“Let’s give ‘em something to talk about:” Discussions of GCpedia on the Internet
Originally posted September 16, 2009 to the GTEC Blog.
By Emily Gusba
Getting people to use Web 2.0 takes more than just having a great new tool – the buzz around social media is key to its success. And while access to GCpedia may be limited to public servants, discussion of it certainly is not. Most of the buzz around GCpedia is positive, but more importantly, a slice of the discussion offers TBS and users some very concrete ways to improve the Wiki in terms of what went right and what needs to change in the deployment of future Web 2.0 tools. That’s why the public service needs to pay attention to what people are saying about GCpedia – especially outside of its walls.
Here are the top 5 things to know about how GCpedia is discussed on the web:
1- Wikipedia’s take on its GC cousin – Oddly enough, the Wikipedia article on GCpedia is an orphan, as “few or no articles link to it.” It is also tagged as a stub – there isn’t much about GCpedia on its closest public analogue. As is Wikipedia’s aim, the language about GCpedia is neutral – so, one has to wonder why TBS hasn’t taken advantage of what is potentially a good, and at least a cheap and easy opportunity to tout the goals of GCpedia. (Who cares about GCpedia outside of the public service? Taxpayers, quite possibly,)
2 – GCpedia will save the public service! — David Eaves makes the point that GCpedia is an excellent way to capture all of the tacit knowledge that will walk out the door when senior management retires in droves. Used properly, GCpedia could serve as a wealth of go-to information for those who will advance to mid-level and senior positions. Government departments and agencies need to be willing to endure the temporary pain of dedicating staff to interviewing almost-retirees and posting the findings to GCpedia, to avoid a longer term consequence: losing the collective intelligence getting ready to exit the public service.
3 – GCpedia remains the domain of GCgeeks? – Peter Smith is worried about how well GCpedia lends itself to use by newbies. The level of technical knowledge necessary to using GCpedia is one of the reasons Eaves cites for why soon-to-be-retirees aren’t likely to post what they know themselves. Smith is right – the interface is confusing, and could easily intimidate anyone with techno-trepidation. What is the solution? One is likely more training than what is largely available thus far, especially if TBS is sold on the MediaWiki platform.
4 – Lots of talk on Twitter – Interestingly enough, many public servants have turned to Twitter to talk about GCpedia. This isn’t surprising, just important. Remember that Twitter may well be the easiest real-time resource for anyone who wants to take the pulse of the Web-2.0-crowd’s feeling about GCpedia.
5 – Mostly love, but some concerns, too – Overall, the talk about GCpedia is overwhelmingly positive. And where challenges are discussed on the Web, so are solutions, which gives GCpedia’s owners and users an opportunity to engage in in-depth and strategic discussions about the role of this communication channel. That discussion is vital if GCpedia is going to live up to its potential.
Emily Gusba works within the Information Management practice at Systemscope. Contact her at gusba[AT]systemscope.com!
I am cross-posting (apologies) my response to the ludicrous assertion you reference in point number 2 above, as follows.
Will GCPEDIA save the public service, or capture all the tacit knowledge that will walk out the door? No, of course not! To suggest otherwise is, frankly, naive hyperbole.
As great and as promising as GCPEDIA and other Web 2.0 tools are, tools will never save the public service. People are the public service and only people have the capacity to save the public service, and it will take a whole lot more to improve the weak areas of the public service than a tool. Things like leadership play a pretty important role in organizational effectiveness. There are many good Organizational Excellence models (I have researched this area) and they all include people and leadership as two elements, but funny enough, tools aren’t included. Why? Because it is not so much a tool issue as it is a craftsman issue.
With respect to your comment about tacit knowledge and social capital (not the same things by the way), I think it might be helpful to brush up on what tacit knowledge is, and what Knowledge Management is.
It is unquestionably true that the public service continues to face a potential impact from demographic changes that are both extremely significant and yet unquantified. It is also unquestionably true that most public service organizations haven’t truly understood or addressed these potential impacts, to say nothing of the potential of improving their effectiness right NOW from better Knowledge Management (productivity, innovation, etc).
These issues need to be addressed by public service leaders in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. Tools can and certainly should help but only when wielded by craftsmen and women. For too long vendors have made grandiose and unrealizable promises about their ’solutions’. I thought we had learned our lessons from all that experience.
Let’s not get the cart before the horse, shall we?
Paul McDowall
Knowledge Management Advisor
and chairperson of the Interdepartmental Knowledge Management Forum
Paul –
Thanks for your comment. While it pertains directly to Eaves’ original post, I still find it interesting. You are right that tools are just that – implements we use to work towards our goal (whether that be knowledge management, cooking dinner, or building a cabinet); of course it will be human intervention that saves the public service, ultimately. GCpedia cannot write itself. What you did not address, however, is the thrust of Eaves’ post – which is that GCpedia is a tool that is especially suited to supporting public servants in their KM efforts. If, that is, they use GCpedia in that capacity.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with your contention that thoughtful discussion and leadership are key to strengthening the public service. But I think that you are underestimating the value that the use of the right tool can bring to any project, and the dearth of KM tools available to public servants pre-GCpedia. Plus, not only does GCpedia allow for knowledge capture, but it also facilitates the discussions that you endorse so strongly.
Cheers,
Emily
Hi Emily,
All collaborative tools can be powerful enablers for improved organizational collaboration and ultimately effectiveness and efficiency. As I said in my post, GCPEDIA is great and is promising as an enabler. The key word is ‘enabler’.
Paul
Agreed!