In the end, we agree: “we need collaborative capabilities baked directly into our business processes.”

It is because of my belief in that fundamental premise that I wrote this piece (while the piece did not call it out specifically — it’s a theme of many of my posts for the past several years). You just said it a lot better than I’ve likely done before.

But there is also a challenge — it is one we’ve faced many times before when adopting ‘transformative technologies’, and we’ve failed. We too literally look at the existing and try to reshape it from where it stands, or worse, try to replace it. The issues I raised, focusing on the data/content, are critical to being able to address this opportunity from a variety of angles: ‘at’ the existing processes, or tangential to them — allowing the old and new to meet somewhere in the middle — where the ideal solution likely lies, both morphing into an ideal 3rd-form.

“the transaction costs of learning seem too large an investment of time and energy” — this is a tremendous clue that fits a pattern I’ve uncovered. These are ‘transformative capabilities’ that present a challenge: they have tremendous potential that can often be taken in many directions (Twitter has been ’shaped’ into many things different than originally intended), but they need some ‘context’ to ground them for the individual to relate. There are two phases/roles here — the first is often skipped: the adaptation of the tool and the adoption of the tool. Individuals should not be responsible for the overall business adaptation of the tool — although they certainly can move it forward, once adoption sets in.

ALL tools can be ’shaped’ to provide relevant context (even in the way they are introduced or interjected), as well, ‘guided immersion’ is often needed (look at all the many stories about how/when people ‘got’ Twitter — when they were at a conference and watched it in action, or someone walked them through scenarios). The transaction costs should NOT be borne by the individuals, over and over again — the multiplier effect of productivity loss is tremendous, but hidden. The tools must be shaped for ‘context’ (not the role of the delivered product — although I did suggest perhaps vendors might consider helping http://twurl.nl/y57hv3).

I say all this while recalling that these are not new issues. These are the same issues borne by anyone using a word processor or a spreadsheet for the first time. Training, simply teaches the individual how to shape themselves to the tool, thereby minimizing the potential of the tool — because they’ve spent so much time shaping themselves to the tool, they have no ‘costs’ left to invest in truly leveraging the tool to its fullest potential. Training itself imposes ‘proper use’, disincenting true understanding of the tool’s potential and experimenting with it’s edges.

The “seamlessness” you speak of is critical. It is the Rosetta Stone for the ‘adaptation’ that must be done to support adoption.

Thank YOU for reinforcing the key threads of thought I need to focus more on (I’m writing a related piece right now).

One thing that I thought was striking about the #e2conf this year (as opposed to last year, in my own experience) was the balkanization of the “conversation”. If you go read all of the various post-conference writeups, a theme emerges that is really quite fascinating — it’s almost as if the majority of commenters attended two different conferences. At the one conference, things were dominated by the vendors, and the “slant” of things was heavily B2C/C2C. At the other conference, things were dominated by users, talking to one another, and the “slant”, if any, was towards internally facing, intra-enterprise usage. I attended (and spoke at) the latter conference. When I look at the folks that apparently attended the prior conference, what strikes me is how little (if any) overlap there was in our schedules. I didn’t attend any of the sessions those folk did. They didn’t, by and large, attend too many of the sessions that I did.

IOW, I appear to be observing your silo problem, in effect at the conference.

And that allows me to segue into my deeper reaction to your post here — I’m not sure, but it seems to me that you might be conflating two different things: content and wetware. You make quite interesting (and, in my opinion, correct) comments about both these things here, but seem to be implying, by the tone and structure of this essay, that they are the same problem, to be attacked with the same solutions. If so, and I’m not simply misunderstanding you, I don’t agree with that conclusion.

We can talk all day about the problems of separating data (content) from its usage context (application, presentation). As you note, this problem is as old as IT itself, and there are as many possible ways of solving it as there are clever minds in our industry. I’m rather fond of using Web standards, and microformats, myself, but YMWV.

But the wetware issue — the one that concerns itself with the behaviour of humans — is larger than, and orthogonal, to the data. Note I don’t say “independent” — that would be wrong. Data influences behaviour, no question. But they are not the same problem. If my observation about the #e2conf is correct, then it is a case in point.

(I led an Unconference session which I had subtitled “Death to the Silos!” The core of the discussion was my assertion that we are not well served by vendors (or anyone else) trying to sell us yet another wiki, or blog (to your point, above). Instead, we need collaborative capabilities baked directly into our business processes — what Ross Mayfield and his folk refer to as “in the flow”, and what I call “social processes”. I used the example of an insurance industry process (an automotive claim) to illustrate and frame the conversation. The audience was largely users / customers).

People just want to easily get on with communicating, working, managing, telling stories, raising awareness, recruiting volunteers, etc. and the tools are there to do that – so long as you remember to use the same shovel to fill the hole that you used to dig it…. The commercialization of the software and the competition for market share, ensures the results you describe. Kudos to open source for keeping the options available to all of us.

You could say that silos are lateral, too. I am working to bridge the generations within the community benefit sector, ensuring the continued capture of the knowledge capital of our elders who are edging towards retirement. The disappearance of a layer of middle-management as funding decreased over decades, has left few who can mediate a succession process, leaving the younger social entrepreneurs and empassioned staffers (highly tech-savvy, tweeters) to keep the sacred fire burning. Enthusiastic and energetic as they are, they are in the ‘gaining experience’ phase, and the price of this can be burnout and isolation. These folks are finding each other and creating community and support through social media, especially with small organizations where staff don’t share physical ‘real time’ space with very many colleagues.

There are certainly geologic layers in terms of comfort zone and ability to take the time to tackle these new tools – a mystery to some of us, with elements that seem to change daily. As a result, the transaction costs of learning seem too large an investment of time and energy. The focus tends to be on the confusion of the jargon/shorthand and resentment of the ‘in-group-ness’ of those who use, and it can be hard to see the usefulness. It would be helpful if those who are marketing the tools spoke as clearly to the typewriter-to-keyboard generation as they have to their peers.

In this scenario, it helps to have people thinking – as you have – of the bigger picture, the great masses of end users, many of whom are ’self-taught’, and what it feels like to them to have to navigate extra silos when the work they do is important, and could be made so much more efficient if there were a more ’seamless’ way to use existing technology tools, and to make the choices and transitions necessary to keep up with emerging tools. When all you see and hear are the others using the media, it is possible to have a distorted view of the overall population’s access and ability to make use of it.

Thanks for the ‘food for thought’, it helps me in my work to translate the language and minimize the angst felt by some – not all, by any means, don’t get me wrong! – of my fellow elders and mavens who have so much to add to the conversation, and to learn from it, if brought in.