DO THE JAZZ!

The Wiki Workplace: Unleashing the Power of Us

Wikinomiks: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything

by Dan Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams.

We know that in a military battalion, every move must not only be firm but numbered. Moreover, there is a corps commander or battalion officer that provides the command for the privates’ next move or position. In a jazz band, however, there is  usually no conductor. Or even if there is, the members are diverse. Unlike in a troop where the instruments are either rifles or swords only, an ensemble is composed of people who play the percussion, bass guitar, piano, saxophone, clarinet, and other instruments. In addition to that, they are divided into sections like rhythm and melody. This, according to Tapscott and Williams, is how a wiki workplace looks like.

We discussed how communication evolution changed the way people communicate. This also applies to how organizations, particularly business organizations, function today. It is not just the culture, but also the nature, of the organization that is changing. With the emergence of new social media tools like blogs, wikis, and even video games, organizations have entered the virtual environment, conquered the Net generation, and is now inside the wiki workplace.

Below are the following major benefits of collaboration in the wiki workplace:

#1: Power and control in organizations are gradually being distributed among the employees.

#2: Cohesiveness in spite of existing organizational and even geographical boundaries.

#3: Faster innovation yet lower costs

Through collaboration technologies, the workers can brainstorm ideas and socialize with each other at the same time. They are provided with more autonomy in terms of developing new strategies for the business. They can also participate in the decision-making process and influence the methods and result of the activity.  Because the control is shared, the workers also develop a deeper sense of loyalty to the organization.

Allowing the workers to take part in the decision-making process on the company operations, I think, is very important. After all, these people are the ones who are usually in the front line. Hence, they knew the organization’s target market in a much closer sense. Instead of paying an external group to do a market research, the management can give the task to those employees who work on the front line. Being able to interact with the consumers, the workers hold relevant firsthand information.

The wiki workplace also made collaboration less dependent on boundaries. Since the setting is online, there is more transparency. It is easier to tell whether the workers are indeed working–either they are online or offline. Because everything is being exchanged via the Web, knowledge and information sharing is deemed to be faster and easier. Another advantage of this is that the virtual world shrinks the organization in a way that the workers, as well as the management, become more familiar with each other. As said already, no boundaries such as doors or floors, and even ranks exist in a wiki workplace.

I am awed by how the wiki workplace would result to increased level of trust and loyalty and success when, in fact, with the large number of participants existing on the Web, it’s very hard to manage–if not unmanageable.  But of course, the most valuable end product is none other than is collective intelligence.

The teams formed in a wiki workplace may be virtual, but the workers are engaged with what they are doing. They are in one community of practice. When one is online, you know that he/she is participating or engaging in some kind of online activity.

In a traditional workplace where you see people doing the same tasks–typing, accepting orders, etc.–over and over again, collaborative tasks are mostly done only by the top management. And that really doesn’t seem collaborative at all because the input only comes from them.

In the wiki workplace, everyone is involved. Even managers and supervisors like Robert Stephens of Geek Squad join from time to time. Online is less formal, less structured. Sometimes, however, that is just what is needed.

The managers and supervisors must loosen up. Instead of standing in front of the battalion giving out orders like in a military, they should form a jazz band, and produce beautiful music out of the collective efforts and talents of its members. It’s mass collaboration at its best!

LOVE THROUGH TIME AND COMMUNICATION EVOLUTION

Note:

This 3-minute video blog is about how two people in-love since the world began survived epochs, eras, and centuries of changes and development not only in clothing, but most importantly, in communication.

starring

Lia Calderon and Eric Atienza

in a story where

Love knows no boundaries–even if it’s time and communication evolution that is against  it.

They did it. They survived.

SO CAN WE.

Starting from smoke signals to cave paintings to scriptures, telegraphs, radios,  telephones, mobile phones, televisions, and the now the new social media, the development that occured in the way people  communicate was truly immense.

As humans evolve, so does communication. Not only does this evolution in the field of communication change the way people communicate. It completely changed the world we live in.

Only time can tell what the next phase of the communication evolution will be. What matters  is that WE are coping so that, like Eric and Lia, we, too, will survive.

PETALS | NETVIBES |”SUCKS”

Last week was bizarre—heavy rains, strong winds that destroyed the 50 PhP umbrella that I just bought, uncontrolled Net surfing amidst school works, and of course, vlog-making. I tell you, it’s not easy folding clothes little by little.

BRIAN SOLIS’ PRISM –> NASH’S PETALS

The Conversation Prism

The conversation prism features the different Web avenues where conversations occur. If you will look closely, on the petals of what seems like a rainbow flower–but apparently, it’s called a prism–are the different avenues where communication occurs. For instance, there are the different blog sites or communities, the various social networking sites, the image and video hosting sites, and many more. Just by looking at those i-don’t-know-how-many applications, I realized that I still haven’t explored the Web that much–even if I have like six or so online accounts. Not that I need to try each, of course. I think this would be very helpful to me since it was labeled and classified neatly in this conversation prism.

As said in our lecture, it is important for organizations to pinpoint where (in the prism) they will engage and prioritize. To do that, they have to be able to locate where their target market resides in terms of their Net activity. Once they identified where to prioritize, that will be the time for the organization to become transparent to the consumers by listening, learning, and also sharing. Such must be an ongoing process or cycle.

Organizations must continuously engage themselves with their consumers. The consumers will, in turn, serve as the organization’s advocates and ambassadors in-and-out of the Web. Hence, whether the organization is online or not, they still are transparent and visible through their consumers.

NETVIBES

I am semi-obsessive-compulsive. No, I’m not suffering from the said anxiety disorder. Although I must add that anxiety seemed to be running in my genes. I just tend to be obsessed with order sometimes. Hence, when Sir Barry illustrated in class how Netvibe works, I made my account as soon as I got home.

It is so cool! I mean, in just one window, I can monitor all my online accounts. And in another tab, I can easily check all the juicy hollywood chikas in E!, TMZ, MTV, OMG Yahoo, OK!, and some other online magazines. Yes, those are the content of my Netvibe tabs. HAHA

BUT OF COURSE,  being the responsible and socially aware UP student and Filipino citizen that I am, I have another tab for serious news updates  like The Economist, Philippine Daily Inquirer, CNN, Times Online, and Forbes Business News.

What made me more happier actually is that Francis Kong has a website now and that it has RSS Feeds!

ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT

I was stalking  some of my favorite Hollywood celebrities in Twitter when I saw Emma Watson’s tweet about her Google-ing Emma +  needs. The results she got were  serious help, a belt rather badly, a real man, a love song, and to learn how to wear a bra.

That was when I remembered our discussion about online reputation management and decided to Google my full name. What appeared was a list of my online accounts. I was satisfied that no zero results appeared onscreen. It was a relief to know that I exist on the Web.

After which, I attached sucks, hates, and other synonymous terms to my name. What appeared, AS I EXPECTED, where people whose first name happens to be Paula but with a different surname, or whose surname was Batalla, but with a different first name. Again, I was relieved.

Gah. I thought my surname–BATALLA–was unique. Facebook proved me wrong. I guess the challenge now is how I shall make myself more transparent than those hundreds of PAULAs or BATALLAs on the Web.

In relation to organizations, maintaining an excellent online and offline reputation is a MUST.  The reputation of an organization, or simply an individual, can be both a strength and weakness.

With all the open avenues online like forums, blogs, and other virtual communities, it is necassary that organizations not only regularly monitor their reputation in these new social media channels. They must also take part in the ongoing process of listening, sharing, and learning–bringing us back to the principles behind the Conversation Prism.

MORE. MORE. MORE.

THE ANONYMOUS QUIZ

What is the name of that game/quiz again?

I especially liked our uber fun activity (i. e. group quiz) last meeting. And it’s not just because we won and gained a flat 1.0–yes, I intentionally highlighted that part–for the first quiz, but also because it was non-conventional.

I have to admit that I read the Wikinomics, but not entirely. Before the class started, I asked someone from the morning class if I have to read the whole two chapters, and I was told that yes, I MUST READ IT. That person didn’t say anything about a quiz. Another person said something about shouting and blaming someone about something. I was really confused. So much for fishing information from the morning class. HAHA

Friday night, I overslept that I missed a Twitter night and yeah, I failed to finish reading Wikinomics. I opened my TweetDeck to see what happened while I was off the cyberspace. Twitter-mates were talking about a quiz. I didn’t bother asking what quiz they were tweeting about. We never had quizzes in 142 and 105 anyway. Again, so much for feeling confident that we will not be having any quiz in the future.

So imagine my shock at the quiz announcement. Just as my tummy was welcoming all the butterflies in the planet, it was announced that it’s a group quiz. I must tell you, it was a MAJOR RELIEF. Also,  most of the questions were from Ch1, which I read COMPLETELY. So it’s not like it was a total social loafing event. And no, I’m not being defensive.

THAT QUIZ AND WIKINOMICS

So how was the activity related to the premise of Wikinomics?

The answer is MASS COLLABORATION. We were divided into two groups, and subdivided into smaller groups. We strategized by distributing the letters to each other. The energy–and also tension–was very high due to the driving force i. e.  a grade of flat 1.0. Silence during the reading of the question and chaos as the competing groups try to find the letters (this is probably the shouting that was mentioned by the earlier class) and form the word being asked. Despite the amok, teamwork and participation prevailed; thus earning our group a 1.0 for the activity.

Several times, we didn’t know the answer that we tried some two other words before we finally got the right one. It’s because with each question, we have different ideas or possible words in mind.

WIKINOMICS

Before I read Wikinomics, I actually thought it will be about Wiki and how it’s beneficial to the growing economy So I’m wrong. Sooo wrong, actually. In my defense, I’ve never heard the term “Wikinomics” before.

Wikinomics is based on four premises: Openness, Peering, Sharing, and Acting globally.

The idea is simple. Open-up your organization to the world. Allow outsiders to participate. Let them know your secrets, but leave some details to yourself. Use all these generated ideas to improve and develop your service or product but add a personal touch to it.

BUT OF COURSE, no matter how simple the idea may seem, the execution isn’t. It’s a frightening idea for organizations to let outsiders in and learn their secrets. Moreover,  the idea that a horizontal organization is emerging, and is gradually eliminating the hierarchy is unsettling especially for the top management.

Organizations must weigh the threats and potentials–the promises and perils–as Wikinomics puts it, carefully. By doing so, they will see that Wikinomics provides them with fewer risks yet huge potentials.

The people NOW are different. They are more knowledgeable than before. A collaboration between them would result to brilliant solutions and probably formerly unthinkable ideas that organizations can use.

More, more, and more indeed! The more you become open and the more you share, the more ideas are generated and the more the possibilities of winning in the global competition.