 Back in June, I wrote about the new (it’s being rolled out, slowly, starting this fall) GWave product as representing “the wikification of conversation.” The more I think about it, and play with it, the more I become convinced that this tool will not only revolutionize how we communicate on-line, but how we work. And by “work” I mean everything we do collaboratively that isn’t done face-to-face.
Just to re-cap, here’s a story from the previous post that illustrates how GWave works:
One of our tasks is to provide guidance on how the transition of Canadian companies to IFRS (the new global accounting standards) will affect IT departments, and specifically how financial and reporting systems will have to change to accommodate these new standards. We’ve prepared an online training program (a webcast), a recorded interview with some IT experts who have implemented IFRS in Europe (a podcast), and an article in our association magazine. These three resources have been posted to our website, but we’re struggling to get the intended IT audience to visit the site, because they’re not aware of it. Marketing is, alas, not our strong suit.
Suppose we had done all of this in 2011 instead of 2009. In 2011 we will have access to Google Wave, a new tool that integrates the functionality of e-mail, IM, wikis, blogs, Twitter, and other social networking tools. Here’s what we would do instead of our ‘IFRS for IT’ web page, and what might happen as a result:
- We set up a ‘wave’ (a container for a conversation) entitled ‘IFRS for IT’.
- We post a text summary of the webcast, podcast and article to the wave. We embed the webcast, podcast and article (not just links to them) below the text summaries.
- One of the audience members of the webcast and podcast, who has put these two recordings through a voice recognition software tool, posts a text transcription of them underneath the embedded casts. The built-in Google Wave semantic spell-checker auto-corrects spelling and homonym (“there” vs. “their”) errors.
- We use the built-in Google Wave translation tool to simultaneously post a French language translation of the transcriptions.
- The twelve of us (the ‘core group’) involved in the project each independently “subscribe” people and groups we think might be interested to the wave. They receive the entire ‘conversation’ to date (the content and messages in the above steps). They can, if they wish, ‘rewind’ it and see each step as it was added in turn.
- Several of the invitees post IMs right in the text of the articles and transcriptions — comments, clarifications, suggestions, and questions. The entire wave is a wiki — people have full ‘author’ privileges to make changes (which are ascribed to them, and which can be reversed or amended, wikipedia-style, by a member of the core group if necessary).
- Other invitees, and core group members, join in the conversation, adding replies to the questions and to the suggestions. A whole new section of the article, dealing with specific IFRS IT issues for the banking industry, called a “wavelet” is contributed by one invitee, who invites other bank IT executives to contribute to this ‘wavelet’.
- One banker embeds a YouTube video in the wavelet, a transcription for it is added, and several discussions about it ensue.
- One invitee solicits ‘best practices’ in transitioning IT departments to IFRS, and posts a ‘form’ (essentially a database) for replies to the invitation, using the built-in Google Wave form generator. Within days, fifty practices have been posted to the database. Some people begin and reply to conversations about some of the specific practices in the database.
- Someone starts a Twitter tag called #IFRSIT and, using the Twave widget of Google Wave, embeds a real-time feed of tweets containing this tag into the wave.
- One of the bankers wants a conference call on IFRS IT implications for that industry. He posts a form soliciting participants for the call, several people enrol, the call is scheduled and held, and a recording and transcription of the call are immediately posted to the banking industry wavelet.
Some remarkable things have happened here. There is no marketing involved. People invite people who invite others, and all are immediately included and engaged in the conversation. They can subscribe to the whole wave or just wavelets. They can have sidebar conversations, with full discretion over whether they are public or private. There is a complete, organized transcription of the entire ‘conversation’. The conversation is collectively managed and collectively edited and formatted to suit the needs of the self-selecting participants, and it’s easy to follow the threads. Updates and notifications occur in real time, and several people can be changing any part of the wave at the same time. With Google Voice (also new from Google), voice conversations can be recorded and transcribed and fed into the wave as well.
Now suppose you have decided upon a new project, that involves activities such as project team selection, doing a needs assessment, conducting research, brainstorming to develop innovative solutions, pilot testing, sourcing supply, production, logistics, communication, measurement and evalution. This could be either for a commercial project, or analogously for a community improvement or other not-for-profit project. How might this project be enabled by the use of GWave?
Let’s assume this is 2011 and that GWave has become ubiquitous — just about everyone has it on their desktop. Here’s how the project might evolve the old way, versus the new GWave enabled way. First, here’s a typical commercial organization’s new product development process, the old way and the new way:
| Project Phase |
2009 Process |
2011 Process |
| 1. Selecting project team |
Project director hand-picks team of employees. |
Invitation is sent to initial list by GWave, passed on to others. Team members volunteer and are approved by director. Team includes employees at all levels, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders, as well as members of the company’s internal innovation group, a total of over 100 people, mostly volunteers. |
| 2. Needs assessment |
Marketing is assigned to do a survey of 20 closed-ended questions to assess needs and appetites for 5 proposed new products on a 10-point scale. |
The self-selecting team members interview others through GWave voice, IM and other tools using open-ended questions and ‘what ifs’. A total of 40 unmet needs are identified, along with over 300 ideas, challenges and criteria to consider in addressing them. This entire archive is captured and embedded in the GWave. ‘Wavelets’ for each of the 40 unmet needs are established. |
| 3. Conducting research |
Research department does a SWOT analysis of competing products. |
The research and SWOT analysis has already been done as part of the phase 2 teamwork. |
| 4. Innovating solutions |
New product development brainstorms and designs a total of 15 product alternatives that deliver on the needs and new product ideas identified in phase 2 and exploit the competitors’ weaknesses identified in phase 3; they also include some ideas from the company’s internal innovation group. |
New product development has been involved in the conversations on each of the 40 unmet needs from the outset. They coordinate both online and real-space brainstorming sessions on each of the 40 unmet needs; the total number of people subscribed to the wave and wavelets jumps to over 400. A total of 125 product alternatives are surfaced, mapped to the unmet needs. The team members self-select online into technical feasibility, strategic fit and profitability assessment teams, and each of the 125 product alternatives is scored on all three criteria. Finally, 22 of these ideas are green-lighted by the company for pilot testing, 35 are put on hold for further assessment the folowing year, and the remainder are ‘set free’; anyone who has participated in the wave is allowed to pursue these ideas privately, and eight spin-off teams self-create to pursue some of these ideas. |
| 5. Pilot testing |
Engineering reviews the designs and, after some back and forth on technical feasibility, comes up with some prototypes, which are market tested. Based on this, management gives a “go” to two new products. |
Engineering has been involved in the conversations since phase 2, and soon 22 prototypes are available. Marketing has also been involved since phase 2, and they coodinate market tests, drawing on additional testing that various team members agrees to do. The testing is much broader and more comprehensive than was possible under the old system, and it is iterative: prospective purchasers, many of them part of the wave, provide useful ‘tweaks’ to the prototypes which are then re-tested. All of the testing is coordinated through the wave itself. Fifteen new products are approved; the other 7 prototyped ideas are added to the 35 “on hold” for reassessment the following year. |
| 6. Sourcing supply |
Purchasing puts out RFPs to prospective suppliers and selects winning bids. Some of the actual production will be done in-house; the rest it is decided will be outsourced. |
Many suppliers and prospective outsourcers have been part of the wave since early in the process, so the RFP process is dramatically streamlined and done as part of the wave itself. |
| 7. Production |
The in-house production is planned for. Equipment is purchased or retooled. Production staff are hired and trained. The products are manufactured and inventoried. |
Production has also been part of the wave since early in the process, and were instrumental in the decision on which products to make in-house and which to outsource. The hiring and training of new staff is coordinated as part of the wave itself. The products are manufactured and inventoried. |
| 8. Logistics |
Logistics arranges distribution to and warehousing with wholesalers and retailers. |
Logistics, and key distributors, wholesale and retail customers have been part of the wave since early in the process. They have already been discussing logistics, distribution and approximate order sizes in their own wavelets attached to the wave, so formal contracts can be fast-tracked. |
| 9. Communication |
Advertising and other communications go out about the new products. |
Prospective customers have already been virally marketing the 15 new products, and have fed back responses and ideas to the marketing and communications groups, right on the wave. The formal advertising and communications programs capitalize on this. |
| 10. Measurement and evaluation |
A budget is established for each new product’s expected unit sales, revenues, variable and fixed costs, profits and ROI, and compared against actual results. Customer satisfaction surveys are carried out. Returns and repairs are monitored. |
This phase is unchanged by the introduction of GWave; see process at left. |
| 11. Customer affinity program |
The company has not traditionally had a customer affinity program. |
Customers develop and subscribe to GWaves around each of the company’s products. They use them to share information, to rate and rave or complain about the products, to surface ideas for product improvement, and to develop ‘wraparound’ products and services (for example, product add-ons, extended servicing, get-togethers of more rabid customers). The company monitors and participates in these waves but doesn’t ‘own’ them. |
Now let’s look at a ‘greening our community’ project, for a municipality of say 100,000 people, again the old way and the new way:
| Project Phase |
2009 Process |
2011 Process |
| 1. Selecting project team |
Project director hand-picks team of municipal employees. The team does an RFP for an external consultant to advise on the project. |
Invitation is sent to initial list by GWave, passed on to others. Team members volunteer and are approved by director. Team includes employees at all levels, citizens, suppliers and other stakeholders, a total of over 300 people, mostly volunteers. No external consultant is used. |
| 2. Needs assessment |
No needs assessment is done. |
The self-selecting team members interview others through GWave voice, IM and other tools using open-ended questions and ‘what ifs’. A total of 40 ‘greening the community’ project categories are identified, along with over 600 project ideas, some unique and some borrowed from other communities. This entire archive is captured and embedded in the GWave. ‘Wavelets’ for each of the 40 project categories are established. |
| 3. Conducting research |
The consultant-employee team does online research to see what other municipalities of similar size have done. |
This research has already been done as part of the phase 2 teamwork. |
| 4. Innovating solutions |
A project outline is developed. An invitation is sent to local environmental groups and other known interested people to participate in a day-long workshop to review the project outline. Based on this, a program is developed and budget approval is sought. The project is scaled back to the approved budget; it involves public education, some changes to municipal purchasing policies, and funding of several new ‘green’ NPOs. |
Environmental groups and local suppliers have been involved in the conversations on each of the 40 project categories from the outset. With their assistance, self-selecting project team members coordinate both online and real-space brainstorming sessions on each of the 40 project categories; the total number of people subscribed to the wave and wavelets jumps to over 1,000. The team members collaborate on the wave to identify value-for-money assessment criteria for project ideas, and each of the 600+ project ideas is costed and scored on these criteria. |
| 5. Pilot testing |
No pilot testing is done. |
The group collectively nominates a Project Group Leader for each of the 40 project categories, and under these Leaders a ‘catalogue’ of project ideas is produced, in decreasing order of value-for-money ‘score’. Volunteer projects with passing ‘scores’ and no cost to the municipality are early-launched. The municipality provides a grant to the team to be allocated, by team consensus, for pilot projects that have exceptionally high value-for-money scores but significant costs or risks. Based on the available total project budget and available volunteer effort, a line is drawn on each of the 40 project category ‘catalogues’ above which projects are approved, and below which they are deferred for future years’ consideration. |
| 6. Sourcing supply |
Purchasing puts out RFPs to prospective suppliers of public education, and prospective NPO grant recipients, and selects winning bids. All project work from this point will be done by the outsiders with successful proposals. The ‘green’ changes to municipal purchasing policy are implemented. |
Many prospective suppliers have been part of the wave since early in the process, so the RFP process for all non-volunteer elements of the approved projects is dramatically streamlined and done as part of the wave itself. |
| 7. Production |
The suppliers produce and deliver the public education and grant activities. |
Volunteers and successful bidding suppliers produce and deliver the products and services for projects in all 40 categories. |
| 8. Logistics |
Not applicable. |
Not applicable. |
| 9. Communication |
Promotional brochures, press releases and other communications go out about the new programs. |
Team members have already been virally marketing the program and its projects throughout the municipality, and have fed back responses and ideas to the municipality’s communications staff, right on the wave. The program brochures, press releases and other communications capitalize on this. |
| 10. Measurement and evaluation |
Program costs are monitored against budget. Taxpayer awareness surveys on the new program are carried out. |
This phase is unchanged by the introduction of GWave; see process at left. |
| 11. Customer affinity program |
Not applicable. |
Citizens participating in the program develop and subscribe to GWaves around each of the 40 program categories. They use them to share information, to rate and rave or complain about the program, to surface ideas for program improvement, and to develop and promote both volunteer and private-sector ‘wraparound’ products and services (for example, green products for household use). The municipality monitors and participates in these waves but doesn’t ‘own’ them. |
The bottom line is that, through a mechanism such as GWave, instead of the communications and conversations about a new project being widely dispersed and unconnected, the entire set of conversations on a project can be captured and disseminated as a single wave, allowing far more participation, self-organization, information and idea exchange and assessment, project coordination, and collaboration to occur, involving a much broader set of interested, creative and knowledgeable people.
GWave could be the springboard to Peer Production — the co-creation and co-development of new products and services by suppliers, customers and others, in a way that will be more responsive to needs, more creative, more customized, better informed and better coodinated than was possible when the participants were separated by organizational boundaries. GWave could prove to be so robust that the conversation actually becomes the process and, except for the parts made of atoms, the product and service too. In business and in public organizations, that would change everything.
|
Excellent analysis and post, and yes to this:GWave could be the springboard to Peer Production — the co-creation and co-development of new products and services by suppliers, customers and others, in a way that will be more responsive to needs, more creative, more customized, better informed and better coodinated than was possible when the participants were separated by organizational boundaries.You have described, as you say, a robust Peer production process … a very “wirearchicial” process, in my opinion.
this is a cool news. Thank you.