SMCHAT to date & possible paths forward

[Chris Jones]

While we already have 20-30 "regulars" (depending on how you count), only a few have been in every chat. Let's ground everyone with a short history, and some directional thoughts, to get us thinking about futures.

In our inaugural chat 5/28, we met each other and started brainstorming the new chat paradigm we'd just adopted. Many of us were crossovers from the #innochat group that meets (on Yammer now) to discuss innovation practices. We used our first chat to discuss Q1: the #chat value proposition, and concluded several critical aspects were: social interaction, engagement, and real-time conversation.

In our 2nd chat 6/3, we compared Q2-Q3 (chat) vs. Q4 (collaboration) and concluded that the difference was that, in the case of collaboration, we were working to solve a problem.

In our 3rd chat 6/10, we took the problem solving metaphor a bit further and introduced some of the traditional workgroup requirements: file sharing, discussion forums, event announcements, etc. In short, we needed a place for sticky content. Too much was being lost in the fast-paced Twitterverse. It was clear we did NOT want to leave Twitter (see Q1), but rather, to supplement it. We discussed a variety of social site options we were aware of, and narrowed things down pretty quickly to NING & PBWIKI.

In our 4th chat 6/17, we got down to some of the brass tacks of a collaboration hub, includng tool specifics, how to track and tag SMEs, and intro'd SEO as a topic. We realized that Knowledge Management (or KM) had similar aspirations, and tapped Information Architecture terms to explain what kinds of activities might be needed downstream. We assigned (!?) some volunteers and vowed to take action.

And here we are.

WHAT NEXT? There are a variety of directions this group can go. As current moderator, I am open to ideas. As long as we are exploring and advancing best practices using social media for collaboration, I think we are adding value as a group, as well as to each of us as individual practitioners and stakeholders. That does not in any way exclude SMM (marketing), branding, social communities, or monetization topics - because those elements will certainly be drivers in the demographics and mechanics that comprise SM.

There are other #chat groups for specific industry practitioners. I guess I see #smchat as an action/brainstorm group to aggregate methods and guide anyone trying to advance problem solving using SM, rather than simply coming together to talk.

Meantime, we have lots of 'problem solving' problems to sort out, including how best to use this site.

The issue now? We need your input !! Please provide it here.

Thanks, as always, for being an active part of an increasingly active KNOWLEDGE NETWORK: #SMCHAT.

[Heidi Cool]

Great job on the Ning site! I see the site as a place to archive #smchat discussion threads, post upcoming topics, share social media resources, provide a place for members to list their social media profiles/contact points, and provide a venue to continue discussions begun during the weekly #smchat event. In particular the forums and groups feature gives us a place to have longer discussions that we couldn't complete in 140 character snippets.

We discussed the options of Ning vs. PBwiki, and I still have to finish my homework assignment to come up with some pro's and con's for each, but I think if we can all list our expectations of what the site should achieve that will help in that regard. If we stick with this Ning site, I'd also consider implementing the groups feature. While our group is small now, if we can grow it, groups will be a good way to segment information by topic.

For example the University Web Developers network has 66 groups on its site: http://cuwebd.ning.com/groups. These are used to pose questions and discussion on specific topic areas. This really seems to help keep the forum from getting too overloaded. Our Cleveland Social Media Club has 6 groups, http://clevelandsmc.ning.com/groups/group/list. There we use them more as collaboration tools. Each subcommittee has a group so they can communicate about the projects they're working on. There is also a private invite-only group for the steering committee so that they can discuss administrative things more privately. We could have groups for #smchat transcripts, sm mktg, sm collaboration, service specific groups for Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.

We can also think about what sort of information we might wish to gather from members. Ning let's us set-up custom questions to ask users when they sign-up. We could ask them for the Twitter username, ask an open-ended question on what they want to know about social media, etc. These answers can then appear in their profiles and it helps us weed out spammers.

[Remy Arteaga]

PBwiki offers some good collaboration tools including: Collaborative Page Editing and Document management & file sharing. We may want to make use of these tools as we move forward with the Ning site serving as the home for smchat.

[Mark Gammon]

Yes, nice job on the Ning site!

PBWiki does offer some really nice tools for collaborative information creation, management, and sharing. It would certainly provide features and options in this area that, as Remy notes, might work in tandem with the Ning site, rather than one or the other. Because of it's feature set and flexibility (as Heidi describes), I can see the Ning site developing as a central venue and organizing hub. Depending on how the group develops, other tools would likely make sense for particular needs.

Drawing on Heidi's post... again depending on how the group develops/grows and the various interests of those involved, I can see some value in setting up more specific topical areas that would allow further depth in those areas (and services) and then each contributing back to the larger goals and objectives of the group. Perhaps each sub group could have a coordinating member who would be part of a larger steering committee? This might help the project to have both a set of focused areas and a larger meta stream of ideas and information. This would also help to address the dilemma of how to meaningfully engage with the increasingly diverse and complex ideas, not to mention the sheer amount of information, within the SM space. I hate to create unnecessary bureaucracy, but some pragmatic organization has merit.

I like the idea of gathering some member information too. I think the data would give us a sense of what people want/need, help to grow and develop the group, foster connections based on shared interests, help us create relevant sub groups/communities, etc.

Just some thoughts, looks like good possibilities are emerging...

[Chris Jones]

One 'special interest' topic that might already have enough traction for a sub group might be KM. I know Christian, Andrea and I have lots of energy on it, but perhaps not everyone else. I'll check with them to see if we want to spin that off. However, I don't see it as a separate site, but maybe an SMCHAT NING group?

Thoughts?