Information and Trust

In topics like business intelligence, we typically discuss “trust” from the perspective of the data being provided. Is there “one version of the truth” that creates trust in the results? Much of the focus is around structured data, meaning transactional data that is aggregated, consolidated, cleansed with context applied. This is the focus of the first two themes of the DIG conference around structured data and information. Now move to the third theme, collaboration and Enterprise 2.0, and you quickly have a different interpretation of trust…or do you?

I came upon this topic of trust in two ways this morning. The first was during my morning commute and listening to the local sports radio station. There was some back and forth about mainstream sports media bashing blogs as a form of real media. The argument was mostly centered on credentials associated with reporters versus someone with little education (their words not mine) writing a blog post. The focus was less on trust but more on the qualifications of the writer. I then read a blog post this morning by Bill Ives on the FastForward blog called “Are Us Bloggers to be Trusted” and it got me thinking. Bill makes some excellent points and the commentary from the readers make you consider the level of trust in what I refer to as an “unstructured” data set.

So that raises the question “Can content created with Enterprise 2.0 solutions, like wikis, blogs, prediction markets and social networks, be trusted?” From my perspective, I see this question being answered from two perspectives, internally and externally.

Let me start with the external perspective. What I mean by this is someone who is not a direct “employee” of a corporation but does have a relationship. An example would be a customer or a supplier of the corporation. Can that external party “trust” what they may be reading on something like a blog, where there may be considered less control then more formal communication vehicles? This question reminds me of an article in the NY Times about Wal-mart. If you read the article you will quickly realize that the Wal-mart purchasers have established trust with consumers. Product insights and predictions on topics like the future of Blu-ray versus HD DVD create a connection between the blogger and reader. Does it happen the first time a consumer reads a post from a purchaser? Doubtful, but do you ever trust something or someone upon first interaction?

So what about the internal perspective of trust? If we start to adopt the use of enterprise 2.0 to solve business issues, can we trust the “unstructured” information being provided? Remember how I started this post, with the discussion about the lack of trust in the structured data and information of a corporation. How quickly can an organization move past these challenges and trust “data and information” from an outlet like a blog, wiki or social network? Instinct says never, but if you look deeper into how enterprise 2.0 concepts can be applied to areas like business intelligence and corporate performance management, I would argue what’s the difference? When you have a hallway conversation with a colleague or a meeting to discuss quarterly results, do you “trust” the discussion? Do you trust what someone is saying to describe results and recommendations around business strategy decisions? The answer may be not always be yes, but if you don’t, the debate continues as you provide your point of view to the discussion. So why can we not quickly considered the “unstructured” data in a blog or wiki to be trustworthy and if it isn’t or at least not agreeable, continue to push the bounds on the discussion that needs to happen?

This is one aspect (and barrier) of how Enterprise 2.0 can start to provide greater value to the organization. If you look at what we are going to be discussing at DIG, it is all about helping make better decisions. To do this organizations need to move past the inherit barriers that they have towards these concepts and focus on enabling ways to build a high performing business.

100% committed

When thinking about E2.o and social computing, the question we must ask is: Are we getting the most that we can from the people in our business and from its community? Do we have 100% of their energy and imagination? Mobilizing people and teams is the aim of E2.o.

Several articles/posts from the past few weeks push on this very topic. The McKinsey Quarterly (registration required) published an article on Innovation lessons from Pixar which highlights how Brad Bird, Pixar’s Oscar-winning director, motivates his people by including them in the dialog. Fast Company spoke with Gartner researcher, Tom Austin, about how IT’s Not about the Technology but rather information technology is about leveraging the people. And Susan Scrupski posted her comments in SocailMediaToday on Corporate Antisocial Behavior: the Enemy is Us.

Each of these articles pushes us, in one way or another, to focus on the key driver behind business success – motivated teams of people. People are paramount to making things happen. E2.o tools are technologies that magnify and broadcast the culture that empowers people.

I see three opportunities in E2.o
1) Get people talking about the business - E2.o can highlight and build conversation around the “social objects” of a business. In my last post, I spoke about social objects. These are the things that allow people to connect and be in dialog. In business, these objects are things like business goals, customer wants, or new innovations.
2) Get the facts to the people - E2.o can reduce what I call the perception gap between what you think is happening in the business and what is actually happening in the business. Once facts are clear, true dialog and problem solving begins to occur. E2.o tools can integrate business intelligence into the mainstream business conversations. These same tools can then be used to solve problems collaboratively by tapping both experts' thoughts and front line operators' experiences into creative solutions.
3) Equip people with a contextual understanding of the business - E2.o can provide a more holistic understanding of a business. Through these tools, people are exposed to and vicariously taught about tangential yet pertinent topics beyond their specialized skills. This broader knowledge gives these folks the insight to act or respond with a systems-thinking mindset that is coherent with the overall business. In this way, people are more naturally prepared to act in manner that supports and adapts the business the their changing marketplace.

All three of these benefits of E2.o foster a more pronounced business culture - good or bad.

Do you agree?