Comments on: Should Knowledge Workers have E2.0 Ratings, Part 2

By: pixbook

pixbook — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:10:06 +0000

I think this is a very important conversation you just launched.

Ways to make money

By: trdedektiflik

trdedektiflik — Wed, 06 May 2009 08:33:16 +0000

CASUS TELEFON

TELEFON D?NLEME

D?NLEME C?HAZI

By: Bryan Zmijewski

Bryan Zmijewski — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:28:29 +0000

Andrew-
You happened to mentioned my company (ZURB) as an example, so I thought I would give you some specific feedback from our experience.

1. We’re a service firm and wanted to bring more visibility to metrics in the business. The blogging points are only one piece- real time billable hours, company newsletter sign-ups, twitter feeds, leads, rss feeds subscribers, comments, etc. are all part of of a daily view of what is happening in the business. Everyone in the business sees this information.

2. We’ve balanced the “numbers” with real-time feed activity to help reduce “competition” fatigue. It’s about the interaction as much as the totals. Superstars get their fix while other employees can still participate.

3. While the personal numbers are interesting, we want employees see the collective benefit of our efforts. I implemented a profit sharing plan at the same time, so I think the metrics helped everyone see how to create value.

4. We’ve had 5 consecutive quarters of record growth (the last two grew significantly with the introduction of the dashboard and profit sharing).

Word is still out on it’s effectiveness, but early indications give me the sense that we’ve got momentum created from the effort. We’re a small firm, so it’s unclear how this scales to a larger enterprise.

By: Niko

Niko — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:25:28 +0000

Andrew,

thanks for the interesting blog. I love to read it.

In case any extrinsic motivation (e.g. salary) is coupled with e2.0 approaches the participation of employees must be monitored and KPIs must be generated per employee. That is a no-brainer. The question is: does it make sense to couple extrinsic motivation to e2.0 participation?

From my point of view we must start the evaluation with exploring the motivation of people to participate in wikis, discussion boards and other collaborative tools outside of e2.0 on the web. Why am I writing this comment here without any extrinsic motivation? Because I love to share information and discuss with competent people.

Binding extrinsic motivation to e2.0 participation would motivate the employees who do not understand the culture and the benefits of e2.0. A lot of content would be put on the e2.0 network to show engagement. The amount of irrelevant data (rather than information) would rise.

Those who support e2.0 without extrinsic information today would be disappointed from the e2.0 system which would become administration and visibility as an end in itself. They would stop feeding valuable information to the system.

Binding extrinsic motivation to e2.0 participation indirectly would demotivate the good employees.

Don’t do it!

By: Atul Rai

Atul Rai — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 06:14:16 +0000

Hi Andrew, thanks for the interesting post. Yes, i think we need some form of visibility into how e2.0 is shaping up. Moreover, if we look at peer-feedback, rather than a sort of performance appraisal type rating, we are actually looking at a way to build some form of measurement into this, which is in line with the entire idea of e2.0. After all, feedback itself is a form of knowledge sharing … think commenting on a post by your friend on facebook! In this way, i tend to agree with Scott on this.

By: Steve Boese

Steve Boese — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:41:05 +0000

Very interesting post and series of comments. I have been working in the past year with three distinct groups in the introduction of 2.0 tools, Grad students, a small faculty group, and an IT organization. I would have to say in my experience with these groups, the introduction of ’scoring’ schemes probably would not improve the adoption rates (save possibly the students who are more inclined to ‘compete’ with each other). In the groups I have been working with, building a convincing use case, demonstrating the potential benefit, and ‘teaching’ how to use the tools has been the predominant focus.

By: Bryan Labutta

Bryan Labutta — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:53:42 +0000

Andrew, I appreciate your insight as usual and have given a good amount of thought to this post and how it relates to your initial post on the topic. I think I would be more receptive to an Enterprise 2.0 ranking system that worked on the basis of peer ratings and not based on raw contribution figures. This may be what Luis was mentioning in his comment.

To me, rating someone based on the number of times they have edited a wiki page, written a blog post, saved a bookmark, or tweeted about their day lacks value. People could fill the Enterprise 2.0 systems with useless information just to achieve a high ranking. However, if users were rated/ranked according to feedback from their coworkers then the people providing true value to the enterprise start to shine through. It’s similar to what Amazon does with their reviewer rankings. One person may have written 100 reviews and another person only 20, but the second person may have a higher ranking because people found those 20 reviews more helpful than the 100 reviews.

I may have misunderstood your radar chart in your first post, but I think that was the source of my negativity toward rankings. I would rather see people that produce valuable information be rewarded with high rankings from their peers (which, in turn, encourages them to produce more and others to produce better content) than see people ranked highly simply through having a higher volume of contributions than others. That is the type of “friendly competition” that I agree would be a great addition to Enterprise 2.0.

By: Luis Alberola

Luis Alberola — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:59:03 +0000

I think this is a very important conversation you just launched. How you measure the performance of a particular community through its E2.0 ratings has the potential to become what I call a Peer People Review. And I think a Peer People Review can be used by organization for some of its non hierarchical populations (experts for instance).

We are working on the subject with several clients, you can follow us at http://www.boostzone.fr/.

By: Donna

Donna — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:05:54 +0000

How else can an organization gauge employee response to Enterprise 2.0 than through measurement? If the process or product is significant, a nonresponse indicates resistance or apathy, neither of which are beneficial.

By: Barbara McGill

Barbara McGill — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:00:39 +0000

My company was trying hard to get online discussion adoption (rather than email). Early on, someone posted, by name, how often each person logged into the system and wrote something. The response to that posting was huge! People were very offended and felt coerced into using the system. Our experience is that you get a few early adopters who will shine in the metrics. But, unless people “fall” over the tools and can see business value, i.e. show me how this will help me get my job done, just showing metrics only motivates a few who are motivated by being at the top in lots of things.