Tag Archives: technology

Aiim social roadmap white paper

Aiim (site here), for over 60 years, AIIM has been the leading non-profit organization focused on helping users to understand the challenges associated with managing documents, content, records, and business processes.

Now among other interesting articles, Aiim proposed a”[…] roadmap [that] is a tool to help organizations effectively develop social business processes and to help identify and address potential issues before they become real problems. […] The social business roadmap consists of eight primary steps. Each step is briefly described here and is addressed in substantially more detail over the course of the document. Links to the eight steps take you to our wiki, where we discuss the “what’s next”, case studies, and your additional thoughts and feedback. […]

Main steps are

 

  • Emergence. In this step the organization is not using social technologies in any formal or organized way. Instead, individuals or small groups within the organization are experimenting with social technologies to determine whether there is business value to them.
  • Strategy. Once the organization begins to develop experience with social technologies and has identified potential business value from their use, it is important to create a framework that identifies how it expects to use these technologies, and the goals and objectives for their use.
  • Development. With the strategy in place, the organization can make informed decisions about what tools to implement, how to implement them, where to implement them, and how they will potentially scale more broadly within the organization.
  • Monitoring. Initially the organization should spend time monitoring and listening to the conversations taking place in and around a particular tool to get a sense of the nature of the tool, the content of the conversations, the target audiences, and who the leading participants are. This is perhaps more visible in externally focused processes but is important for internal ones as well.
  • Participation. Once the organization has done some listening it will be able to participate more meaningfully and should begin doing so according to what it has learned about the target market and the nature of the conversations on the various tools.
  • Engagement. The goal is for participation to move to engagement – from speaking at or to customers to engaging with them. This means creating processes to respond to issues, both internally and externally, and ensuring that communications are clear, accurate, and authentic.
  • Governance. This step describes the process for developing an effective governance framework for social business processes. Some of the steps are specific to certain tools or capabilities, while others are more broadly applicable, such as an acceptable usage policy.
  • Optimization. Once social business processes are in place, they should be actively managed and reviewed to ensure that the organization is realizing the expected benefits. This includes but is not limited to monitoring the tools in real time, identifying and measuring specific metrics, and training users on new or evolving tools and processes.
  • […]” (full article here, direct download link for white paper here)

    In a complex contest like the one of “going social” I think that a rationalization effort is really important also to avoid smaller organizations getting lost into fuzzy and fancy words.

     

     


    Uses of technology

    The Street finds its own uses for technology.

    William Gibson


    Survey show we are not ready (or intersted) for 3d tv

    Jack Loftus at Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/people/J%20B%20Cougar/posts/) reports a Nielsen study presented also by USA today and engadget where users are less interested in 3d after giving a try on their own (full article at http://gizmodo.com/5635518/study-consumers-less-interested-in-3d-tv-after-experiencing-it-firsthand, original articles at http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/u-s-consumers-show-high-interest-in-3dtv-but-cite-some-concerns/, at http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/09/study-glasses-for-3d-tv-are-no-fun/, at http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/11/nielsen-survey-shows-high-interest-in-3dtv-low-interest-in-payi/).

    I think the limit is in the hardware we are using. Glasses don’t help in being familiar with 3d TV and use is limited. Once solved (if any solution is find), the user experience will boost and so will sales.

    This post as a comment also at http://gizmodo.com/5635518/study-consumers-less-interested-in-3d-tv-after-experiencing-it-firsthand, at http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/u-s-consumers-show-high-interest-in-3dtv-but-cite-some-concerns/ and at http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/11/nielsen-survey-shows-high-interest-in-3dtv-low-interest-in-payi/


    GPS failure and how much we rely on technology

    Dan Elliott of Associated Press reported yesterday a news on a problem “[…] that rendered as many as 10,000 U.S. military GPS receivers useless for days is a warning to safeguard a system that enemies would love to disrupt, a defense expert says.  The Air Force has not said how many weapons, planes or other systems were affected or whether any were in use in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the problem, blamed on incompatible software, highlights the military’s reliance on the Global Positioning System and the need to protect technology that has become essential for protecting troops, tracking vehicles and targeting weapons[…]” (full article at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gp4YJHFW1EXEJiT8apgRFxg7dXwQD9G2DH680).

    Greg Grant at Defense Tech commented on this remebering that “[…] 

    Yet, earlier this year, Colin Clark at companion site DOD Buzz, reported on public comments by Air Force chief Gen. Norton Schwartz, where he said “GPS signals are particularly vulnerable in time of war since enemies know of the reliance U.S. forces place on its highly accurate signal.” Schwartz said the military must find alternatives to GPS when operating in denied environments because of the system’s vulnerabilities. […]”.

    This could make sense, because is not the first time that someone has access to military satellites at different extent (remember talibans intercepting videos from UAV in Afghanistan or brasilian hackers accessing Navy’s satellites with home made dishes).

    On the other side, everyone knows (and recent experiments such as the Unmanned X37B prove this) that space is in a way or another the theater to govern in order to obtain a strategic advantage.

    What makes me think is how much we are relying on technology for our defense and civilian uses.

    Within the years we have shifted from tech as a commodity to tech as a vital need and this is a problem we are not thinking to solve, neither in part neither in a whole.

    A system like GPS should be safeguarded as something vital for all mankind and not be seen as a military target.

    This post as a comment also at http://defensetech.org/2010/06/02/or-maybe-the-militarys-gps-system-has-been-hacked/


    Paperless office: are we ready?

    Productivity 501 blog puts online ten myths about going paperless (full article at http://www.productivity501.com/paperless-office-myths/7375/).

    What follows are my comments:

      1. Technology isn’t ready for a paperless office: Technology is ready, but are we? The average user (but also the high end one) isn’t. Changing from paper to digital isn’t at all a problem of technology: is mainly a problem of habit.
      2. Going paperless is “All or Nothing”: True what is said. Is not an “all in” affair, but a step by step go through, with positive impacts also if made in minimum part
      3. Paperless is less secure: Did someone remember “social engineering”? We leave more risky and interceptable traces in paper than in electronic format. The only point is that our feeling of control on paper is stronger.
      4. Scanners are the most important part of going paperless: Not at all. The most important thing is how securely and fast we can store and access the datas.
      5. Reading on a monitor is too hard: is hard but manageable. On pure feeling point of view, you can like or not reading something on monitors (and in my case there are some kind of documents I appreciate and other that I don’t : for example books)
      6. Going paperless is good for the environment: I’m not sure of the balance, since less paper means more eletronic, more power used and definitely more CO2 in the air
      7. Going paperless is too expensive: Yes it is, or at least it is expensive if you seek for high end solutions.
      8. Paper is safer than digital: Not at all, but in some cases it is, because of some institutions need to have original paper docs.
      9. Digital formats are all equivalent: no they aren’t.
      10. Going paperless will save time: depends a lot on instruments but also on personal attitude (e.g. since Windiws CE I tried many times to go digital with a PDA. Never succeeded. Then came the IPhone… 🙂 )

    Technology lifecycle

    Established technology tends to persist in spite of new technology.

    Anonymous


    Technology as a problem?

    Technology is no more of a problem now than it has always been.

    J. Redford


    Technology

    Established technology tends to persist in spite of new technology.

    Blaauw


    Technology and magic

    Any smoothly functioning technology will have the appearance of magic.

    Clarke


    High tech adoption and growth attempt

    John Timmer at Ars Technica writes an article reporting a study by some economists assigning to high tech adoption a primary role in GDP growth (full article at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/high-tech-adoption-happening-faster-driving-economic-growth.ars, original study at http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/08-093.pdf).

    I think is real that high tech adoption has a stimulus role within growth in a nation. Seems to me quite simple to understand this because I see technology and high tech as something “infrastructural” in the sense of something that is a facilitator in accellerating growth.

    I ask my self another point that is which is the level where this “facilitator” effects stops or slows down: I can understand the effect if we are talking of no (or less) technologized countries where the accelleration effect of technology is disruptive; but in my opinion in a modern and fully alligned (on a tech point of view) country, tech is a facilitator only if is a real breakthrough (such as introdiuction of iphone or Wimax).

    This post as a comment also at http://digg.com/business_finance/High_tech_adoption_happening_faster_driving_economic_growth


    %d bloggers like this: