Return On Investment (ROI) The Social Conundrum

Final blog!... Yay!!

Over the last 6 or so blogs I have looked at different aspects of Enterprise 2.0 and while there is evidence that correctly using enterprise 2.0 technologies and tools is beneficial to companies, putting a dollar value is a much harder proposition. One of the ways businesses puts a dollar value on investment is to use Return on Investment (ROI).

There are two major problems that I see with using this formula for Enterprise 2.0 tools:

A lot of the benefits are qualitative in nature and are intangibles.

How can you measure ROI by connecting with customers on Facebook, Twitter etc.? I have seen a few clumsy attempts to correlate these connections with customer retention and sales but unless the people that are being connected with explicitly say I was going to leave company X but because that last Tweet they made was pure unadulterated Twitter nirvana I will stay. 

Kogi BBQ food van

Or there is a heralded case of the Kogi a BBQ Korean food van in Los Angeles started twitting their location and has seen anywhere from 300 to 800 people each time it stops, several times a night (Gelt, 2009 feb 11). I’m not debating that engaging with customers is bad, after all it is a foundation of Enterprise 2.0 and there is enough qualitative data to encourage every company to engage with all their stakeholders. BUT! Is connecting with Twitter the only reason BBQ company has seen such growth? What if a friend sees the tweet, then posts it on Facebook, then my friend sees that post and tells me via a message? How much % of the credit do we give the Twitter strategy? All? Half? Quarter? This leads me to the other problem.

Cascading effect.

Hinchcliffe (2009, para. 8) proposes that many of the Enterprise 2.0 technologies have a cascading effect due to the complexities and intangibles that these technologies bring. In classical investment terms ROI was calculated on technology that could be quantified (assembly lines and industrial automation) as their effect was direct and measurable (Hinchcliffe, 2009, para. 8). 

Lego Assembly Line

When business invested in a new tool the ROI was delivered more or less straight away and there was a direct monetary correlation between investment and the return. With Enterprise 2.0 tools this line of thinking is flawed as there is a cascading effect or as Hinchcliffe (2009, para. 8) says a cause and effect chain from implementing new tools to actually seeing the return.

TransUnion is a credit report company that has managed to quantify part of their Enterprise 2.0 strategy. Murphy explains that they have saved $2.5 million USD by investing $50000 USD on an internal social media platform, Socialtext, in simple terms that’s a 50x ROI!

The way that the ROI is calculated is that traditionally at TransUnion when problems occurred employees would ask for more hardware, a software tool or more processing capacity, Socialtext has led to employees looking for solutions internally via collaboration rather than just ask for more IT resources, so the savings come in the way of TransUnion spending less (Murphy, 2009, para. 1).

While the ROI does look impressive there are two factors that I would like to highlight:

• The reason why they can quantify Socialtext’s impact is that the savings that TransUnion has made is on tangibles, IT equipment has a price tag!
• The cascade effect; Originally employees at TransUnion had asked permission to set-up an employee Facebook group, due to the sensitive nature of TransUnion’s business it was decided to implement an internal social networking solution behind the company’s firewall for greater information protection (Murphy, 2009, para. 3).

TransUnion implements Socialtext – How do you calculate a ROI on that?

Cascade: Socialtext is used for solving problems in a collaborative environment – ROI calculated based on savings made from not purchasing IT resources, basic but works to an extent. While there I a dollar figure attached to IT equipment it fails to take into account a ROI on having a collaborative environment for other aspects not just problem solving, the intangibles.

Cascade: Within Socialtext there are tools that collate the best answers and make them part of an internal database of answers – ROI on collective intelligence.

Cascade: The tools that allow for this database also monitor who is good at problem solving etc. So TransUnion is looking to create new job descriptions based on this information e.g. Jim Jones Logistics Problem Solver. – ROI on complex problems.

Cascade: This could also lead to employees being moved to a department better suited to what they are good at. – ROI on employee retention.

Ultimately the real ROI is unknown and may even be way higher than the 50x that has been quoted. This is the problem with calculating ROI on enterprise 2.0 technologies; the actual return may not be apparent for several cascades and may not even match up with the initial intentions. Enterprise 2.0 technologies can also throw up intangibles that are hard to quantify and figures that are thrown around in case studies are at best educated guesses with a myriad of assumptions, and we all know about assumptions!

References:

Los Angeles Times - Kogi Korean BBQ, a taco truck brought to you by Twitter.
Zdnet - Determining the ROI of Enterprise 2.0
Internetevolution.com - Transunion Finds Cost Savings, Seeks More

Social Media Monitoring

For this week’s blog we were tasked with using social media monitoring tools and essentially see what they are about. I chose QueenslandHealth as it is the case study for assignment two and wanted to see how Queensland Health is currently using social media. There are many tools out there for monitoring but I chose to focus on two, Socialmention and Howsociable. While both essentially do the same thing, monitor how many times the phrase “Queensland Health” appears through social media posts. The analytical display takes two different directions.

Social mention (Social Mention, n.d.) is a free tool that collates, displays and analyses information from 100+ social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, YouTube, Digg, Google etc. You type in a search phrase and it returns some analytical data and also a listing of posts attached to that search phrase. The aspect that makes it stand out from the rest is that it measures the search phrase’s influence in four categories:

Queensland Health

• Strength –Indication of the likelihood that there is discussion on social media about the search phrase. The calculation used by social mention is; mentions divided by potential mentions in a 24 hour period. Pretty basic.

• Sentiment – It displays generally positive to generally negative mentions through social media in ratio form.

• Passion – Indication of the likelihood that the search phrases are being talked about repeatedly by the same individuals. Example given by social mention is that a higher score would be achieved if a small group talks consistently about the search phrase a higher score will be achieved.

• Reach – Indication of the range of influence. Calculation used by social mention is; Number of unique authors referencing the search phrase divided by the total number of mentions. So the more unique authors are posting about the search phrase the higher the reach score.

You may have noticed that I state “search phrase” rather than the term “brand” that social monitoring tools use. This is because when I searched for Queensland Health on social mention it displayed information for both Queensland and Health, sometimes giving me postings about Health in the USA. Fortunately it does have an advance search function where I could make it search for the exact wording or phrase. This type of problem is not unusual for basic search engines but leads me to question the accuracy of social media monitoring.

Miami

Miami Dolphins

 I further tested social mention and searched for Miami and then Miami Dolphins (Go Fins!!) and there was a definitive divide between posts about the city of Miami and the NFL team Miami Dolphins, which leads me to think that if there is an established brand it does not matter if there are spaces for this type of monitoring. This further makes me think that the “brand” Queensland Health has not established itself in the social media sphere and that is why you can’t just type in Queensland Health. Also in the FAQ section of Social mention when asked how does it work? The answer is it works. Obviously they won’t tell the exact calculations that it uses so it can get stolen by competitors but it feels like a bit of snake oil.

A few other concerns I have are:

• Strength – as I said earlier the formula used while simple does not state how they derive the possible mentions, possibly to thwart competition on their calculations but if there is a key aspect of Web 2.0 and more importantly Enterprise 2.0 it’s transparency.
• Sentiment – The ratio given is only a positive to negative ratio, when doing a search on Queensland Health, Miami and Miami Dolphins there was a multitude of posts that were deemed neutral.
• Passion and Reach – These categories are intertwined because of the way that it is calculated you can not have high passion and high reach.
• The most interesting trait that I found about Queensland Health was its lack of strength, it only rated 2%. I think that the strength score is calculated against all possible posts, so Queensland Health which has a limited audience to start with competes with some big names who are dedicated a massive amount of posts worldwide.  Potentially also the lack of “brand” name for Queensland Health hinders the analytical analysis that these tools derive.

I also looked at Howsociable. This is similar to social mention however the data analysed is displayed as a magnitude score from 0-10 (with 0 being no activity and 10 being lots) it also breaks it down by social sites, youtube, facebook, twitter etc. The non registered version provides information for four social sites, the free registered version is for 12 social sites, and the pro version looks at 36 social sites and costs $9 USD for 3 months. The pro version gives access to the social media heavyweights, Facebook, Twitter and Pininterest. On the free non registered version it gave scores for youtube, linkedin, google plus and foursquare.

Queensland Health had all very low scores I might add. While I didn’t want to pay for the 3 month subscription, $9 gets me 2 pots or a pint at the uni bar! The way that it breaks down a score for 36 social sites makes it a very interesting proposition as it would allow an organisation to see what type of social sites they could improve their reach into e.g. their Facebook score might be an 8, while their Twitter might be a 3 and might encourage a shift towards Twittering more etc.

As I stated earlier there are a multitude of social monitoring tools, however I think that care must be taken as to how much to actually believe these tools and also to not just follow them blindly. Or maybe companies should just keep following blindly as the world would be a worse place off without social media fails.

References:

socialmention - about

recool

For this week’s blog I chose an architecture endeavour as my organization from the professional services sector. The major reason that I chose a blog instead of wiki or twitter use is that blogging in the enterprise 2.0 realm seems to be a perfect marriage with the architecture field. You design an amazing building and you can see what that building looks like etc.

you save someone a lot of money on their tax return and well, you will see black writing (hopefully black!) on a white page.

Enterprise 2.0 technologies allow these companies to showcase their talents, in much the same way one would a portfolio, especially blogging. In our very first lecture we talked about enhancing our digital identity, putting our talent online for the world to see. Architecture just by its visual nature has an inbuilt advantage over other fields. This is not to say that other fields should ignore the enterprise 2.0 movement as other aspects such as wiki or twitter may benefit these other fields more than the architect field. If given a choice: an architect firm blogging about their new sustainable roof design

Or an IT firm blogging which fiber optics technology is better

I know which one to me is more engaging... Ok the fiber optics do look sweet...

The organization that I chose is Westlake Reed Leskosky an architect firm out of the U.S.A. that runs the blog recool. According to Westlake Reed Leskosky (2013, para. 2) their aim is to explore different technology solutions for sustainable architecture that will allow them to create advancements to the architectural/engineering/construction (AEC) marketplace.

The value levers from the McKinsey Global Institute (2012) that I have associated with this blog are; value lever 4 (derive customer insights), 5 (use social technologies for marketing communication/interaction), 6 (generate and foster leads) which all form part of the marketing and sales organisational function. But with many of these enterprise 2.0 technologies you can argue for other value levers and function associations depending on the context of the argument.

Value lever 4 - Derive Customer Insights

recool uses comments sections for its blog postings for this value lever to get customer feedback. Most companies that have any type of feedback option should be reaping the benefits from this feedback. This is a cornerstone of web 2.0 anything that is posted online, a blog, a tweet, a facebook posting, you want someone to reply, you want to create a connection, you want that customer feedback as that is how you derive their insights. The value that I think gives the company is that it educates prospective customers and potentially a comment could be used to enhance aspects of their designs. In much the same way that crowdsourcing is used by foldit. Another way that Westlake Reed Leskosky (2013, para. 1) taps into this value lever and value lever 5 is that it promotes “open and candid discussion of design and product applications” on its blog, I think that by promoting an atmosphere of debate it is inviting people to think how can it be improved and how to get involved in sustainable AEC.

Value Lever 5 - Use Social Technologies for Marketing Communication/Interaction

Westlake Reed Leskosky (2013) state that one function of the blog is to emphasize their approach to sustainable AEC by showing what worked and what difficulties were encountered. As I said earlier blogging in enterprise 2.0 is a type portfolio, it is easy to show off your company, so it is easy to market the company by enhancing their digital identity to the world. The value comes with the engagement that is possible through social technologies, if I want to see green technology in architecture I don’t have to go to some conference in Scandinavia. This value lever I think is a by product of the internet as technically having a website, blog, facebook page, etc. is marketing yourself and interacting with the community. The value that is derived for recool.com is how it uses blogging as opposed to wiki (too technical perhaps) or twitter (not enough words) to promote its digital identity and the engagement and debate it tries to manifest not only with people that are for sustainable AEC but also those who are on the fence or against it.

Value Lever 6 - Generate and Foster Sales Leads

There has been a continued focus on sustainable everything, how to decrease the impact that everything has on the environment, so it is easy to argue that sustainable AEC is also a hot topic. By tying in value lever 5 as a portfolio recool.com is at worse passively generating sales leads, if there is anyone looking at sustainable architecture the blog can be construed as an extension of the firm and while it may not form the only reason for choosing the firm it is another way to enhance sales leads.

I think that using blogs, wikis, twitter etc. for this sector depends more on what value lever you are trying to achieve than in other sectors we have explored so far. The two previous sectors we looked at, depending on the enterprise 2.0 technology that was used could encompass several value levers and organisational functions. This I think its due to the niche nature of the services and who the services are primarily aimed at.

References

McKinsey Global Institute - The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies.
recool - about

foldit - Solve Puzzles for Science

A couple of weeks ago I looked at what value levers were associated with implementing Enterprise 2.0 with the Xbox One and Sony PS4 examples. This week I am looking at benefits and value levers within the Social sector as outlined by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) report, The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies.

There are many examples in this field but the one I chose was foldit. The value lever that I have identified is crowdsource resources and solutions value which is part of the, collect information and insights, function area.

Crowdsource resources and solutions is to an extent like harnessing collective intelligence, it promotes participation by the general populace rather than select or niche groups. For the foldit example it uses the "crowd" to find solutions.

Foldit is a game where you solve protein puzzles. It encourages the gamer to predict how the primary structure of a protein “folds” into a three dimensional structure. According to the foldit website, the two primary functions of the game are to: predict protein structure and protein design. These functions are needed to understand diseases such as HIV, Cancer and Alzheimer’s and to design better treatment. The champagne moment for foldit was when a protein structure of a simian retroviral protein used in animal HIV models but  it's three-dimensional model  had evaded the science community for 15 years was solved by foldit players (Hersher, 2012, para. 1).

Basically there are two types of puzzles, the champagne ones like the example above where the community is encouraged to participate in solving unknown protein structures and protein puzzles that are generally well known. The approach that is used by humans to solve the second type of  puzzles is analysed to improve the algorithms of existing protein-folding software, as there is an argument that the human brain has a natural three-dimensional pattern matching ability which correlates to humans having better spatial reasoning skills than computers (Moore, 2011, para. 7). Using crowdsourcing to solve puzzles is not new and it could be argued that the WW2 Enigma code was broken via crowdsourcing. What is new is the scale that can be achieved via the internet. Instead of having 15, 20 or 50 people working on a problem, there can be thousands or tens of thousands.

While the focus so far has been on enhancing protein-folding software, foldit will soon incorporate ways to design new proteins that will ultimately allow users to design and improve drugs to treat different diseases. In much the same way that the malaria example on the MGI report uses crowdsourcing for that disease.

With any crowdsourcing example, the more people that are involved the better the information and insights that are derived.

References:

Cnet - Foldit game leads to AIDS research breakthrough.
foldit - The Science Behind foldit
McKinsey Global Institute - The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies.
Spoonful of Medicine - Foldit game's next play: crowdsourcing better drug design.

Pear shape

The proliferation of social media use by corporations reminds me of an old Simpsons’ episode where Homer’s brother Herb is trying to come up with an invention and Homer tells him to simply use and existing product and just add a clock to it. Many Corporations think that by just participating in social media they will reap all the rewards without giving any thought to the risks involved with hilarious results.

I’ll be looking at Harvey World Travel (HWT) and for those who have been living under a rock or don’t go to the many shopping centers scattered throughout Brisbane, HWT is a travel agency, essentially they act as a middleman between us and pretty much everything in the travel industry, plane, trains, auto mobiles, hotels, tours, cruises etc.

I chose Harvey World Travel for the company that I will be looking at in respect to risks of social media use as the travel industry I feel is very tight and cut throat. The advent of the Web 2.0 technologies combined with websites like Wotif, Traveladvisor etc. has meant that travel agencies have been one of the most impacted industries, essentially these technologies have cut out the middleman. As my friend who worked for a travel agency to me a couple of years ago “even grandma and grandpa are using the internet to book their stuff”.

While all companies face legal risks, which most are internal risks by nature, it is customer service companies that I feel are subject to a slew of external risks and are the most ill equipped to handle social media as the sheer volume of interactions means that they can't be 100% on the ball.

Loss of confidential information (Internal and External Risk) 

Dundas lawyers gave the example of LinkedIn, where employees can upload email address book inviting clients to connect, which could be construed as a breach of confidential information as they are publicising organisation’s database. This example is also valid for HWT. Another example I would like to propose is one where these types of company may show to the outside world, via a blog, twitter or facebook where their customers have been or potentially worse where they are e.g. HWT posts on Facebook, Ms Jane Doe is currently enjoying an amazing holiday in Fiji, and someone assumes that if she is away the house would be easier to burgle. While this example is far-fetched, when it comes to risk assessment you have to look at worse case scenario.

False statements and or misleading and deceptive conduct (Internal and External Risks) 

There was an instance earlier this year where Samsung paid university students to post negative comments on a competitors website for one of their new products. As harnessing collective intelligence becomes very important to companies, there is the temptation of creating false comments. While the Samsung case is of an internal nature; Samsung knowingly paid the students. There have been legal cases in Australia that put the onus of liability on the companies if they do not monitor their social media pages for false, misleading and deceptive information even if it’s from a third party. A scenario for HWT would be if they were posting on their blog and making up travel stories about how awesome HWT is or paying someone to post nice things about HWT on other web pages.

Discrimination (Internal Risk) 

I go back to my first posting where someone did not get a job because of photos they had on their Facebook page, the scenario that I propose is HWT management finds out about someone’s sexual orientation through Facebook and subsequently fires the employee. There are cases of companies not only trawling through potential employees but also current employees. This one is not far-fetched at all as it is quiet easy to make a sly remark about work on Facebook thinking that you are immune.

Reputation

Loss of reputation I think is the biggest risk and all the other risks lead to this one. Brand name and reputation is everything and while the legal risks are real, the fines that are given out aren't really that big in comparison to how big some of these companies are. But reputation and brand name can’t be bought. If you fail on the three other risks they all lead to the brand name being hurt and a quick google check will confirm that a lot of companies just don’t get social media or to what extent people will go when they have had a bad experience. And companies do care about their reputation online, just look at my first post where my girlfriend and I get to stay in a penthouse next time in Orlando because we threatened bad feedback on social media sites.

Mitigating Risks

Dundas lawyers has a comprehensive list of safeguards that range from blocking media sites at work, to monitoring, introducing a social media policy, training etc.

Some others that I can think of:

HWT you are not the best thing since sliced bread, some people really despise the company and given an outlet they will unleash, just like Dominos and McDonalds found out.

HWT don’t give into temptation and make up “testimonies”. I've become very sceptic of any comments in a comments section, I could easily go make up a dummy account and put some positive comments on this blog post… hmm…

HWT and really for any other company out there, actually research what has worked and what hasn't, and actually think why it did or didn't. It is not simply a case of adding a clock to an existing product.

References

Abbate, G. (2011). Pear [Image]. Retrieved August 24, 2013, from http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7143/6473968111_f5ca81d15e_o_d.jpg
Anne, G. (2008). Homer talking alarm clock (front) [Image]. Retrived August 24, 2013, from http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3066/2745274172_1dab4ff565_b_d.jpg
Dundas Lawyers. (2011, August 19). Do organisations need social media policies? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.dundaslawyers.com.au/do-organisations-need-social-media-policies/
Dundas Lawyers. (2011, August 24). Legal risks of social networking for business [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.dundaslawyers.com.au/legal-risks-of-social-networking-for-business/
Isabel, L. (2010). Clock-Making [Image]. Retrieved August 28, 2013, from http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1329/4726327159_cdd0a79f4f_b_d.jpg

Microsoft Xbox One Value Levers

Xbox One

For this week's Blog I’ll be looking at social technological value levers for Microsoft, in particular the minor debacle that is the Microsoft Xbox One. Microsoft like any successful technological company uses social technology to add value to many of its organizational functions, Product development, Operations and distribution, marketing and sales pop up as no brainers. What I want to focus on though is Customer service and how social technology helps to smooth over customer angst.

A bit of background though. The Xbox one is the successor to the hugely popular Xbox 360. It has been closer to a decade since the Xbox 360 was released so the new model has been highly anticipated. On announcement for the Xbox One it was stated that it required a constant internet connection to play disc-based games, so too bad if you don’t have broadband, and there were restrictions on lending and selling games second hand they could only resold through authorized dealers, can only be lent once, there was a “list” you had to be on and could only play it for 30 days before functionality seized.

The gamer angst was intense to say the least; gaming websites were inundated with negative comments towards the Xbox One.

Even Sony got in on the act. (Marketing and sales function, levers 5 and possibly 6. Use social technologies for marketing communication and interaction, Generate and foster leads. But most importantly lever 11 making light hearted fun of a rival company)

(O.K. there is no lever 11 but there should be!)

Fast forward two months of constant internet (social media) negativity, Don Mattrick former president of Microsoft's interactive entertainment unit, posted a blog on the Microsoft Xbox website, recanting the draconian measures to resell and lend games and also dropping the constant internet connection requirement. Only need it once on setting up the system, still one too many if you ask me.

“I have heard directly from many of you, read your commentsand listened to your feedback” (Mattrick, 2013)

The gamer angst was subsidised by providing customer care (Lever 8) from monitoring the fallout of the Xbox One announcement via social technology (The marketing and sales function, levers 4 and 5, Derive customer insights, use social technologies for marketing communication/interaction). 

While using the blog may have not totally defused the situation at least I feel there was a genuine attempt at connecting with the potential customer base. I think this was a smart move by Mattrick as it also showed that a big company like Microsoft will listen to it’s customers to improve its products and will change if there is a large enough outcry. 

Why their research before hand failed to forecast this outcry (Lever 4 – Derive customer insights) is the million dollar question. Especially as level 4 is tied with the product development function.

Ultimately I believe that people power will be one of the enduring legacies of social technology, from toppling regimes.

To Xbox gamers being able to buy second hand games.

References

EmotionFaces. (2012). Blond boy Crying [Image]. Retrieved August 17, 2013, from http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7180/6926482211_d9dc05e40c_b_d.jpg
Ferreiro, J. D. (2013). Don Mattrick [Image]. Retrieved August 17, 2013, from http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5532/9183874929_8029ffa3e0_b_d.jpg
GAME Online. (2011). Gears of War 3 - Midnight Launch [Image]. Retrieved August 18, 2013, from http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6035/6353843921_e6916dfa71_b_d.jpg
Globovision. (2011). Las excentricidades de Aisha Gadafi, hija del lider libio [Image] Retrived August 18, 2013, from http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6078/6080358327_f229b6f1a7_m_d.jpg
Mattrick, D. (2013, June 19). Your Feedback Matters - Update on Xbox One [Web log post]. Retrived from http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update
McKinsey Global Institute. (2012). The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies [Research Report]. Retrieved August 10, 2013, from http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/dotcom/Insights%20and%20pubs/MGI/Research/Technology%20and%20Innovation/The%20social%20economy/MGI_The_social_economy_Full_report.ashx
Playstation. (2013, Jun 10). Official Playstation Used Game Instructional Video [Video file]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/kWSIFh8lCaA
The Chronicles of X. (2013). Microsoft XBOX One Retail Box [Image] Retrieved August 17, 2013, from http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7376/9073247822_e82accf228_b_d.jpg

Numero Deux (The second post)

This week I read pages 1 to 13 of "The social economy:unlocking value and productivity through social technologies – McKinsey GlobalInstitute, 2012."

In a nutshell it’s a report trying to quantify the value that social technologies can add to a business.  From the report there are two main areas that I think where social technologies add value; collaboration and engagement.

Collaboration: Social technologies not only allow collaboration internally but can also include external collaboration. E.g. A wiki that is updated and used by internal staff. A competition run on Facebook to decide what new ice cream flavour to have next. The reason why these tools work is because of the ease and speed provided by the internet.

Engagement: Again both externally and internally engaging stakeholders. E.g. both previous examples could also be considered engaging. The internet is once again the facilitator for these technologies.

Collaboration and engagement are not new ideas, and the internet itself is not relatively new. But I think that the reason why social technologies are really taking off now is the mainstream acceptance of using the internet. There is no longer a stigma associated with being internet savvy au contraire you are considered something of a luddite if you are not on Facebook spamming memes or Twittering away your every thought.

Now I love a good meme just like anyone out there but there are a myriad of web 2.0 tools that can assist in personal productivity. However much like the home gym you might have tucked away at home, if you don’t learn about it and actually use it you won’t get the best benefits out the new tools. So the trick is to find something that you will actually use.

Dropbox - It simply allows you to upload and access your files from anywhere that has internet access. While there are many tools similar to this one such as Google Drive, Microsoft Skydrive etc. They all work on the same principal. I am old enough to remember carrying floppy disks around, so this type of tool is a godsend. And I love the auto syncing feature. When I was recently in the USA my memory card on my phone got corrupted (we were in Vegas it was close to 50c and I had GPS, 4g and wifi hot spot going) I thought I had lost the photos that I had taken on the phone but when I got home I checked my dropbox folder and there were my photos! While I do still carry a usb stick with me more out of habit and because im old school, with Dropbox I know I have my important documents there and can access them pretty much anytime I want from just about anywhere I go.

RSS – This tool alerts you to new content from your favourite websites (as long as they have RSS set up). I have a daily ritual, like most people I’m guessing, where I will hit about 5-10 websites when I wake up in the morning. With this tool I really only have to see the feed to see if there is anything worth reading and it also keeps me up to date during the day. It more or less works like the news ticker at the bottom of the morning shows. There are a few other tools that take this type utility to another level such as flipboard, stumbleupon, currents, where the GUI and presentation is slicker but ultimately they all do a similar type of job, a personal news ticker.

There are many more tools out there and I only touched the surface, the important part is that, while social technologies go beyond just Facebook and Twitter, you need to find the ones that will fit with your lifestyle. One thing I took away from the report was how heavily underdeveloped social technologies are and I can’t wait to see what different tools are developed in the future.

References:

Brettman1 (n.d.). Don't Worry, We'll Give You a Headstart [Image]. Retrieved August 11, 2013, from http://cheezburger.com/7711855360
McKinsey Global Institute. (2012). The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies [Research Report]. Retrieved August 10, 2013, from http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/dotcom/Insights%20and%20pubs/MGI/Research/Technology%20and%20Innovation/The%20social%20economy/MGI_The_social_economy_Full_report.ashx
mrg5_tv (2010). RSS MRG5.COM [Image]. Retrieved August 11, 2013, from http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4116/4922597755_3459bf3100_o_d.png
SunPharma. (2008). Teamwork [Image]. Retrieved August 11, 2013, from http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5325/7045056109_585ebfe60c_o_d.jpg
Tiengo, E. (2012). Dropbox - sharebox [Image]. Retrieved August 11, 2013, from http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/7698511058_d7bf7700b8_o_d.jpg