Lehman Article - Web 2.0 Boundaries



Welcome About Lehman Associates Services Presentations and Articles Our Customers Home Call Us Today 1-888-221-0081 Or Send an Email Tlehman@ansible.com		Boundary Issues © Tom Lehman, 2008 Does you organization have boundary issues? With Web 2.0, traditional boundaries are falling like dominoes. Just as Web 1.0 blurred the boundaries of proprietary versus public domain content, and those of work and personal time, the social web blurs the boundaries of proprietary communities and the differentiation between our business and personal relationships. Social networks include groups focused on work-related or serious policy or social issues, but are commingled with groups about weekend party adventures. We may meet our friends in our online communities to engage in either or both conversations, and we now use these communities to stay current with developments in these friends lives, both personal and professional. With the loss of access to information resources as a critical member value point, the importance of the community of members has become that much more important. But the emerging online tools and models represent a major threat to the proprietary value of a membership community. My take is that in order to stay relevant, membership organizations such as associations must find new ways to define the value they provide, and base the membership value proposition on what a member gains through membership that would not otherwise be possible. Access to one another is simply not enough. We need to leverage these relationship just as we learned to leverage rather than sell information content. Organizations that fail to achieve this goal face an increasingly risky future. Membership organizations may have a harder time with the blur of member boundaries than even for-profit companies have with understanding customer boundaries. For these organizations, the formation of closed and proprietary communities around a profession or industry has been a cornerstone. Access to resources available only to these members has been a significant part of the membership value-proposition. In the past, much of that resource was information content. With the commoditization and decentralization of content, however, the value of this members-only information has been significantly diminished. We all have access to more information than we can handle. And we don’t need to be a member to get it. The quality may not always be as high, but it the perception is that it is a substitute, then that’s the market reality as well. And the emerging mass collaboration models that exploit collective wisdom such as wikipedia suggest that these alternative sources of information may be a match. As a result of the devaluation of information as a salable commodity, there has been a growing emphasis by membership organizations on the value of the network of members. Tapping into these closed communities enables each member to gain from the experience and knowledge of colleagues, and to expand contacts for ones own career and professional development. Just as trying to charge to access proprietary information has come to be viewed as a barrier to what should be a free exchange, charging a fee to network with one’s professional colleagues is likely to suffer the same fate. In fact, it is even more likely to suffer that fate than content. Whereas the organization may invest resources to develop the content, the value of the network is defined by participation of the members. Hence those who produce the value – the members – are being charged a fee to take advantage of that value. That might fly if there were not other means through which that interaction might take place, but clearly that is not the case today. In fact, effective use of freely available social networking tools could easily result in peer communities that greatly exceed that offered by the membership organization. In fact the very boundaries of organizations themselves are starting to blur. We’ve always had contract work to augment what is done by employees, but never before have we engaged virtual armies of outsiders to work collaboratively with employees on critical projects. And yet, companies are starting to do just that at a scale unimaginable even just a few years ago. As detailed in the book on mass collaboration, Wikinomics, IBM spends hundreds of millions of dollars to support and contribute to the Linux open source free operating system. Proctor and Gamble engages hundreds of scientists beyond its own employees to help them develop new products and improve existing ones. Product information that until recently might have been closely guarded even within the corporation is now freely shared with these outside scientists. Advocacy groups operating is related areas such as environment or education are beginning to collaborate to compare donor and membership lists to better understand and leverage the communities with demonstrated interests in those areas. Not too long ago, these groups would have viewed one another as competitors for those donor resources. Now many view collaboration as a way to increase the income for each group by working together to expand the pool. To continue to relevant and successful, membership organizations - like companies and others - will have to redefine the value they provide in exchange for membership dues and participation. There are great opportunities to do just that, but they will take new thinking and a willingness to let go of some long standing attitudes and business models. Tom Lehman is president of Lehman Associates, LLC, a management consulting firm that partners with association executives to improve organizational performance through insight, strategy, and the application of information technology.

Call Us Today

1-888-221-0081

Or Send an Email

Boundary Issues

Does you organization have boundary issues? With Web 2.0, traditional boundaries are falling like dominoes. Just as Web 1.0 blurred the boundaries of proprietary versus public domain content, and those of work and personal time, the social web blurs the boundaries of proprietary communities and the differentiation between our business and personal relationships. Social networks include groups focused on work-related or serious policy or social issues, but are commingled with groups about weekend party adventures. We may meet our friends in our online communities to engage in either or both conversations, and we now use these communities to stay current with developments in these friends lives, both personal and professional.

With the loss of access to information resources as a critical member value point, the importance of the community of members has become that much more important. But the emerging online tools and models represent a major threat to the proprietary value of a membership community.

My take is that in order to stay relevant, membership organizations such as associations must find new ways to define the value they provide, and base the membership value proposition on what a member gains through membership that would not otherwise be possible. Access to one another is simply not enough. We need to leverage these relationship just as we learned to leverage rather than sell information content. Organizations that fail to achieve this goal face an increasingly risky future.

Membership organizations may have a harder time with the blur of member boundaries than even for-profit companies have with understanding customer boundaries. For these organizations, the formation of closed and proprietary communities around a profession or industry has been a cornerstone. Access to resources available only to these members has been a significant part of the membership value-proposition. In the past, much of that resource was information content. With the commoditization and decentralization of content, however, the value of this members-only information has been significantly diminished. We all have access to more information than we can handle. And we don’t need to be a member to get it. The quality may not always be as high, but it the perception is that it is a substitute, then that’s the market reality as well. And the emerging mass collaboration models that exploit collective wisdom such as wikipedia suggest that these alternative sources of information may be a match.

As a result of the devaluation of information as a salable commodity, there has been a growing emphasis by membership organizations on the value of the network of members. Tapping into these closed communities enables each member to gain from the experience and knowledge of colleagues, and to expand contacts for ones own career and professional development.

Just as trying to charge to access proprietary information has come to be viewed as a barrier to what should be a free exchange, charging a fee to network with one’s professional colleagues is likely to suffer the same fate. In fact, it is even more likely to suffer that fate than content. Whereas the organization may invest resources to develop the content, the value of the network is defined by participation of the members. Hence those who produce the value – the members – are being charged a fee to take advantage of that value. That might fly if there were not other means through which that interaction might take place, but clearly that is not the case today. In fact, effective use of freely available social networking tools could easily result in peer communities that greatly exceed that offered by the membership organization.

In fact the very boundaries of organizations themselves are starting to blur. We’ve always had contract work to augment what is done by employees, but never before have we engaged virtual armies of outsiders to work collaboratively with employees on critical projects. And yet, companies are starting to do just that at a scale unimaginable even just a few years ago. As detailed in the book on mass collaboration, Wikinomics, IBM spends hundreds of millions of dollars to support and contribute to the Linux open source free operating system. Proctor and Gamble engages hundreds of scientists beyond its own employees to help them develop new products and improve existing ones. Product information that until recently might have been closely guarded even within the corporation is now freely shared with these outside scientists.

Advocacy groups operating is related areas such as environment or education are beginning to collaborate to compare donor and membership lists to better understand and leverage the communities with demonstrated interests in those areas. Not too long ago, these groups would have viewed one another as competitors for those donor resources. Now many view collaboration as a way to increase the income for each group by working together to expand the pool.

To continue to relevant and successful, membership organizations - like companies and others - will have to redefine the value they provide in exchange for membership dues and participation. There are great opportunities to do just that, but they will take new thinking and a willingness to let go of some long standing attitudes and business models.

Tom Lehman is president of Lehman Associates, LLC, a management consulting firm that partners with association executives to improve organizational performance through insight, strategy, and the application of information technology.

Top of the page

Welcome

About Lehman Associates

Services

Presentations and Articles

Our Customers

Home

Boundary Issues