time, and (c) have the type of personality and style that makes other people want to engage, and not push them away.

I, for example, am a lousy community builder.  No matter how hard I try, I don't have the sort of personality that gets average folks wanting to participate and engage, even though I meet the first two criteria pretty well. 

Gently put, I'm a bit intense for most peoples' tastes ...

Taking an informal survey around EMC, we've got a lot of great people, but not a lot of people who meet all three criteria.  And that's gonna be a problem -- especially the "engaging" part.

A related challenge is the delayed or uncertain gratification.  We're asking prospective community builders to (a) learn a new set of tools, (b) slave away for hours over many weeks at populating content, (c) use their social capital to invite their friends and colleagues to participate -- and maybe getting nothing in return.

That's a hard ask of people, no?

And Then There's The Win-Win Challenge

Many potential topics and communities are what I'd call asymmetrical -- there's an imbalance in the producer/consumer relationship.

Put differently, for lots of different topics, people are comfortable just leeching off of whatever's out there, and don't really feel the need to contribute, discuss, share, etc.  As a result, the "community" tends to be a 1.0-ish content site, with not much collaboration or discussion going on.

But when you do get the win-win scenario going, the results can be astounding.

Here at EMC, we're a bit obsessed with competition.  And, if you think about it, good competitive information is like assembling pieces of a puzzle.  Sure, you can get a lot from a centralized resource, but as everyone learns a piece of new information about what this competitor or that competitor is doing, saying, etc. -- assembling the pieces creates far more value.

As a result, this community (actually, a cluster of communities) has a situation where people are contributing freely what they know, what they've heard, what they think, etc. to the broader community -- because I think they see the rewards of doing so.

No need to get people to contribute to this one ... now, how do we expand this idea to other areas?

An Alternative View

Maybe we're trying to encourage something that doesn't want to be encouraged. 

Maybe the reality of the situation is that people will self-organize into communities when they want to, and not before.

I hope not.  My desire is that -- over time -- we can become more proficient at targeting high-value potential communities, and causing them to form with more precision and regularity.

I'm beginning to think that the solution lies more along HR lines than anything else -- how do you teach people to lead teams and groups that span their day-to-day charter?

And -- come to think of it -- we don't do so well at that either ;-)

Comments

[KenF]

Chuck, your situation reminds me of that movie "Force 10 from Navarone" where they set off that explosion at the base of the dam. Launching your platform was your explosion - heard by a few but not by many. Then each crack & spraying leak was each community, some bigger than others. Now the patience part kicks in - it may take another year or two before your old "barriers" actually burst open and collapse - great movie!

On a side note, I also work in high-tech and we seem to be having more success with awareness (we're about a year behind you) when we talk about a conversations network with a variety of conversations channels versus talking about communities. The term "communities" is hard to define and explain to people and hard to fit into the rest of the collaboration tool suite. I've found that it's much easier to position a "conversation network with channels" among things like email, text chat, phone calls, and face-to-face meetings. We still have a ton of hard work in front of us (we're currently planning the launch / planting the "charge") but it looks like we'll be going with conversation channels instead of communities. Discussion channels would obviously work too.

[Chuck Hollis]

Ken, I'm really starting to like you!

First, the analogy is great -- vivid visuals really work for me!

You thoughts on "conversations" vs. "communities" caused me to think a bit, and share my thoughts on a recent post.

Had I had to do it again, I'd probably start my focus on conversations vs. communities -- simply more expedient.

But as I mentioned in the most recent post, I still elevate communities to the topmost rung in the value hierarchy.

Next time I do this? Start with conversations, but be ready to escalate to communities when you see the opportunity.

BTW, even though we started with communities, we've got PLENTY of conversations!!

[Matthew L]

Chuck,

In talking about the “Win-Win Challenge” I see a danger here. Let me start with a “win-win” story.

Two sisters are at home and both desire an orange. When they get to the kitchen there is only one orange left and the sisters both state they must have it. In an attempt at finding a “win-win” solution they split the orange, thus both get what they wanted, right? Most people would call this a win-win outcome because both sides got, at least part, of what they wanted they got it in an equitable manner; even split. Now, what if I told you the rest of the story? The first sister went upstairs to her room with her half orange and contently pealed and ate the orange, tossing the rind into the trash. The second sister stayed in the kitchen, pealed the orange, tossed the fruit in the trash and proceeded to use the rind to make zest for a cake she was baking. Now do we still believe that the solution was truly a “win-win?”

The danger I see here is we assume the broader community will “see the rewards” of contributing freely. I’m not so sure they will, especially with the older generations. In some cases yes, but will the majority of them function this way especially in a large corporate setting? I doubt this. Also, we need to further understand what they hope to gain. We need to get the “sisters” talking and giving feedback about what they expect, how they expect to get it and how we can deliver these items to them so they turn around and contribute to make it a 2.0 scenario instead of a 1.0 as you mention.

Does this mean focusing on the organization of groups and pushing them, or, as you say, perhaps we need to let them form naturally and spend our time nurturing those wild flowers that spring up?

Have you done a focused effort like this within EMC and if so, what are the results you see? Or, does it really just boil down to the community leader and the topic, regardless of how the community/ conversation is started?

[Chuck Hollis]

Hi Matthew -- yes, I follow where you're coming from.

Generationally speaking, our most prolific contributors are 30-something (or 40-something) middle management or senior individual contributors.

They have plenty to say, they're confident in their abilities, and -- frankly -- I think they're looking to show off a a bit. The younger ones frequently don't have a lot to contribute -- even though they participate, and the older ones aren't comfortable with the whole sharing thing quite yet.

We see many people jumping and figuring out that they need a community, and the party just starts. We seem to see this more from the engineering side of the house.

Others need a LOT of hand holding. They want to, they need to -- they're just not comfortable with the whole thing, hence the need for a directed resource.

And, as you point out, we have to sit down and think through what's in it for the community sponsors, what's in it for the community participants -- getting to that "win win".

Small, closed groups that reside in a single organization have their choice of tools and methodologies. Larger, open groups that are looking to spread their influence are drawn to this particular platform, so we're looking for this sort of "need".

Finally, my goal here is acceleration of the benefits, so we're trying to do different things (with varying degrees of success) to shorten the natural proliferation curve.

[SEO LA]

Wow. Really great ideas. Keep flowing the thoughts.

ann torres