Group items tagged

Very interesting blog post by David Griffiths, July 4, 2012. It's interesting because he took the release of an analysis of American Intelligence in Afghanistan and used it to surface issues in online CoPs. Excerpts: "What I find interesting is that I have had very few conversations where organisations have described their need for CoP to be driven by a need to become more dynamic, agile or adaptive - a major concern for organisations today ..." "Many CoP are far too large, much like a sprawling metropolis, it is difficult to find the boundary for the community; this results in low levels of trust and sub communities that create their own 'neighborhoods' with interesting sub cultures. Others are devoid of purpose, well intentioned in their conception, but reduced to a shell, tumbleweed blowing down dried up knowledge flows; a creaking sign blows back and forth over the community portal:" "This CoP was presented as a panacea for problem solving, but it was built upon community leaders who were chosen by the organisation for their high level of expertise, which in this case also meant they had been with the organisation for a long period of time. I was left to wonder whether this was a community at all, or whether it was just a problem solving network. I asked how they surfaced new ideas, how they encouraged variety, how they used signals from the front line to make wider strategic or operational decisions? Did they use the community to monitor the type/nature of problems that were emerging and how community leaders were responding? Were the problems signalling disturbances in the environment that required a strategic response?" "The lesson to be learned for those operating CoP in organisations is to by all means use community 'leaders', but use them not as community police, or regulators, but as catalysts to surface relevant intelligence for the organisation. I would argue that you will start looking for different types of people, with differe

Very interesting transcript of interviews with two Wharton professors on impact of MOOCs on their MBA programs. "So, in the last year, when I've taught product design, I've posed to myself the challenge: What can we do in the classroom that can only be done when 60 people are together sharing the same time and location? I have them watch the video offline, and then when we get together, we do a simulation or an exercise or presentations or group work - things that can only be done in that location when we're all together." Excerpt on completion rate: Knowledge@Wharton: Despite the evident advantages, one of the challenges that all MOOCs face is that the completion rate typically tends to be pretty low. I wonder both as teachers and as researchers, what you have learned through your experience that might be relevant to business schools? Ulrich: The completion rate statistic is a red herring. People like to trot it out, but it doesn't seem terribly relevant to me. If you think about what the barrier is to registering for a MOOC, it's literally one click in a Coursera environment. So many people enroll to check it out, to watch a few videos, to see what it's all about. Sponsored Content: My MOOC requires hundreds of hours of effort to complete a substantial design project. Very, very few people are willing to put in hundreds of hours, but many people are interested in learning a little bit about customer needs or aesthetics in design or prototyping, so they watch a few videos. We think pretty carefully in MOOCs about three categories of learners. Those who are just browsing; those who want to view the material but won't do the work; and then those who will do all of the work. So as I say, that narrow completion statistic is not meaningful in terms of evaluating the success of the MOOCs.

Article by Scott Gillum at Forbes, 1/6/12. Excerpt: "The next-generation tools, like Curata (a HiveFire company) and Curation Station, are focused on B-to-B marketing with a value proposition focused on their ability to drive awareness by improving organic search, and provide organizations with an opportunity to build thought leadership. The key to this evolution is being the "curator." The curator is an editor who sorts through the content to find the information relevant to a company and/or its audience. Curators are not content creators. And this is where I think the challenge lies in using these tools for thought leadership. Creating a content farm on a "hot" topic will not improve organic search (Google has already figured this out) or establish thought leadership in that space. In the survey, marketers stated that "creating original content" was the number one challenge. Companies have to have a point of view and not just aggregated content on the subject. That said, tools can play an important role in the development of thought leadership content but not on their own. For example, the process I used in the past for developing content involved five steps: Decide on an issues set. Develop a point of view. Conduct research to validate the POV. Summarize the research and draw out insight. Write and publish a content piece."