Beyond Superpoke

7/27/2019 Beyond Superpoke

1/7

Razorfish. All rights reserved.

Razorfish is a registered trademark.

Beyond SuperPoke:A Case Study in Using Social Networks to Build Client TrustRobert Zand | June 2008

The popularity of social networks is hard to deny.Myspace and Facebook have been in the popularpress for quite some time and lately even anobscure, niche service named Friendfeed hassurfaced in mainstream media. Each of theseservices enables photos and videos, bookmarks,messages, location information nearly anything

that can be captured digitally to be shared byfriends, family, classmates, and many others inone central location.

As their popularity grows, so too does the curiosityof business. Like wikis and blogs before them, thesharing and communication that these servicesfoster tantalizes executives with the hope ofincreasing collaboration among their workers,which leads to a competitive advantage, new ideas,and additional profits. On my last project, a yearlong effort to build a new investment tracking site,

an ad hoc social network developed betweenvarious members of Razorfish and the client. In theparagraphs that follow, I describe how the networkformed and the activities that took place on it as well as provide observations andrecommendations for those considering social networks in their workplace.

Building a Team

Building a social network is a team building story. In our case it was a bottom up effort, aconsequence of its members experimenting incessantly to find a better way to communicateideas. It formed among the individuals responsible for re-envisioning the online experience - 29of approximately 100 from our client and Razorfish members. The team was spread over twolocations, which led to daily commuting rather than overnight stays. The physical campus of theclient was widespread, containing a dozen buildings. As such, the team was constantly in transit.They floundered at the beginning. Although the ultimate goal was clear, the small, tactical stepsnecessary to get achieve the goal were less obvious.

Problem:Widespread locations with many discreettasks made re-envisioning a new onlineexperience difficult for a team thatincluded client and service providermembers.

Solution:Social network software, whichprovided the team with social as wellas work-related information andinteraction, oiled the teamworkprocess.

Benefit:Though much study is still needed, theteam believes that social networkinghelped build client trust and contributed tothe projects success.


2/7



The requirements gathering process was massive, and team members often worked individuallyto track down specifics. Early on, almost half of every Friday was dedicated to discussing ideasand critiquing each others work, but either exhaustionor embarrassment at the lack ofprogressprevented these meetings from being fruitful. On Mondays, a shorter status meetingsaw project managers encouraging the troops to update project servers and communicate theirrevisions through the e-mail distribution lists. The contact list was updated as new people wereadded to stimulate the effort. Against this backdrop, I began to experiment.

The experiment. Three or four days a week I was making a two-hour commute by train. An aircard allowed me to connect to the Internet en route. A big reader, Id follow general societal andindustrial trends then dive deep into relevant subject matter for project work. My procedure is anongoing experiment. I prune and add sources constantly from my feed list and try new servicesfrequently. Sharing is a major part of this process. I was involved in online networks outside ofwork where contributors helped each other find relevant content by voting on the merits ofindividual articles. I passed on relevant links to coworkers, mostly by e-mail and instantmessenger as those were the predominant office tools.

But this project challenged passing on information. The e-mail distribution list included teammembers only from my agency and, mostly, I needed to e-mail the client. The project-wide

contact list (a spreadsheet) was long, making updates andsynchronization between two phones and three computers time-consuming and difficult. E-mails, painstakingly composed on the trainwith a laptop balanced on my knees, too often weren't read becausethe recipients' inboxes were overflowing with "higher priority" items.Instant messaging article links weren't viable; too few people wereavailable when needed. Even fewer used Del.icio.us, an onlinebookmarking service that momentarily seemed like an option.

Around this time the project began to settle down. A core of us whohad been stationed in a "war room" on the client campus began

adding each other to our Facebook profiles. It was an organic process, born partially out ofproximity and partially out of a desire to have more "friends" and, therefore, a more robustexperience. It wasn't work oriented, it was social.

Coincidentally, this is the common perception of social networks. Their stock in trade is themundane status updates, embarrassing photos, and pop culture references of the non-productive. They are frivolous. So it seems. Noticing that even simple profile updates capturedteammates attention, I began sending work items within Facebook. While it was somewhatdifficult to communicate with a group in this manner, the aggregation of work and social objectsseemed to guarantee people would read my messages.

This was progress. In yet another experiment, I added Twitter (a pure messaging system) andFriendfeed (an aggregator of nearly anything publicly available relative to an individual on theWeb), and suddenly the entire "war room" crowd followed. Twitter and Friendfeed are incrediblypopular services among Silicon Valley's tech elite. To many in the industry, including me and myteammates, the ability of these networks to serve as qualified, trusted sources of information isinvaluable. Suddenly, and quite by accident, we had a dedicated communications channel thatwould last throughout the remainder of our work.

Noticing that evensimple profileupdates capturedteammatesattention , I begansending workitems within

Facebook.


3/7



Characterizing Network Behavior

What sort of activity took place in this new channel? What information, both work and personal,was revealed? How did members contribute? When did they join, and how often did theyparticipate? What did the network look like? The answers to these questions hint at the potentialof social networks in the workplace. For some, they will also reveal its risks. My point here is tohonestly discuss the network's usage so that others may decide on and plan for their ownimplementations. I have analyzed the behavior of the 29 people most involved with the day-to-day workings of the project. These 29 people were from four different disciplines: userexperience, content strategy, design, and management. Some had participated in socialnetworks before the project began, others joined for the first time as a result of the project. Theirbehavior fell into four categories: active participants, active observers, observers, and non-participants.

Ac tive par ti cipants . Active participants contributed the most work-oriented content to thenetwork. They submitted objects from a variety of locations and from a number of interfaces:Web-based, desktop, and mobile. It was not unusual for submissions to come during commutesor walks between buildings. They seemingly came at any hour of the day and were both work-oriented and social. Five individuals, including both leads (agency and client) were in this coregroup. Examples of the discussion included real-time results from usability testing (for whichsome members travelled to Florida, while others remained in New York and New Jersey) anddiscussion of Mint.com's evolution as an online product.

Mint, a third-party competitor to our efforts in managing finances, first came to our attentionthrough the "twittering" of the technology community at large, a side benefit of using an open,public network. Long before the mainstream press discovered Mint, we were discussing the

decisions they had made the grouping of accounts, the dynamic charts, their use of horizontalspace and their implications for our project.

Ac tive observers. Active observers werevery aware of the goings on within thenetwork, especially of the activeparticipants. They learned by watching.More frequently they discussed the onlineactivity they observed in face to faceconversation rather than on the network.Their contributions to the network weremostly social objects and these quickly

became topics of conversation during theformerly "awkward silence" of workplacelunches. Musical tastes, family outings,wedding proposals, child births, and lawncare were all discussed. Although thesediscussions were less pertinent, they werecrucial in ongoing trust building. At no timewere any members criticized for being "offtopic". There were five active observers fromthree disciplines.

AmonthofnetworkactivityonTwitter.Messages were sent both in the office and from home, at

all hours of the day.


4/7



Observers. Observers were on the network but not participants in the work discussion there.Some were aware of the network activity of project teammates, others weren't. The activeparticipants and active observers at times discussed observers social activity in face to faceconversation, but it was incidental. Despite this, one of the most demonstrative examples of asocial networks' power was initiated by a member of the observers. Having already left theproject, this individual posed a general question to the community at large regarding adocumentation technique. A response came from one of our active participants. A follow-upcame from an individual who was only briefly involved in the project at its inception. Yet anothercame from someone who had never worked on the project but knew the first individual. In all,seven exchanges were made between four individuals, only one of whom was currently on theproject. Everyone benefited from the contribution.

When evaluating social networks, it is important to realize that although one individual mayappear to be less productive as a result of interruptions, an entire network can gain from theactivity. A liberal social network policy can assist the enterprise in ways that are not obvious atfirst and not directly measurable at an individual level.

Non-participants. There were six non-participants tothe social network. This is neither bad nor unexpected.Numerous models for network activity predict it. Basedon our experience, attempts to force activity on thenetwork would be detrimental and disingenuous.Several of the non-participants were from themanagement ranks. Over time they became quite awareof the networks' existence, yet to their credit, theyallowed the behavior to continue unfettered.

Analyzing the ResultThe ad-hoc nature of the social network's constructionwas one of its strengths. Unfortunately, that alsoprevents us from being able to definitively characterizeand quantify all of its aspects. In conclusion, I want tostate what we know for certain and identify items thatwe can speculate on but need further study to say forsure.

New methods. On one of the project's final days, a non-participating member of managementsaw my Twitter account. Alarmed by the number of people I was following, he asked his project

lead when I had time to work. The lead responded by saying that Twitter was essential to thework we had done on the project. What had started as an experiment had become a crucialsource of insight and exchange. I had come to the client to complete a task: to help them buildan investment tracking Website for their customers. In the process I had introduced a new wayof doing work that continues to this day. While I am no longer on their physical campus, I havebeen exposed to further user testing results and the progress of features I argued for.

An individual posed a generalquestion to the community atlarge regarding a documentationtechnique. A response camefrom one of our activeparticipants. A follow-up camefrom an individual who was onlybriefly involved in the project atits inception. Yet another camefrom someone who had never

worked on the project but knewthe first individual. In all, sevenexchanges were made betweenfour individuals, only one ofwhom was currently on theproject. Everyone benefited fromthe contribution.


5/7



A common voice. As the project advanced from idea creation to advocating and defendingthose ideas, social networking activity blossomed. While this may have been coincidence, thetrust team members gained in each other helped them to speak in a unified voice whendefending ideas with the various parties responsible for completing the project.

A p ro ject close to imp lementation. This was notthe first time the investment tracking project wasundertaken. Our team took this project farther thanit had ever gone before. It has momentum and isedging ever close to implementation. While it can'tbe said that the social network was responsible forthis, it also can't be said that it detracted from it.

The most successful collaboration form. Earlier,I mentioned the many traditional forms of

collaboration and team building attempted duringthe project: contact lists, e-mail distribution lists,project servers, a war room, status meetings, show-and-tells, and after work events. Without a doubt the social network was the most enjoyable andmost sustainable. At the end of the project, team members actively defended the practice totheir bosses; one apologized for his lack of participation in the network after hours, as his wifehad just given birth. While some of the reasons for this success may be unique to this projectand the individuals involved, the enthusiasm for it was palpable.

Experimenting was key. The team achieved what it did only because it persisted in its effortsto find a suitable solution. Some pain was involved. Redundant efforts were made. Some effortsdidn't bear fruit. Twitter itself experienced performance difficulty under heavy use. Yet none of

these flaws were reason not to try. In fact, many insights were gained in this learning process. Itis a trade off (productivity for insight) that all involved would make again.

On open networks and alternative solutions. What made Facebook, Twitter, and Friendfeedappropriate in our case was familiarity and cost. Free tools were quickly implemented andabandoned. On the downside, we were helpless when service was interrupted. Twitter andFriendfeed are open networks. Functionality has been extended by others through aprogramming interface the services expose. Statistics and search tools have been built in thisfashion. Team members benefit from the community-at-large in open networks throughserendipitous discovery of content. This built in advantage will no doubt be seen as adisadvantage by some since in an open network all activity takes place in public. While nothingproprietary was exposed, did discussing usability results and the general progress of the effort

reveal to competitors the overall initiative? Does this outweigh the benefits?

Without a doubt the social networkwas the most enjoyable and mostsustainable [of collaborative forms].At the end o f the p ro jec t, teammembers actively defended thepractice to their bosses; oneapologized for his lack of participationin the network after hours, as his w ife

had just given birth.


6/7



Questions for Further Study

The networks active participants and observers spent more time at the client campus than otherproject members. Did proximity influence network behavior?

The team members that were staffed on the project longest also were most active on thenetwork. Was this a consequence of the network, or did the network form because of theincreased exposure to each other and the project? Was there any correlation?

Earlier, I stated that as the demands of the project called for team members to speak with aunified voice, network activity increased. Was this a coincidence? What other times in a projectmight see increased activity? Once these times are known, can they be exploited throughstrategically timed initiatives?

Network participation (the ratio of participants to observers) fell within the norms established byearlier studies of social networks. Can (or should) efforts be made to influence this? While thismay appear contradictory to my advocacy of organic network formation, if individuals wereplaced in closer proximity to each other, or if a team member familiar with the dynamics of socialnetworks was brought in earlier, could these rates be influenced?

What affect does discipline and role play on network participation?Both project leads were active participants, but they were not the firstto join the network. The person most responsible for the networksformation was an individual tasked with tactical implementation detail.

What is the mix of social content to work related content? Does this

differ by role? How does this mix affect participation?

What happens to work networks over time? Many participants"friends" were limited to fellow project members. As individualsmove on and add others to their network, will the noise increase

unbearably? Conversely, does the opportunity for follow up within the network create a living,virtual business card, such that individuals remain more familiar with each other over time?Does this lead to increased business opportunities for an agency (or other service providers)and require less time for a client/consumer to evaluate service providers?

Conclusion

Using a social network to communicate among team members was an experiment asuccessful experiment, according to all involved. While we don't have specific answers to theabove questions, we are confident in the process that led us to them and that this same processwill eventually lead us to answers. And no doubt, new questions. The cycle repeats.

[A]s the demands ofthe project called forteam members tospeak with a unifiedvoice, network

activity increased.Was this acoincidence?


7/7



About the Au thor

Robert joined Razorfishs user experience team in December 2006. He has worked with Ford,

Merrill Lynch and Conde Nast. Prior to that, Robert served as lead developer of the client sideweb team at collegeboard.com. In that role, he advocated and made recommendations foradoption of new technologies. Robert has a diverse background, including a masters degree inUrban Planning. He has written and presented technical white papers, managed clientpartnerships, and was a programmer at CompuServe during the infancy of the Internetscommercial adaptation.

About Razor fish

Razorfish is one of the largest interactive marketing and technology companies in the world, andalso one of the largest buyers of digital advertising space. With a demonstrated commitment toinnovation, Razorfish counsels its clients on how to leverage digital channels such as the Web,mobile devices, in-store technologies and other emerging media to engage people, build brandloyalty and provide excellent customer service. The company is increasingly advising marketerson Social Influence Marketing, its approach for employing social media and social influencersto achieve the marketing and business needs of an organization. Its award-winning client teamsprovide solutions through their strategic counsel, digital advertising and content creation, mediabuying, analytics, technology and user experience. Razorfish has offices in markets across theUnited States, and in Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom.Clients--many of them served in multiple markets--include Carnival Cruise Lines, Coors BrewingCompany, Levi's, McDonald's and Starwood Hotels. Visit http://www.razorfish.com for moreinformation.

Razorfish821 2nd Avenue, Suite 1800Seattle, WA 98104Phone: 206.816.8800Fax: 206.816.8808

Documents

Beyond Superpoke