#24hrtweet

This morning my lovely furry alarm clock, Mogs, decided that I needed to be up at 7am. Any other day this week I’d have pretty much welcomed that but not today, it’s been a bit of a hectic week, I’ve been in Devon and London, been in hospital for myself and then also been in for my Grandad, today I really could have done with a lie in.

However, I’m always looking for a silver lining to my clouds and rather bizarrely I found it this morning in the shape of the #24hrtweetathon that was going on over on twitter. The #24hrtweet was brought to my attention by the lovely @martinhowitt who until this moment I always associated with getting up early (he is one of the few voices regularly found on twitter before 7am) and with eating frogs…in the metaphorical sense. From this day onwards Martin and a number of other fantastic souls, namely @DangerousMkting @cosmicjulie @rokkster @ChrisPenberthy and of course a dog @3daxs will take up the shape of a new mental image for me.

They have all been tweeting for the last 24hours to raise awareness of three local westcountry charities, St Loyes Foundation @stloyes who support people to get into work and become financially and socially independent; Headway Devon @headwaydevon who provide support to children and adults who have acquired a brain injury; and Hospiscare Devon @hospiscare who provide support and care to people at the end of life. The #24hrtweet was organised and run on a rota basis, you can see the fabulous people who deserve to take a bow for organising and bringing people into the mix on the timetable here. I just joined in with some waffle and banter for the past hour, I hadn’t picked up on the fact it was happening before (my bad as I’ve been very loosely engaging with twitter lately – shock horror) but I thought I’d scribble this blog post by way of explanation for anyone in my twitterstream who wonders what it was about…although most of them aren’t likely to surface much before midday

I believe the success of the #24hrtweet will be measured in raised awareness and new followers or contacts. I’m sure they’ve done a great job. For me there is a ripple effect, earlier this year my mate Dan died in Propsect Hospice in Swindon, you can read about our fundraising efforts and a little about his story here. As those of you who read this regularly will also know my Dad is terminally ill with cancer. At the moment Dad is still outwardly fine, he decided not to have any chemo yet this time, had his bloods and scan done this week and will meet his consultant again this week. He has also been referred to the palliative care team at Rowcroft, our local hospice.

So the thing about the #24hrtweet is I probably wont follow these amazing people or the charities they support (I’m trying to keep my follower numbers really low at the mo to cut out information overload) but I will check in on them occasionally and more importantly when the time comes, and my family are making use of the amazing care and support I confidently know that we can rely on from our local hospice I’ll sit there and know I’m not alone. Since I joined twitter (over two years ago) I’ve spent many an hour in hospital or hospices chatting on twitter or thinking about conversations or people I’ve met on twitter. After today there are new people added to that mental map of support and I thank you all.

None of us know when we’re likely to need the support of charities like St Loyes, Headway or Hospiscare but I’m bloody sure that if or when you do you’ll be thankful for the support they provide….and the efforts the #24hrtweeters have made to raising awareness, and hopefully in time funds, to support that is amazing. Thank you all.

NQHM: A not-quite half marathon

This time last week I was getting ready to head to Cardiff for my first Half Marathon and was completely and utterly bricking it. Even though it’s taken a week for me to find time to update this blog I did survive, and better still (with a little dose of hindsight) I think I enjoyed it. I completed the course in 2hrs 14mins which I was truly delighted with as I’d not trained enough and thought it would take me much longer.

So I was happily floating around on a bubble of self-congratulatory delight all week, until someone came along with a big fat pin and burst it. It turns out that the race organisers had to re-route the course and it was 0.12miles short of the 13.1miles it should have been. They issued a statement of apology and have been taking some serious flack about it. I was gutted at first but then thought actually this is probably quite unique, how many people get to say they ran an official almost half-marathon, who knows maybe it’ll take off. Either way I suspect in the fullness of time it might bug me enough to motivate me to do it again, or find another course and try to run an actual half marathon.

A while ago I talked about how difficult it is to support people in these situations. However this weekend I realised even more how important those supporters are, and if done well, how much they can contribute to your own success. First up has to be @fergusbisset who had an unfailing belief in my ability to haul myself around that course, we had run together a few times and I felt that he would have a good enough idea but I’m still not sure I really believed it myself until I crossed the finish line…he was like a virtual monkey on my shoulder all the way round though. As in most areas of life it is much easier to believe in your own ability if someone else believe’s it too. I also am completely indebted to @amcunningham and her husband Chris, who provided dinner, company, wit, debate and a 150% distraction the night before – it was a real shame that there was a run to be done as we had to break the fun up shortly after midnight! I’d never met Anne Marie in real life before and her generosity and humour and fun spirit was also with me around that course….together with the threat that she might be stood at the side with a camera! I should also thank @ekennedy229 who was the original inspiration and who I cursed routinely throughout the 13miles.

I’d also like to thank all the random strangers along the route. If anyone is interested in running a half-marathon then I’d definitely recommend Cardiff – Welsh people are so completely and utterly genuine (sweeping statement alert I know), there were old people standing clapping in their bedroom windows; kids with brilliant banners – one of my favourites was ‘not far to go now mummy and then you can make us our dinner’ at about 9miles, but there were lots along the way; an old guy stood on the street corner waving his stick (I did wonder whether he was waving in fury because he wanted to cross the road but I don’t think so); lots of smiley Policemen; and lots of people lining the route who were obviously there to support an individual but who clapped and encouraged so many of us. I’ve supported a few people at different races and I often feel a little self-conscious as I utter words of encouragement at random strangers – never again, it made such a difference to me and I will now proudly utter encouragements at anyone who is putting themselves through their paces.

So there we have it, I’ve completed my first Not Quite Half Marathon and haven’t been put off for life. More to the point I’d definitely recommend it to each and every one of you

Bricking it

This weekend I’ll be attempting to complete the Cardiff Half Marathon. I signed up to this in a fit of enthusiasm and naive optimism back in May, in no small part due to Erin’s account of her marathon. At the time I commented that:

It’s not so much about the physical side of it, more the mental side….dare I say fear of failure or risk of making a mistake?. So its all in your head… there really are no excuses except your own.

Ha ha ha, how I chuckle as I read that now. I am still 100% certain it’s a mental battle, however I seem to have believed my own hype a little too much and stopped training far too prematurely. In fact if I’m honest I’ve never really got into training this year…although I’ve made an olympic standard effort at Carb loading for the past month!

No seriously, I’ve not been out anywhere near as much as I’d have liked to. I don’t feel as prepared as I would have liked to. I am still adding to the list of excuses for not running on a daily basis – and still well aware that they’re excuses and nothing more.

On Sunday I’ll join 10,999 other people to stumble around Cardiff. I’m confident I’ll be fine for the first 5 or 6 miles (as long as I don’t get sucked into running too fast to start with) and I’m sure adrenalin will carry me for the past 2 so it’s only the middle 5 miles that I really need to worry about! I figure at worse I’ll walk it. This is a battle with myself, no one else. I am truly grateful that I am able to run/jog/walk it and I’m just hoping that the urge I felt to run when we did the walk in memory of my mate Dan, will re-emerge at the critical time.

A few people have been asking if I’m running for charity. I’m not this time. I’ve done a few sponsored events in the past year or so and am conscious that I don’t want to keep asking the same people for support. Instead I’ll keep cancer as my motivator, it can sit smugly on my shoulder and when I’m doubting whether I’ll complete it I’ll remind myself of how lucky I am to have the chance to do so. I’ll raise funds another day, this time it’s between me, my head and the tarmac. Wish me luck!

 

10 key success factors for networks – implications for twitter Pt2

This is the concluding part of what someone (I think @mikey3982) very generously described as a’series’ on networks. The earlier post that outlined the key ingredients for successful networks is here and the first post of implications for twitter Pt1 is here. I’d recommend looking at them if you’ve not already as this post very much follows on, reflecting on network theory and research and it’s implications for online social networking.

5) Develop strategies for network cohesion

The brilliant thing about twitter and facebook is that to a large extent they have removed the geographical, service and jurisdictional boundaries that physical networks face; they are also (obviously) a brilliant example of making use of IT to enhance performance amongst and between people. The suggestion to employ skilled boundary spanners made in the original research can probably be ignored, or reduced, if networks are able to support those members who do this naturally, and give them the time to do so.

On a personal level, I think that we would all do well to be a little objective about cohesiveness. It is all too easy to drown out dissenting voices or niggly doubts if you follow the masses and online social networking does allow for cohesive networks to form with relatively little effort – but without some of the checks and balances that would be afforded to a physical network, and/or to allow us to dismiss alternative views that don’t fit with our own ideas, or those of our followers, fans and network members.

6) Avoid mandated or imposed networks

So we know that networks need to be owned by members and not thrust upon them. I’m not aware of any mandatory use of twitter or facebook or more general discussion forums for that matter. Anyone know of any? I’m sure there are huge benefits to courses and work projects to have an associated group for a piece of work but presumably no-one can be forced to use them? Although I suspect where people are ‘heavily encouraged’ they might still be put off.

Years ago I was involved with establishing an email forum for Irish teachers of profoundly disabled children. This group had only recently started receiving education and so there weren’t many classes; teachers often worked in units attached to other mainstream or special schools. The forum was intended to support them with networking and ideas and resources. It took years for the forum to take off, with quite a lot of support and coaxing. I’ve often tried to identify why it took off when it did and to some extent I think it was once those of us who had been involved with promoting it took a step back and decided to let it sink or swim – I guess at that point the network of teachers really took over ownership of the forum.

7) Actively engage respected professional leaders who will promote the network to peers

I’ve got mixed feelings about this one as for me it ties into the re-tweet danger territory. I think it’s great to use influential people to support work (and if anyone wants to spread the word about www.changecards.org @changecards then please feel free to do so ), but I guess if something, a product or a service or a person, is good enough they will get found anyway…eventually.

I think there is a danger that people who can afford to ‘engage’ the influential get a better impact! In a way I personally would be happy with that if it was transparent – we have always been influenced by our friends and peers, but there is the potential for this to be something less transparent when we’re talking online, I think.

8) Avoid network capture

Capture can happen by one group or culture, for example either a professional elite, or a dominant organisational or discipline’s culture. I guess avoiding this depends on the purpose of the network.

Specifically in terms of online networking I think caution needs to be paid to inclusivity and ensuring that dominant voices don’t get overexposed. It can be really difficult to stand up against an assumed group norm (I’m going to have to write that groups blog post I think) and equally difficult to challenge or question someone who has thousands more followers to reassure them of their ideas. So we need to be aware that not everyone is equally comfortable with this way of communicating, and that not everyone has equal influence within any given network. I suppose the challenge is to not get sucked in and believe your own hype.

9) Maintain net worth

In terms of the traditional network theory, the advice was to respond to the needs of network members in such a way that the network remains relevant and worthwhile. Responsiveness is key to long term survival, in a nutshell as long as members feel that they gain ‘net worth’ from their involvement then they will stay.

For me this is equally true for twitter and facebook and other ways of online networking. As mentioned previously in relation to twitter culls, personally I have un-followed several people because they seem to have just gone off the boil or whatever reason I first had for following them is no longer met for me. I know I’ve lost people along the way, I think it’s one of the advantages of an online format is that you are not committing to anything more permanently than I’m interested now/you are interesting to me now.

I guess if I was speaking for a business I’d be slightly more concerned at such a relaxed approach to losing network members. I guess the secret is to keep what you offer your networks relevant and fresh …and also to engage with people. It’s all about the human connection.

10) Professionals in networks must provide the mandate to allow networks managers to manage and govern their activities

Arguably, the challenge to balance self-governance and management is less of an issue when networks are transparent. The traditional advice was to provide network members with the right incentives to regulate and govern the network. Hopefully the ease of online networking in 2010 will reduce the burden and governance gap as more individuals are themselves regulating, supporting and championing their own networks.

So what?

I’d love to know what you think about the key characteristics of successful networks and how these relate to online social networking. Whether the same rules apply or whether we need different, or additional ones. Please do leave a comment or talk to me on twitter. Please also leave a connection to any work in this area that myself, or people reading, might be interested in. Many thanks.

Time for some acknowledgement

Tonight I started a new blog, www.acknowledgers.wordpress.com as a way of sharing some love for acknowledgements pages! As a student I spent many hours reading other people’s acknowledgements pages in a desperate attempt to provide a light diversion from the task in hand and also as a reminder that I had some opportunity to express myself, outwith the rules and regulations of academic writing.

The plan for the blog is that it will provide an opportunity for people to share their pages, or to write one if they haven’t had any cause to do so to date. To kick things off I’ve included my own, rather embarrassingly sentimental page (I was *extremely* tired, stressed and emotional by the time I finally got that far) #dontjudgeme which you can read here. If you’d like to know more about the thinking behind the blog the about page is here.

Please spread the word and let me know if you have anything you’d like acknowledged. For now I’ll leave you with a quote I borrowed from TSElliot.

“We shall not cease from exploration
and the end of our exploring
will be to arrive where we started
and know the place for the first time”                              T.S.Elliot, Little Gidding

10 key success factors for networks – implications for twitter Pt1

Earlier this week I posted about some old SDO research looking into the research about what works in networks. The bulk of that post is a list identifying the ten key ingredients for success. This post (and another one to follow) revisits that research, and contains my thoughts and reflections on the relevance of work conducted before the advent of facebook or twitter, for the current day, and online social networking in particular.

Context

So what was life like back in 2003-04 when the literature review was conducted? Well 2003 was the year that SARS was identified, Paula Radcliffe set a new record winning the London Marathon, the Congestion Charge was introduced in London, seven astronauts were killed when Colombia broke up on re-entry to the earth’s atmosphere, it was European Disability Year, the Iraq war began, England beat Australia in the Rugby World Cup with *that* drop goal from Jonny Wilkinson, the use of mobile phones while driving was made illegal in the UK and it was the last year that the Eurovision Song Contest was held on a single night! Noteable events in 2004 included the first release of the Ubuntu operating system, the death of Yasser Arafat, Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando, Ronald Reagan and Estée Lauder, the banning of smoking in all public places in Ireland and the best selling single was Do They Know It’s Christmas re-released by Band Aid 20. You get the picture.

In terms of the research conducted, a number of new clinical and practice networks were being introduced into health and social care at that time, with the explicit intention that they would have an impact on the quality of health and social care provided and by default on the experiences of people using services and those caring and supporting them.

Six years ago online networking was a relatively new concept. MySpace was launched in Jan 2004, with Facebook following shortly after in February; Twitter didn’t emerge until 2006. So at the time the research was carried out online social networking was very much still in its infancy.  What follows are my thoughts and reflections about how the ten factors that were identified as key for successful networks, could be applied or considered today in terms of online social networking; well at least in terms of facebook and twitter, the two platforms I’m most familiar with.

Ten success factors for networks (2004) and their implications for 2010

1) Achieve a position of centrality within the network

This may well be harder than it first seems – sure you can promote yourself or your business or your network; anyone can set up a facebook group or a twitter account, in fact for a large section of the users of these media it appears that followers, likes and RTs are considered success in their own right, but achieving centrality takes more than that. Successful outcomes require network leaders (you if it is your twitter/facebook account) to be engaging with people and contributing, essentially leading your network.

Network theory suggests that progress is dependent upon shared commitments or interests; therefore I’d argue if you wish to make progress, to be reflective and engage with, or learn from your friends, colleagues and followers then it is probably easier where there is a commonality of purpose or approach.

Charisma helps too but again I’d be a little wary of this, especially with twitter – some of the most charismatic people I know can bring a whole twitter stream down when they’re not happy with something; I try to step away from the keyboard when I’m not in a good place – I wish more people would do that, or at least think twice before firing off sharp, sarcastic or just plain grumpy tweets!

2) Have a clear mission statement and unambiguous rules of engagement

So often I hear people who don’t use online networking questioning the point, which is sort of a sensible place to start. Somewhat more frustrating for me though is when people (some of whom are the same) are quick to dismiss twitter or facebook as time wasting, without really seeming to get the point, think Nadine Dorries.

The research into networks suggests that you need to have clear goals and purposes or functions of network membership – I guess the same is true if you need to convince people of the value of online networking, or any socialising or networking really.

I’m quite keen that people find their own comfort levels with online networking. In the same way some people are consummate networkers, you know the ones who confidently stroll around at coffee break at conference, completely sure that people will want to talk with them – I think the same is true of twitter and facebook. Although rather brilliantly these aren’t always the same people; in my experience online networking has given voices to, and insights into people’s personalities that can be a little harder to reach if people are less confident, more introverted or dominated by louder voices in real life. So I guess it’s whatever works for you in terms of the reasoning behind engaging a network.

3) Be inclusive in design and development

The research suggests if there is no common goal and individuals don’t have ownership of the network then there is no purpose in having a network. I guess this is both true and contradictory of twitter and facebook. Lots of people have access and ownership of their own personal groups and networks – but I’m not sure that the purpose is always clear, or always consistent. That might not be troublesome in itself though.

My greater concern is about the nature of groups and compliance (there’s a blog post brewing about this) and how openly exclusive twitter can become! More on that another time.

4) Large networks should be avoided

The reasons given for avoiding large networks were partially practical – incurring high admin costs and difficulty in centralising management arrangements; but there was also a nod to the danger of inertia.

Thinking of twitter specifically I often wonder whether there is a correlation between effort and follower numbers? Celebrities aside, in my experience, those people I follow with the greatest number of followers seem to have lost some authenticity as their personal networks have grown past a certain size. I’m not sure why this is but will probably reflect on it in the post on group behaviour, I’d hazard a guess that there is a safety in numbers (followers/fans) that allows people to lose perspective and not feel that they need to make as much effort.

Increasingly I’m seeing tweets from people who have done a spring clean, or culled the number of people they follow. This could be due to the excessive RT phenomenon that I discussed here that seems to lead to a lack of genuine offering, or it could be because there is a limit to the noise that most people can handle….hmm, maybe that is worth another post too.

….the remaining six factors will be covered in a following post but for now I’d be really interested in your views on these observations, whether they ring true for you, and even more helpfully if you disagree how you’d interpret them yourself.

10 key factors for successful networks

A while ago I mentioned on twitter that I was thinking of blogging about some old school network theory research I’d found. Quite a few people said they’d be interested so here it is as a starter for ten – it’s not new and I’m damn sure some of you will think it’s not really that clever, but I do hope it is a good starter for ten on a discussion about the nature of networks.

Research study:

The research I was talking about was conducted with funding from the NHS SDO programme (the Service Delivery and Organisation R&D Programme) from the Department of Health. The SDO programme is still in existence (I think) and you can find out more about it and the research that it has funded via the link above.

Nick Goodwin, who at the time was based at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (I think, altho he might have been at the Health Services Management Centre at Birmingham University), worked with a number of colleagues to conduct a systematic literature review into networks, you can read more about their work here and if you’re really interested I’ve attached the full systematic review here.

The review was conducted in 2004. While it is six years old I wouldn’t imagine anything they found is now considered incorrect, however life moves so quickly that I’m confident that online networks and the potential for social networking will have introduced a different dimension, especially with regard to the terms of the tools available to monitor, support and expand networks.

Definition of network:

They used a broad definition of an inter-organisational or multi-organisational network as follows:

“any moderately stable pattern of ties or links between organisations or between organisations and individuals, where those ties represent some form of recognisable accountability (however weak and however often overridden), whether formal or informal in character, whether weak or strong, loose or tight, bounded or unbounded”.

This definition acknowledges the variety of forms that networks may take. It also acknowledges that networks are fluid constructs, the level of organisation, hierarchy and managed integration varies over time.

Ten success factors for networks:

As with any systematic review, it contains a lot of information. For the sake of this post I’ve shared the top ten success factors that the authors identified. I may well have oversimplified some of what they were saying, so apologies to any purists if that is the case; but I hope the following is useful as food for thought:

1)    Achieve a position of centrality within the network

• need to be central to the network to be able to exert leverage to engage resources, knowledge and funds and in turn, to better manipulate the network
• need to be clear of what the specific network co-ordination function is
• evidence suggests that people tend to respond to principles and charismatic network leadership, rather than to rules and structures
• progress to a central objective is dependent upon shared commitments, principles or interests – rather than mandated changes

2)    Have a clear mission statement and unambiguous rules of engagement

• goals and purpose and function of network membership needs to be clear
• …but it is a delicate balancing act because also need to avoid being over prescriptive or bureaucratic

3)    Be inclusive – ensure all agencies and individuals gain ownership of the network

• …if they don’t and there is no common goal then there is no purpose having a network

4)    Large networks should be avoided – they incur high admin costs and lead to inertia in all networks

• the broader/larger the network, the harder it is to centralise management arrangements, to coordinate and to control production
• too much bureaucracy can inhibit innovations and turn people off

5)    Develop strategies for network cohesion

• shared commitments, such as joint financing or common targets provide buy in and stability to network members
• remove geographical, service or jurisdictional boundaries
• employ skilled boundary spanner(s) – neutrals who engender commitment, trust and reliability
• make use of IT to span boundaries and enhance performance amongst and between network members

6)    Avoid mandated or imposed networks

• networks need to be owned by members not thrust upon them
• clear procedures and clear benefits to membership help but over-regulation can lead to disharmony and mistrust
• top-down imposition of networks should be avoided however senior management support and commitment helps

7)    Actively engage respected professional leaders who will promote the network to peers

• the anecdote to top down imposition, is the use of influential key players to spread the word to their colleagues and peers

8)    Avoid network/organisational capture by, for example, a professional elite or a dominant organisational culture

• professional engagement and enthusiasm is key to success
• …but must be careful that the network is not hijacked by one group/agency/culture

9)    Respond to the needs of network members in such a way that the network remains relevant and worthwhile – maintain ‘net worth’

• responsiveness is key to long term survival – as long as members feel that they gain ‘net worth’ from their involvement then they will stay
• some networks will be time limited
• competing interests and priorities can co-exist as long as mutual long-term self-interests are served

10) Professionals in networks must provide the mandate to allow managers to manage and govern their activities

• challenge is to balance self-governance and management, when network coordinator may have no management role
• potential solution to this ‘governance gap’ is to provide members with the right incentives that they agree to their own system of regulation and governance to bind themselves together

So what?

I have a personal interest in networks and how they work – the organisation that I work for research in practice for adults is made up of a network of local authority adult social care departments, therefore knowing how networks work and what supports to provide is key.

I’m sure that the advent of online networking and the changing ways in which people communicate and connect will have had an impact on each of these ten success factors.

I also know from earlier twitter conversations that there are quite a few people out there who share an interest in networks, and who have been reflecting on the impact of technology for supporting networking. If you know of any people or work I might be interested in please post a comment and let me know. Thanks.