Nuts and Bolts: Assessing the Value of Online Interactions

A good deal of my time is spent providing workshops andconference presentations on social learning and the use of social media tosupport and extend social learning in the workplace. In every session, itseems, someone comes just to challenge me to “prove” that all this isn’t awaste of time, that there is performance-enhancing value in social connectionsand interactions, particularly of the online variety.

They usually want some magic metric, some formula like, “twohours on LinkedIn + four comments in groups = tangible outcomes for theorganization.” It doesn’t work that way. A great deal depends on how the workerchooses to spend that time in social channels, how well he filters and curatesinformation, how she chooses the people with whom she’s interacting. Thequality of those interactions depends in turn on many other issues, includingtrust, a willingness to ask for and offer help, and time invested in developingties deeper than those purely at the surface. Likewise, a worker expected to improveperformance and support organizational goals must know what the expectationsare around that.

Value creation

Etienne Wenger (of CultivatingCommunities of Practice fame), Beverly Traynor, and Maarten De Laat haverecently published a new conceptual framework for understanding and assessingvalue in such interactions. It includes a nice overview chart (figure 1) thatI’ve found helpful in addressing concerns of my audience members.

Figure 1: Wenger, E., B. Traynor, and M. De Laat. Chart fromAssessing Value Creation for Communities of Practice and Networks: AConceptual Framework.Used with permission.

Immediate value

I’ll use myself as an example of how the chart helps shinelight on real activity and outcomes. I spend a lot of time on Twitter becausethere are so very many smart people there, who at any hour of the day or nightare talking about something I often didn’t even know I wanted to talk about.

I mostly follow learning, training, and eLearning people,but I also like some fiction authors and a few experts in other fields. Thosepeople who only talk about what their cats had for breakfast? I don’t followthem. But it’s important to note: I am very active on Twitter. I engage, andtalk, and interact with people. I drop in on several live Twitter chats amonth. I try to contribute as much as I take. I like to think I help. So inlooking at Wenger et al’s first column: I feel I get immediate value from the qualityof interaction and reciprocity, I am given food for thought that I do reflecton, and I make it no secret that I am having fun.

Potential value

Moving across the chart to the second column: From my participation,what is the potential value? I’ve certainly developed a lot of connections,many in other parts of the world who offer very diverse viewpoints. I find I’moften inspired to read up on a new area or check out a new app or other tool.My views on learning have shifted considerably over the past five years as I’verecognized firsthand the power and potential of increased support for sociallearning in the workplace.

Applied value

Now, moving to the third column, we look to see whether dotsare connecting. I spend a lot of time on Twitter, I make a lot of connections,I read about things that interest me. But am I getting applied value? Do Ileverage those connections? Have I engaged enough with my personal learningnetwork so that, if I ask for help, some people might respond?

Let’s revisit an example I used in a previous column, one spurredby a phone call from one of our agencies.

I tweeted this (Figure 2):

Figure 2: Leveraging connections on Twitter: original tweetasking for help

In two minutes’ time I had several responses, including thisone (Figure 3):

Figure 3: One of the many immediateresponses

I found the document, scanned it to see if it seemed okay,and sent it on to the agency. They said it was just what they needed. Thisamounted to a four-minute interruption in my day.

So you tell me: Is there applied value? Am I using myconnections and implementing advice?

Realized value

Moving to the next column on the chart from Wenger et al, “Realizedvalue.” I gave the customer a good response in four minutes. Is that areflection on my personal performance? How about my organization’s reputation?Let me ask it another way: when’s the last time you called a government agency and got a good answer in fourminutes?

Reframing value

In terms of the last column of Figure 1, “Reframing value”: Idon’t know that I’ve changed my institution (yet), but I’ve influenced ideasaround new ways of working. And while I’m not asked for evidence that I ameffective, whenever I get a solution or innovative idea via one of my socialchannels, I take a screenshot or write a quick note and send it on tomanagement anyway.

So, in looking for value in online interactions, try to getpast the idea of a magic metric. I can’t tell you that my spending x hours on LinkedIn and tweeting y times per day will get you the resultI got in the example above. I can tell you that my choice of when, with whom, andhow to engage is what helped drive that result.

What can we do?

So what can we do? Help workers begin to articulate the waysin which interactions have solved a problem, reflected on their personalperformance, or reflected on the organization’s reputation or performance. Startasking, “What did you learn today/this week? How has that affected yourperformance? How does it help the organization?” Help connect dots betweensocial interaction and access to expertise, and between those connections andnew tools and reframing ways of working. And please do review the full text ofthe piece by Wenger, Traynor, and De Laat, available at https://wenger-trayner.com/resources/publications/evaluation-framework/.

Coming to DevLearn2012? Join Jane Bozarth for her session, “The Truth About Social Learning,”which addresses more of the issues mentioned here.