(Day 1 of Social Now is described here)
I didn't spend the night in Amsterdam, so I missed all of the social part that happened after the first day of the event. My evening was less eventful, I think (I'm sure).
Day 2 started with another keynote presentation. Alvaro talked about social learning at ING. It was interesting to hear, but I understand that when the project ended for Alvaro, there was no party in the company who took ownership and made sure to got continued. HR seemed the most logical place, but perhaps they didn't understand it. A shame of a good initiative and it's not the first time this happens, I'm sure.
After this interesting presentation, there were more tool presentations. Similar like the first day, the vendors presented around the fictional case of CableInc. The vendors of today were: nooQ, Koyo, KnowledgePlaza, Eyo.
After all the vendor / tool presentations, we (all conference participants) could vote for the best presentation, the best suitable tool for my organization, coolest product, coolest feature. Grand winner of today was nooQ that won the categories coolest product and coolest feature (no surprise, as this product equals none of the other products), and a shared price for 'best suitable tool for my organization' (with Mango Apps). Best presentation went to Brikit.
The final keynote presentation was done by Stowe Boyd, titled "What's wrong with social collaboration?" (answer: everything). Why? It's the failed promise, according to Boyd. If they (social collaboration tools) are so great, why are so many people avoiding them? He has a point here, although I'm still on the 'believer' side. Web 2.0 has not given the increase in productivity as was promised. Web 1.0 did show an increase, but the line went down to where it was at the level pre-web 1.0 when web 2.0 was introduced. "Tools organized to maximize visibility slow things (work) down". I wrote this down but I'm not sure if I understand it now (one month after the conference).
On the social scale, Boyd distinguishes between sets (small groups, people know each other), scenes (networks of sets) and spheres (network of scenes). Most work is done at set or individual level. Social collaboration tools are skewed around scenic and spheric application. Boyd sees a move from 'high contacts, low frequency' communication to 'low contacts, high frequency'. In general, web 2.0 tools don't match today's organization. More shifts are in leadership (emergent leadership) and deep vs shallow culture. Some of the elements of a 'deep' culture are: dissent, cooperation, creativity, autonomy, agile, democratic, open and public, emergent leadership and human centered. Compared to 'shallow': consensus, collaboration, tradition, heteronomy, deliberative, slow and tight, oligarchic, elite leadership, company centered. I found it interesting that he puts cooperation under deep and collaboration under shallow. I remember that there were times we discussed cooperation vs collaboration, where collaboration was 'better'. Now it seems the other way around! I agree that in a work situation, cooperation happens more than collaboration, I just don't see the link with the deep vs shallow culture. To finalize, Boyd points out that the list under 'deep culture' is the shopping list for tools.
The two days ended with a debate. I didn't make notes, so I have no summary or quotes. Maybe I was just tired of two intense days! (Tired in a positive way)