I have make a link in introduction of my last blog paper which is an invitation to definy what could be Social Rich Learning in this framework

http://www.conseilwebsocial.com/index.php/2010/participez-a-la-definition-du-social-rich-learning/

There are some good organizational communication tools, such as a communication audit, that allows a company to see the ebs and flows of ideas.

Yes, there are a lot of useful tools and services, and there will be more. I use a select few, and I cheat a lot too .. I am lucky to have a really good memory.

That’s a useful addition / reminder.

2) Don’s comment taking the opposing side is extremely important to developing ideas. Homogeneous groups with self-similar opinions don’t produce the debate and self questioning necessary to refine an idea. This requires an understanding of the individualized nodes, but this also requires an understanding of the connections.

Indeed … Don’s perspective flushed out some refinement and added to a deepened understanding of the issues. And, I don’t think context, the flows between nodes and coordination can be left willy-nilly. I hope it didn’t seem that was being advocated.

3) I see the critical aspect to social learning to be ‘diffusion’. Knowledge ‘flows’ at specific speeds, and complex, technical details have high viscosity. Some nodes are efficient at in-flow (fast learners), some at out (teachers). Excessive turnover removes nodes before their knowledge has spread to the rest of the group. Isolated groups fail to transmit their knowledge. Again, if I were debugging a company I’d want to measure this.

I think I’d use the word ‘assess’ rather than ‘measure’ but that doesn’t detract from your useful point.

2) Don’s comment taking the opposing side is extremely important to developing ideas. Homogeneous groups with self-similar opinions don’t produce the debate and self questioning necessary to refine an idea. This requires an understanding of the individualized nodes, but this also requires an understanding of the connections. If a decision is made/executed solely by very pro/anti-technology members of an organization you’re likely to get inferior results. Traditionally sales and R&D are very distinct functions. But you need bridges between those groups.

3) I see the critical aspect to social learning to be ‘diffusion’. Knowledge ‘flows’ at specific speeds, and complex, technical details have high viscosity. Some nodes are efficient at in-flow (fast learners), some at out (teachers). Excessive turnover removes nodes before their knowledge has spread to the rest of the group. Isolated groups fail to transmit their knowledge. Again, if I were debugging a company I’d want to measure this. How long before a new product feature is well understood by sales? by management? Does R&D know about current marketing efforts? How much does a idea change as it’s communicated through the company? Are there particular points where ideas get stuck, or particularly garbled?

Anyways, thanks for writing: I love these posts…I’m a firm believer in the importance of networks, and its great to read about its applications to yet another aspect of the world.

I won’t go into the theory side, but Anne Marie McEwan recently covered social cognitive theory here:

Bandura & Social Cognitive Theory

I am particularly interested in practical things, like getting work done in teams, groups and networks.

What I consider facts:

More of our work is connected via digital networks.
We have cheap tools to connect with almost anybody, almost anywhere and almost anytime.
Many of us can self-publish to a global audience with very minimal barriers.

Some opinion:

Changes in communications influence all aspects of how we structure society.
Our relationship to work is changing because of these changes in communication.

My perspective:

Things are changing. I am trying to make sense of these changes and then look at ways in which we can work and learn better. These are not MY “networks of the 21st century”. The electronically networked society is happening, for better and for worse, and it’s important for me to find patterns and trends and be proactive in dealing with changes while promoting values that I believe in, like democracy and human rights.

Social learning in networks is already happening, especially outside organizational walls. I participate in it every day, as I am doing here.

Thanks for engaging in this social learning process.

Well, upon a first read of your comment about individuals … I think that the messiness of dealing with a wide variety of individuals who are each learning is a recognizable, and sizeable, challenge. Both Harold and I (and many oters I have come across here and there on the net) write about “personal knowledge management” (PKM) and both the “personalization” and the “mass customization” of work.

With respect to your:

to be various levels of leaders/followers, active/passive, interested/disinterested, etc.

I don’t think we are putting forward the ideas in the article above as a recipe, and one that calls for no distinctions between approaches and structures when looking at knowledge work and learning, but rather we are suggesting principles and a framework (again, not a recipe nor a method) for today’s and tomorrow’s conditions.

I’ll read the comment again, more slowly, and may be back to comment if anything else comes up for me.

Every person is an individual. The image of the “network” shows a bunch of equal robot-like nodes. Some people like to share more than others. Some people don’t want to share at all. Some people are extroverts. Some are introverts. Most people have different levels of both qualities depending upon the matter at hand. Your idealistic concept provides for none of this.

Go to any group of a dozen or more people and immediately certain things become apparent. Some people will take charge. Some people are glad to let those others take charge. Some people don’t want to take charge and resent those who do. Certain subsets of the whole form cliques who communicate more and better between themselves, leaving out the others.

So how in your networks of the 21st century are you going to deal with the issue of individuality, including individual needs, desires, capabilities, etc.? Where is the built-in factor that will correct errors? Perhaps the best example of such a network of social learning is Wikipedia, and not only has it be demolished by scandals, lies, and fraud, but even they warn not to accept as valid anything on their site. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer

The concept of social learn is great in theory. It is also useful on a limited basis among a small number of people. But until you deal with the very nature of people to be various levels of leaders/followers, active/passive, interested/disinterested, etc., it is at best a wonderful, positive, utopian fantasy. For over three decades, we’ve heard how the computer was going to bring a paperless office. It hasn’t happened. I have no doubt that people will talk about social learning in the enterprise for another three decades, and we’ll be no closer to it than we are now—not because it’s a bad idea, but because it doesn’t see people as individuals.