Comments on: Should Knowledge Workers Have Enterprise 2.0 Ratings?

By: bunchball

bunchball — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 07:49:59 +0000

Hey Andrew - we should talk - my company has a platform that measures participation online and then uses the statistics combined with game mechanics to incent and motivate behavior. Drop me a line at partners [at] bunchball.com if you'd like to learn more.

best, - rajat

By: bunchball

bunchball — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 01:49:59 +0000

By: petemodigliani

petemodigliani — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:21:49 +0000

Another option is establishing E2.0 rating levels. Level I requires users to setup profiles, add a document, contribute to a wiki and author a blog and microblog post. Additional levels could be attained by a certain number of contributions to the Enterprise: followers, retweets, engagement, connections, influence, etc. Once you obtain a certain level, there would be minimum requirements to maintain it (contributions, followers). I would love to see companies and Government agencies establish cash awards to employees with the top E2.0 ratings or a bonus for achieving the next E2.0 level.

By: Swan

Swan — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:42:08 +0000

Adding information to a knowledge base only has value if others are deriving value from it. One of the best things we can do as an employee is use or improve upon a corporate best practice as much as possible.

Thus, shouldn't one of the most important metrics be how much what we draw from the e20 environment is improving our work? Hard to measure, but a lot more meaningful than number of edits or number of authorings.

Andrew, would love to have you moderate a chat at http://KMers.org on this topic. Slots are open for Tuesdays in April.

Swan

By: staffing321

staffing321 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:48:49 +0000

Interestingly virtual group research also indicates that the active behavior of a small number of individuals in a group can drive overall behavior norms. Given this fact I believe leveraging the proposal to set objectives for a small group of "rainmakers" responsible for the success of the social networking site could prove effective.

Find more jobs: http://www.staffingpower.com/

By: harobu

harobu — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:49:25 +0000

We believe that in order for such tools to work, i.e. the employees to use them, the company culture has to enable / support this.

Our own personal incentive derives from the participation in internal Wikis. However, this is not the sole reason for the participation. In addition to this, we enjoy sharing and spreading our own knowledge, and we see this as advantageous for our reputation.

For us, who actively participate in the company Wiki out of conviction, the ranking is not a disadvantage, instead we consider this a confirmation of our position.

On the other hand, what about employees who only participate in ESSPs for the ranking? We consider this a "mechanical" participation, and this brings up the question on whether time will transform it into conviction.

We believe that currently these ESSPs are still in an early phase considering their use in the industry, and that therefore they need certain degrees of freedom regarding the measurment / ranking of the employees. As mentioned before, a change in culture is required, which can be reached, in our opinion, rather by convincing people than forcing them into participation. One way to do this is to present successes achieved by using ESSPs to the employees.

Once such a change of culture has begun, it may make sense to implement a ranking. The presented 6-point radar chart, generated automatically, would allow each employee to check their status and to determine, which aspects can still be "improved".

Not least, such a chart will reflect the methods and the social competence of the employees.

One issue not considered is the following: what happens to an employee who has reached the maximum in all six dimensions? Will they continue their participation or rest on their laurels? Hence, measurement and ranking can serve as a personal determination of the status, but not as a comparison to co-workers.

By: reanmw

reanmw — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:22:26 +0000

We would advise against the use of such ratings for measuring the performance of any employee. While we do not have statistics on the main reasons why people use social software, their motivations seems to be largely intrinsic (i.e. making the best use of one's tools to do great work, connecting with colleagues, working in groups, sharing). Theory of motivation clearly shows that any form of extrinsic motivation comes with the danger of eliminating present intrinsic motivation. Possibly to the point where it does more harm than help.

However, such ratings show great promise for reviewing the general use of the available infrastructure as well as tendencies amongst employees. Social software is most likely not adopted at the same speed everywhere. Improvements to the software and specific training can be offered to those groups of employees that have not yet adopted new possibilities.

The diagrams do have another potential weakness. As a power law distribution will most likely always be present, most of the rating charts will consist of a mere blip in the very center. The graphs will possibly need to be improved, so that the lower percentages account for more space on the chart.

By: micheleadrian

micheleadrian — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:25:51 +0000

We think its difficult to create a sencefull rating which would create more and better i.e. post, wiki entries. it's better to have a look on your knowledge workers and tell them to use the E2.0 framework. We don't use E 2.0 ratings, because we think the E2.0 platform would lose on quality. So we, the management looks that we are a good example for our knowledge workers by using our E2.0 platform.

By: pixbook

pixbook — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:09:29 +0000

I agree with Joel that "these stats will be of little interest to current organizational leaders unless you are able to draw a direct line between these stats and their impact against the problems the tools are designed to solve."

Ways to make money

By: Enterprise 2.0: Culture Is as Culture Does « I’m Not Actually a Geek

Enterprise 2.0: Culture Is as Culture Does « I’m Not Actually a Geek — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:02:22 +0000

[...] in effecting change. Or companies could take it even further, following Andrew McAfee’s suggestion that social software participation be baked into performance [...]