Duh.  You would think that after all that I have read, all that I have practiced, all the classes and conference sessions and keynotes I have given, that I would have understood this point.  Yet I did not – at least fully.

There was something missing and it has been bothering me, but I never have let it stop me. (That is how I work.  I ‘feel’ what is right, even though I may not understand it fully and I go forward knowing that in the doing I will figure it out.)

Today, I get it – finally.  I have been giving a “Social Media/Networking 101″ class as an educational and evangelical tool.  In it, I explain the difference between Web 1.0, a Content Management System (CMS), Web 2.0, Social Media and Social Networking.  In my grid, the major difference between Web 1.0, Social Media and Social Networking, I point out, is the focus:  the first focuses on content, the second the people and the third, networking.

I then explain that focusing on content limits us.  It is the PEOPLE that hold the knowledge.  We can only do a Google search and find information that is already there.  But what if it is real time and the information is not there yet?  Or if the information we need is in a file folder on the desk, or on the local drive of a co-worker, or on a sticky note?  My point?  Link the people together (network) and they will share the knowledge.

Yet someone always has the concern: There is too much information out there already.  Why do we need to add more to it when we don’t use what we already have.  It is there that I talk about networking again.  Yet my answer, honestly, has never even satisfied myself.

Then this morning I read a post by Luis Suarez (a man to whom I owe much) and he NAILED it for me – again.  Luis pulled out a quote by David Weinberger:

“But the real problem with the information being provided to us in our businesses is that, for all the facts and ideas, we still have no idea what we’re talking about. We don’t understand what’s going on in our business, our market, and our world.

In fact, it’d be right to say that we already *know* way too much. KM isn’t about helping us to know more. It’s about helping us to understand. Knowledge without understanding is like, well, information.”

So, how do we understand things? From the first accidental wiener roast on a prehistoric savannah, we’ve understood things by telling stories. It’s through stories that we understand how the world works.”

Why Social Networking? To tell stories.  To make sense of the information we share.  To put it in context.  THAT is the value of Social Networking.  So many people dismiss the need to network in this way, yet again we see how critical it really is!

He also adds in this video, which only has 228 views.  It is so simply explained that it should have been viewed 100x more.

In this story, the first two scenarios, the person learned valuable information.  In the last scenario, he learned what to do with the valuable information, which is more valuable than all the preceding information put together!

It is almost a no-brainer – something I should have put together a long time ago and should have been able to explain.  I have danced around this explanation for a long time, but never quite nailing it.  Yet, as every human being on this small little planet, I am still learning.  And now that thing that has bothered me, because it was incomplete, bothers me no more.

Now I feel like I can present a rock solid argument if anyone tries to minimize the value of social networking in their organization.

On the SLQOTD on Twitter today, I am asking “What is the difference between a Web 1.0, CMS, Web 2.0 and Social Media.” Here is my take:

Web 1.0 is a push from one ‘person’ to many people. To make a change or add, it often has to go through a process if internal to an organization or the person needs to know HTML (I am making some generalizations here, but go with me…) There is one person who owns the content and who is the authority. It is focused on the information or document and the user cannot customize what they want to see.

A CMS (Content Management System) has more of a hub and spoke model. One person puts the information (usually in the form of a document) into the repository. Others can go get it. I call it a 1:portal:1 model. Can it be collaborative? With some pains, yes. It isn’t quite real time, but can approach it. One person owns the document, even though many may have some input. The focus, of course, is on the document and the user usually cannot customize what they want to see.

Web 2.0 is many:many and allows information to freely be inputed and distributed instantly. The authority… is there one? And the focus is on content – that everyone can create and add to the existing base. And, in most cases, the user can customize what they want to receive.

Social Media is very similar to Web 2.0. In fact, in the compared characteristics, the only thing that is different is that it focuses on people, rather than content. The focus is on building the community.

YouTube.com by itself is Web 2.0 in nature and not a social media site. Add in ‘channels’ and it starts to have a social media mentality. Yesterday I saw tweets about the DOD’s new ‘social media’ site. I did not sign up, but from what I can tell, it is mostly Web 1.0, with a little bit of interaction, or Web 2.0. I don’t see anything out of the gate relating to social media. The focus of it is to push information out from a main source to you. They throw in asking a few questions of the audience, but that is about it.

Now, to be fair, that is all they probably wanted to do. They didn’t need a social media site. And if they don’t need it and they don’t do it, then good for them! Too many companies put in social media solutions when all they REALLY need is a web 1.0 solution. But we, as the consumers, should not call this DoD site social media.

I am finding that many people do not know the difference between the above categories and we, as professionals, need to be able to articulte this so that they will understand the benefits of each and when and when not to use each.

The Learning Technologies Conference in Portland, Oregon is happening as I type.  Christine Martell, Michele Martin, Dave Richards and I are hosting.  There are a few things I wanted to point out as we are going through this:

1. Learning and working are not exclusive.  They can happen at the same time.  We have such a tendency to separate them.
2. Social Learning IS NOT training.  Unlike #1, we absolutely must separate these two.  Until we do we cannot grasp the advantages of using Web 2.0 tools for learning.  They fit very nicely together, but are not synonyms.
3. Training = Delivery.  Social Learning = Creating the learning with others.  Training = 1:many.  Social Learning = many:many or many:1 where the one is you.  Creating an Articulate module or using Captivate is not Social Learning.  Ask: This piece of learning I am thinking of – will I create it with others or deliver it?  We must be clear what it is and what it isn’t.
4. Many people worry about using Web 2.0 tools.  Many of them are false concerns – worries that are not even real worries.  Sometimes we work ourselves up against unseen and unrealistic monsters (and we lose every time).
5. Content does not need to be perfect.  Look at Youtube.  The videos are horrible, but how many people watched and loved the fire eating rabbit?  Not that we want content to be trashy, but it doesn’t need to be perfect.
6. Social Learning is not THE solution – it won’t solve all your problems.  There must be a balance with other tools and methodologies.
7. You are accountable for your learning.  Not the training department, not your teacher, not your mother – YOU.  Flip that, and you are not accountable for another’s learning.  They are.  Let’s not try to take that upon ourselves.

Image via Wikipedia

Donald Clark puts up a post about the ‘fadness’ of Learning 2.0.  He feels that if it was all it was cracked up to be, we would see it mainstream.

“If informal learning was really all that dominant, then the adaptation and satisfaction rates of web 2.0 would be much higher as the learners would have been absolutely primed for this type of technology, no matter what flaws were in the implementation.”

As someone who has worked on implementing these technologies into an organization and a customer base, adoption of the technology does not depend upon previous use of technology nearly as much as the culture that surrounds it.  I have seen plenty of people not use it – even thought they use it frequently in their personal lives – because their culture does not support it.  To semi-quote many different people: when technology and culture clash, culture always wins.

This explains the quote he uses from McKinsey Global Survey Results,

“Companies are coming to understand the difficulty of realizing some of Web 2.0′s benefits. Only 21 percent of the respondents say they are satisfied overall with Web 2.0 tools, while 22 percent voice clear dissatisfaction. Further, some disappointed companies have stopped using certain technologies altogether”

“A higher level of usage is found at companies that encourage it by using tactics such as integrating the tools into existing workflows, launching Web 2.0 in conjunction with other strategic initiatives, and getting senior managers to act as role models for adoption.”

Look at paragraph #1 and think “Their culture doesn’t support it.”  Now read #2 and you get the opposite.  The higher levels of usage are because the culture DOES support it.

Through my research (although limited) the #1 correlation between using web2.0 tools and not – independent of previous knowledge or even willingness – was if they replaced current processes and tools with the new.  One culture won’t change, the other will.  One won’t integrate, the other will.

Very much a part of the culture is the willingness to change and do things differently.  Those who are better at adapting will be much more successful at adopting.

I can’t say this enough – the technology is the easy part.  The culture can be your best friend or your worst enemy (and often both).