Steven Adler (not the one from Guns and Roses) organizes the The IBM Data Governance Council. An organization formed by IBM consisting of companies, institutions and technology solution providers with the stated objective to build consistency and quality control in governance, which will help companies better protect critical data. Data governance encompasses the people, processes, and information technology required to create a consistent and proper handling of an organization’s data across the business enterprise. He is a friend of Chaordix and has some good insights we wanted to share:

Data Governance and Tennis

Recently, I played tennis with my son.  At 16, he’s tall and lanky like me, but full of boundless energy and I have to play smart to keep up with him.  I taught him most of what he knows in tennis and we both play at the same level – though I do enjoy when he wins.  But on this day, there was no winning or losing.  Our rallies were endless.  We exchanged vollies, drops, topspin, and slice.  If I won a point, he came back and won the next.  There was no mercy and no letup.  At one point, he sliced a ball low to my mid-court forehand and I had to rush from the backhand side of the court across to reach it.  I’m not as fast as I once was but on this day I crossed the court with speed.  As I got to the ball and lined up a chip drop, I looked up and found that my intrepid son had already anticipated that move and was rushing to the net to cut me off.  I stopped short and just laughed.  I said “you know what I’m going to do next, don’t you,” and he said “like, yeah, I know all your shots.”  That happens when you play with your son, because we know each other so well.

We played out the rest of the match and after I thought about that laugh we shared at the net as a metaphor for much of what I’ve learned about Data Governance, Risk Measurement, the financial crisis and the challenges of information and knowledgeknowlegde.  You see, people are best at anticipating what they expect – especially in situations that breed familiarity.  That’s the reason why Value at Risk (VAR) was such a seductively attractive formula – in a largely pro-cyclical business culture, a formula that helps you anticipate what you expect (that today will look mostly like tomorrow, yesterday and the day before) is a winner.  People who anticipate other outcomes are either brilliant visionaries who make “discoveries” (minority), or outliers who make trouble (majority).

I began the year thinking that financial regulatory authorities could make better policy decisions if they had the right data.  But I now understand that many of them had the right data in 2005, 6, and even 7 but they didn’t understand it, chose to ignore it, or lacked the political will to make radical, outlier, decisions that would adversely effect many key constituencies.

Hence my conclusion: Data Governance isn’t enough.  Collecting and aggregating data is an important step, but people need to understand what the data means as information, and that information needs to be communicated widely as knowledge.  Not the finite biological knowledge we all have in our brains – the organic translation all of you reading this article are performing right now – but the metaphysical knowledge of a community knowing a common truth about the world so they are prepared to accept a decision to avoid an outcome they did not expect.

I don’t care what kind of new Systemic Risk Council gets built at the Federal level of our government, or indeed what kind of new Regulatory Information Architecture is designed to support it.  All of that is important but not as important as the steps people take to disseminate the information in both raw and interpreted form to a wide and varied constituency.  The more people inside and outside the group that know what the group knows the better chance we have that outliers will interpret things the group will miss.  And it is upon those outliers – the ones who anticipate what we don’t expect – that crisis prevention most rests upon.

This last point is the hardest.  In the financial crisis, only a few economists like Nouriel Roubini predicted the credit crisis before it began.  Most of the other economists predicted it perfectly only in hindsight.  But Nouriel was largely ignored by those economists and the media as “Dr. Doom, “the naysayer who only saw the bad while so much good was going on.  And that is human nature.  If you aren’t in the tribe of believers you are a barbarian, an outsider, who can’t be trusted and must be demonized or destroyed.

This is of course very bad for the discovery of non-expected results, unless of course you ARE a barbarian trying to hack your way into the group in which case you should be destroyed.  Trusting what you know, where it came from, where it’s going, and who’s going to know it and do something about it will require new forms of transparency and self-governance.  George Orwell wrote about the alternative, and we don’t need to follow his example.

Because what we want is Trusted Information that empowers Doubt.  Doubt about what information means is essential to effective decision making.  And this is where I think a new Information Governance discipline, one that focuses on the Information needs of Governance as well as the challenges of Governing the use of Information is needed.

That’s at least what I learned from my son on the tennis court last week.  We’ll see what he teaches me today.

photo by: Cyberdees

We weren’t really sure of the difference either, so we consulted Wikipedia. We learned that co-creation could be seen as creating great work by standing together with those for whom the project is intended. Scholars C K Prahalad and Venkat Ramaswamy introduced the idea of co-creation in their 2000 Harvard Business Review article, “Co-Opting Customer Competence”. They developed their arguments further in their book The Future of Competition.

Last year, Promise Corporation published the results of a systematic review of co-creation evidence, Co-creation: new pathways to value that was co-produced with LSE Enterprise. In it they attempted to distinguish co-creation from related concepts such as crowdsourcing, mass customisation and mass collaboration by insisting on the psychoanalytical, decision-making as well as innovation roots of the concept in its intellectual evolution. Their new definition of co-creation: “co-creation is an active, creative and social process, based on collaboration between producers and users, that is initiated by the firm to generate value for customers.”

Is there a difference between crowdsourcing, open innovation, mass collaboration and co-creation? We hate to be the ones that let the cat out of the bag, but not really. Some people are more comfortable with one term over another. We think it comes down to who’s book you’ll buy.

As the lone proponent of the accounting department here at Chaordix, I’m the first to readily admit that I rarely understand conversations amongst the tech team.  You can recognize those moments when you see my eyes glazing over as we’re chatting at lunch or drinking beer or whenever.  It doesn’t really matter though – the team accepts me for the *different kind of nerd* that I am, and we have a good time taking jabs at each other as every well-oiled team does.  I heart those nerds.

If you’re an accountant at a Startup, and you can relate to my every-day experience, perhaps you’ll relate to these as well.

Top 10 Signs You’re an Accountant at a Startup

10. No matter how many times you offer, nobody wants your RSS Feeds.

9. You only have one measly monitor and it’s by far the smallest one in the joint.

8. Your title on your business card  says Nerd-Wrangling Bean Counter instead of Controller.

7. You pathetically send yourself flowers and chocolates on November 10th.*

6. Your co-workers can understand all kinds of algorithms but you seem to be the only one who can estimate how much lunch is going to cost including tip.

5. You laugh at programmers’ jokes without knowing a) if they’re funny b) what they even mean.

4. You’re never sure if people talk to you because they like you or because you cut their paycheques.

3. You find yourself saying “$2,500 for a vintage Tron foosball table? We can find that.”

2. In a twisted, gross irony, you’re the most extroverted person in the office.

And the number one top 10 sign you’re an accountant at a Startup?

1. iPhone? iDon’tcare.

* International Accountant Appreciation Day (Mark your calendars)

Photo by: Generation X-Ray

A broadly influential thought leader, Dr. Mark Drapeau’s ideas carry weight in numerous communities. He is a sought-after speaker for events whose topics encompass everything from local and state government operations, to science and technology advances, to public relations and marketing innovation, to federal government, international relations, and military issues. The captivating and witty Drapeau is currently Program Co-chair of the O’Reilly Media / TechWeb Gov 2.0 Expo, held May in Washinton DC and is available for speaking engagements, collaborations, and advice. His unique way of looking at problems and explaining complex topics using stories and metaphors is a breath of fresh air in a world of boring consultants and cookie-cutter public speaking. If you are interested in anything gov2.0, he’s the guy you’ll want to keep an eye on.

Citizens are Conversations – Mark Drapeau

Post-inauguration Washington, D.C has been very interesting from the standpoint of the technology community.  From the top down, all indications are that within their limitations, leadership in the new administration is moving forward on a platform of more transparent and collaborative government.  And from the bottom up, a group of people dubbed the “Goverati” are using their knowledge of government and social technologies to influence the overall Government 2.0 movement.

Social technologies like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter used to be collectively termed “new media” – but that adjective isn’t accurate any longer.  Rapid, online, multimedia information flow about conflicts in Mumbai and Gaza, a dramatic plane crash in the Hudson river, the presidential inauguration and more have made it clear that new media is now more aptly called “now media,” as I remarked on January 20th.

But it would be misleading to suggest that social technologies are simple merely because they are prevalent – they’re anything but. Social media is a rapidly evolving ecosystem.  The experts debate constantly at conferences and in the blogosphere.  There’s no rule book.  Social media is a giant, chaotic experiment.

So, for a newcomer to using these tools, everything can seem overwhelming.  Many people ask me how to use social software to communicate what their office or agency is doing.  There is no one, simple answer, but perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that social media is social – it is about the conversation that people are having now, about you or your interests, whether or not you’re a part of it.

Here, I want to advance the notion that citizens are not mere receiving vessels for press releases and whatever you put on your government website.  They’re not a captive audience.  They are groups of individuals having conversations with their families, at the proverbial water cooler, and on popular social media sites like the blog ReadWriteWeb, the microsharing site Twitter, and the video conversation platform Seesmic.  Social networks people form online are becoming an increasingly important and powerful force in their lives and one need only look to the election of President Obama to see the effects that they can have.

Once you acknowledge that citizens are conversations, what do you do next? Generally, you want to find people talking about your topic of interest, listen to what they’re saying, participate in the conversation, and then start new topics of conversation.  Tip-toe into the chaos in the order outlined above.  As a DC-based communications consultant once wrote:blog last.  Below, I briefly outline some other tips to guide you into the world of citizen social media.

It’s good to be a RAT: Unless you’re a computer programmer, social media isn’t really about technology.  It’s about people talking to people. Social interactions have a lot to do with personality and trust.  As wine entrepreneur and social media maven Gary Vaynerchuk suggests, try as much as possible to be a social RAT: real, authentic, and transparent.

Street smarts count more than book smarts: A lot of social media is learned by doing, and more importantly through trial-and-error experimentation.  Speaking in a transparent manner with a human voice can’t be taught easily in a book or at a conference.  The same is true for building and maintaining trusted relationships with people.  Useful metaphors can be found in organizations as diverse as old-school journalists and the mafia or other crime organizations.

Citizens are talking about your brand: Traditional public relations unidirectional, and has been called things like “outbox only” and “fire and forget.”  Government entities need to pay more attention to their brands, and who is talking about them.  Organizations should talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships, because word of mouth is still the most powerful force for spreading trusted information.  If you don’t know who’s out there talking about your brand, how to you know who to influence when the time comes?

Deploy ambassadors on a lethal generosity mission: Organizations should belong to a community and allow some employees to be individually empowerful.  By being the most generous member of a community, they may become the most trusted. Ambassadors should have knowledge but also great personalities, exhibiting openness, transparency, accuracy, honesty, and respect.  They can build valuable new relationships, cheaply.

Engage minds with indirect, intimate influence: Return-on-investment (ROI) is quickly becoming return-on-engagement, or ROE, because personal engagements with people and their word-of-mouth are the new ‘reach” of messages.  Use indirect, intimate influence to get that ROE.  Influence people through being a valuable member of their community.

Seek out government role models: Colleen Graffy from the State Department successfully used Twitter to connect with overseas journalists as part of her public diplomacy mission.  The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses a public blog called Evolution of Security to listen to travelers and their complaints – and overtly discuss policies and problems with them.  Representative John Culberson from Texas uses live-video service Qik to better communicate with his constituents.  What these three people, and others, have in common is that each one of them is a RAT (in a good way) and that they have learned, through trial and error and experimentation, the lessons above.

As top-down decisions trickle throughout government and grassroots efforts propagate upward, are you prepared to join the conversation? It’s happening with or without you.

After reading “The Scary Economics of Crowdsourcing” posted by Phil Wainewright over at eBizQ, I’ve been thinking about why people are so concerned at the prospect of crowdsourcing. Do they think it is so powerful that crowdsourcing will be the only way of work in the future or is this just sensationalized journalism?

Here at Chaordix, we always talk about crowdsourcing in a positive way – enabling faster innovation, deeper brand engagement, community development – but we see what people worry about as well. We understand the fear, but disagree with some of the logic. Here are some arguments on crowdsourcing discussions gone awry:

1. Crowdsourcing will get all of your work done for free. There is no way to trick the time/money graph. Whether you are Netflix with a million dollars kicking around, or a small startup without the cash to hire someone to design a logo for you, the graph still applies. The rumor that you’ll get a massive crowd to complete all of your work for your business, for free is not true. For example, The Guardian was able to quickly get through massive amounts of data by asking its readers to go through documents, but without having some type of incentive, people were not willing to invest very much time into it. After the initial push, it stalled.
2. Crowdsourcing will destroy corporate structure. While crowdsourcing can help find new solutions in unexpected places, it won’t be the end of business as we know it. Crowdsourcing gives mangers and executives access to more data, people and options than before, but all companies still need people to bring it all together. What we learned from our original crowdsourcing community, IdeaWarz, is that you cannot crowdsource a founding team. Experienced leaders are still key to any successful endeavor. A successful leader will recognize that they might not have all of the answers, but the experience to find and implement them.
3. Crowdsourcing is threatening my job. Unlikely, if you are good at what you do. Crowdsourcing is the democratization of talent. Yes, the new kid fresh out of school can make a logo or write a few lines of code for way cheaper than you, but this frees you up to do more involved, more complex work. Think about the attending/resident relationship of doctors. There will never be a world where we don’t need people with experience to guide people just learning. Instead of thinking about crowdsourcing as some young, inexperienced punks taking your job, why not look at crowdsourcing as a way to promote your experience – either through being a mentor to fresh ideas without experience, or as the “expert” who helps guide the decision making process?

Implementing crowdsourcing isn’t a magical solution for everything – it requires a combination of easy to use technology and thorough planning. As with any other business initiative, it has to be a good fit for the end goal. While we believe it represents an exciting opportunity for new innovation and open conversations, we don’t believe all the hype – just the facts.

Photo by kiki99