In conjunction with
my elevator speech for PO&M class *ehem*, it was a nice coincidence that I chose a topic exploring the launch/implementation of a new intranet platform for the
Singapore public service—Cube.
The Cube was
inspired by similar endeavors such as GovLoop here in the states and Australia’s Victorian Public Service Hub where
more than just a common database, the latest social media and social networking
Web2.0 technology/tools will be employed on this common platform to revolutionize
the way public servants interact across all ministries and departments in the
Singapore public service.
What was
particularly interesting to me was the perceived challenge the Cube team (tasked
with developing and promoting Cube) felt they had to overcome to ensure its
optimal utilization by public servants. A local intranet expert that is also on
the Cube team pointed to the challenge of changing mindsets among public
servants, where they were originally referred to as “performance engines”,
focused on hierarchy, confidentiality and following the rules. For the Cube to
succeed, “…an ‘innovation engine’ is required—emphasizing a questioning
culture, empathy, and spirit of sharing and openness.
While it is a
well-known fact that successful social media campaigns or online communities take
time to form, how about internally
for an organization? Should the Marketing, PR or IT departments be responsible
for any SM effort within the organization? Or in the case of the Cube – an entire
department/team created for the sole purpose of its development and
implementation, which by no means seem like a temporary or short-term
undertaking.
Another article talks
about how Web2.0 should be a ground-up effort rather than top-down one which
the Singaporean government seems to be attempting. Although he makes some valid
points about how discussions in digital space should be spontaneous and cannot be
taught or trained into happening, I would actually disagree. In my humble
opinion, implementing new technologies, or any new initiative for that matter,
that requires the full participation of all employees in the organization is
akin to change management—systematic effort and programs should be in place to
inform, educate and train on the objectives and methods for greater receptivity
and take-up by staff. Employees may not be taught “what” to say, but rather,
they need to learn “why” and “how” they should speak up on the Cube.
So what’s your
verdict—SM in organizations: Nature or Nurture?
No comments:
Post a Comment