CC BY
58
о о о
с
о о
Mannanova A. R., Yanovskiy V. V.
Social Media Applications as a Element for Project Management of Territory Development
Mannanova Alina Ramiliyevna
North-West institute of Management — branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Saint-Petersburg, russian Federation) [email protected]
Yanovskiy Valery Vitalyevich
north-West institute of Management — branch of the russian Presidential academy of national Economy and Public administration (Saint-Petersburg, russian federation) Deputy Head of the Chair of Local Government Doctor of Science (Economics), Professor ianovski@mail .ru
ABSTRACT
Project communication and collaboration is a crucial activity that makes or breaks a project. And thus the territorial development today cannot do without a new generation of projects that embody the real needs of residents and visitors. Excellent technical skills and intuition may be insufficient to drive performance if not accompanied by appropriate levels of interpersonal interaction within project groups. Evidently that Global participation platforms o and social networks like Facebook, LinkedIn and others and a mass of local blogs and web
_o communities are an important source for next generation of project managers. How these
§ new technologies will impact organizations, however, is not entirely clear. Therefore, it
g represents an important field for information systems research. This paper presents a survey
x study of the intrusion of social media in project management. We investigate some basic
m questions such as the possibilities, dangers, and limits (e. g. legal or ethical) of using social
media services in project management. Also we analyzed the existed approaches that can x serve as a start point for the successful and efficient implementation of such services. Ours
¡Ü results indicate that social media analysis can serve as an improvement tool for project
< management of territory development to reduce the product development time and associated
cost through the implementation of social network analysis
о
о
KEYWORDS
territory development, social media, social media network, project management, blog, wiki, information technology
Маннанова А. Р., Яновский В. В.
Социальные медиаприложения как элемент управления проектами развития территорий
Маннанова Алина Рамильевна
Северо-Западный институт управления — филиал РАНХиГС (Санкт-Петербург) [email protected]
Яновский Валерий Витальевич
Северо-Западный институт управления — филиал РАНХиГС (Санкт-Петербург) Заместитель заведующего кафедрой местного самоуправления Доктор экономических наук, профессор [email protected]
РЕФЕРАТ
Проектные коммуникации и качество сотрудничества критически важны для успеха проекта. Поэтому территориальное развитие сегодня не может обойтись без нового поколения проектов, которые воплощают реальные потребности всех граждан — про-
iNTRODUCTiON
Historically, the industry has focused extensively on optimizing the project management (PM). In this focus, organizations have emphasized the ability to develop the optimum plan, allocate resources efficiently, and utilize control functions to ensure that the project stays on schedule and within budget. This used to be effective however nowadays this engineering focus has reached the point of diminishing results. Specifically, the engineering approach to PM has neglected to recognize the importance of the participants to the success of the overall project.
Simultaneously, over time, social networks (SN) have evolved and this evolution has kept pace with the growing needs of businesses and their needs. Accordingly, social media applications (SMA) are increasingly widespread in modern societies. INTERNET use and mobile access to information, SN, entertainment and services are and will be subject to rapid growth and create an essential source for so called "social media analytics", which allow to monitor and analyze user generated contents for different purposes systematically. Given this prominence social media (SM) have reached in different fields, we identify a crucial importance to promote the application of SM services for effective PM in different domain as well as positive product development process (PDP). Moreover, we consider SMA use is a perspective strategy in PM of Territory Development.
Based on current possibilities and evolving practices of SM usage as a means of community participation, this paper develops ideas for a future use of SM in PDP as a tool for PM. The opportunities, which are meant to be identified, will be weighed up against potential risks and weaknesses of the incorporation SMA in PM.
живающих постоянно и посетителей. Выдающихся профессиональных навыков и ^
интуиции может быть недостаточно, чтобы обеспечить эффективность проекта, если о
он не сопровождается соответствующими уровнями межличностного взаимодействия °
в проектных группах. Очевидно, что глобальные платформы и социальные сети, та- ^
кие как РасеЬоок, 1_ткеС1п и других, и масса местных блогов и шеЬ-сообществ яв- о
ляются важным источником для следующего поколения менеджеров. Как эти новые °
технологии будут оказывать влияние на организации, однако, не совсем понятно. о
Поэтому они представляют собой важное поле для исследований информационных °
систем. В работе представлен обзор вторжения социальных сетей в сферу управ- ^
ления проектами. Мы исследовали некоторые основные вопросы, такие как возмож- ^
ности, опасности и пределы (например, юридические или этические) использования ^
социальных сетевых услуг и технологий в области управления проектами. Кроме о
того, мы проанализировали существовавшие подходы, которые могут послужить в ^
качестве начальной точки для успешного и эффективного осуществления таких услуг. □=
Наши результаты показывают, что проведенный анализ социальных сетей может 2
служить в качестве инструмента совершенствования управления проектами развития ™
территории для сокращения времени разработки конечного продукта и расходов на ^ его реализацию.
к
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА |Е
территориальное развитие, социальные сети, социальная сеть массовой информации, ^
проектное управление, блог, Вики, информационные технологии «
о _
о
< —
О
REVIEW
In recent years, the world has witnessed the remarkable popularity of SM concepts in which millions of users communicate, participate, and collaborate. O'Reilly [24] summed it up by the buzzword "Web 2.0" and many others wrote about the phenomenon of social
^ web and the wisdom of crowds1. According to a study of the American Red Cross (2011)
q nearly half of the entire population is active in one or more SN. Joseph Guarino gives
^ the overview of modern SMA, defining the main players, opportunities and challenges
o for PM [9].
o
o In a review of SN literature Borgatti and Foster [3] attempt to bring order to the
0 diversity of theories which describe, analyze, and explain the behaviors that emerge in ° this new generation of SM [19] by providing a framework for understanding SN research. 5 However, fast growth can be accompanied by a corresponding increase in confusions, > criticisms and controversies [2]. The researchers add three Cs — Content, Change, and □z Context -which they believe represent opportunities for considerable growth in SN 2 theory and analysis.
^ In organizational research SN have been used to understand a wide range of outcomes
< including individual, group and organizational performance, power, turnover, job satisfaction, m promotion, innovation, creativity, unethical behavior [3], [7; 14; 15]. SNA has been an in-^ strumental tool for researchers focusing on the interactions of groups since the concept ^ was introduced by Moreno [21]. The translation of the social interactions to a mathematical jE basis was the foundation of the strength and validity of the network approach to commu-^ nication analysis based on Network density, Centrality and Geodesic distance [4].
™ Project performance is influenced by many factors that are well documented, re-
^ searched and understood. However, one influence that has perhaps been underesti-
^ mated until now is the impact of social dynamics — how fully harnessing the attributes
□i of the individual can lead to the empowerment of the project team as a whole. Suc-
^ cessful projects represent the culmination of management skills, planning and individ-
<
1 ual project member strengths. In operations management, such strengths are often x viewed mainly from the perspective of skill base. It has become increasingly evident that uj behavioral traits associated with individuals play a very significant, if not ultimately x dominating, role in the effectiveness of certain projects. Individual attributes relevant to E these project contexts often lead to SN-ing decisions that have impacts on multiple
levels.
<
CL —
o
WHAT iS SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS AND SOCiAL MEDIA
Writing in 1857, Karl Marx2 puts it nicely: "Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations in which individuals stand with respect to one another". Social network analysis (SNA) has appeared in the social sciences for nearly a century3. A network is a set of nodes interrelated by dyadic ties. The nodes, or actors, can consist of any kind of entity, from individuals to collectives (e. g., organizations, countries).
SNA is the mapping and measuring the relationships and flow among the information entities [10], the technique used to study the relationships among actors, such as people or organizations. SM can be defined as a digital media or technology allowing their users to share information and other contents individually or within a community, a tool that link individuals by providing a common platform for discussion in one centralized and easily accessible place. Such tools also create opportunities to move beyond information sharing and venting personal frustrations to real action by motivating, inspir-
1 Especially Surowiecki, J. (2004), analyzed the wisdom of crowds, an aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that are often better than any decision of a single member of the group. Crowdsourcing is a neologism, which was coined by Jeff How (2006) and describes, contrary to outsourcing, not the outsourcing from business tasks and -structures to third party companies, but the outsourcing to the intelligence and the manpower of a mass of voluntary staff on the internet.
2 Marx, K. (1939). Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Rohentwurf 1857-1858). Moskau: Verlag fur fremdsprache Literatur..
3 Borgatti S.P. et al., 2009. Network analysis in the social sciences. 2009. Science 323, 893-895.
ing and organizing users [25]. It is often difficult to clarify what is technologically distinc- ^
tive about SM technologies. The broad term has been used to apply to a variety of g
technologies, including wikis, blogs, microblogs, SN-ing sites, virtual worlds, video- ^ sharing sites and many others [13]. Researchers updated a widely used definition of o
SN-ing sites to highlight four features shared by many SM technologies: digital profile, o
relational ties, search and privacy, network transparency [12]. To sum up let us point o
out that SM in PM is: ^
• a medium for interactive social interaction using communication technologies where 5 INTERNET is a platform; >
• a community based, interactive content, user generated content; □=
• a form of social software which fosters engagement and interaction [23]; 2
• a community and collaboration based technology that is merely a tool. ^
project MANAGEMENT 2.0 AND SoCiAL PRoJECT MANAGEMENT <
o
In response to PM challenges, project teams have turned to technology to attempt to ^ streamline collaboration. The most visible recent development in technology-enabled ^ project collaboration is the movement called "Project Management 2.0" (PM 2.0) which ^ has been defined in a number of ways, however the basic definition of the PM 2.0 is ™ the use of Web 2.01 technologies to enable project teams to better share information, increase collaboration and to empower teams to get things done.
However, it is difficult to define what makes a particular technology a PM 2.0 technology. The most common example used is the WikiProject2 and blogs where all of the team members can update as necessary any project information (the tasks required, the status of tasks, project roles and responsibilities, etc.). INTERNET search engines and Wi-Fi3 are general-purpose technologies as it is hard to define when their use is for PM.
The researchers of the Trilog Group Whitepaper [27] advocate that Social project management (SPM) goes far beyond PM 2.0 by recognizing that project teams are only part of the project community4 and that a broader project community exists, which is both formal, and informal, and that the engagement of that community is the key to building trust and knowledge. SPM makes it possible the engagement of the full SN of the project community, in order to achieve the project's goals. Rather than focusing merely on the needs of each project team individually, SPM strives to focus on the needs of an organization, by engaging the largest number of appropriate SN ties in accomplishing the goals of all the projects of an organization.
Characteristics of SPM
• Engaged — deeply connecting people, including customers, employees, and partners, to be involved in productive, efficient ways;
o _
o
<
CL —
O
1 World Wide Web sites that use technology beyond the static pages. A Web 2.0 site allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in a SM dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community.
2 A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area (for example, women's history), a specific location or a specific kind of task (for example, checking newly created pages). The English Wikipedia currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects and activity varies. WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations; have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles.
3 Is a local area wireless technology that allows an electronic device to participate in computer networking using 2.4 GHz UHF and 5 GHz SHF ISM radio bands.
4 Project Community — the entire social network related to a project, including the team, stakeholders, management, and other interested parties.
^ • Transparent — removing boundaries to information, experts and assets, helping people
q align every action to drive business results;
^ • Nimble — speeding up business with information and insight to anticipate and ado dress evolving opportunities.
o SPM builds on the gains made by PM 2.0 by enabling teams to bring their core PM
o process online. Then, by applying the SN-ing (i. e. Facebook) paradigm to the core
° business process, SPM software makes the project process visible to everyone, both
5 inside and outside the team. Without sacrificing traditional PM rigor, SPM gives the
> internal and external project community visibility into the events of the project, as they
□z happen, allowing teams to achieve transparency as to project progress and status, and
2 to enable smarter and more efficient collaboration. Further, using the "re-tweet" para-
^ digm, project teams can publish issues, needs, and questions to the wider corporate
< (and external) SN, allowing for anyone who is interested to engage socially with the
m team to assist in accomplishing the project and organization's goals.
—
| PERSPECTiVES FoR THE uSE of SoCiAL MEDiA iN oTHER FiELDS
—
^ SM has not only become an integral part of people's personal lives but also embedded ™ itself into various business processes (Fig. 1): it is playing a critical role in the digital marketing strategy of a business, is an instrumental in improving the customer engagement, is also used to astute project managers as a part of their management strategy.
These so-called SM-monitoring and analytics tools (e. g. commercial software tools1) are mainly developed for companies and organizations to gather information about their product placement and general business monitoring, the analysis and identification of new trends, as well as for their broader social marketing campaigns which could be considered as a tool in the territory development strategy.
o _
o
<
SMA in PDP program evaluation
For effectively managing the PDP project, it is more important to ensure rapid process o improvement than to perform routine activities. The activities in a PDP interact by exchanging information. The structure of this information flow has a bearing on process efficiency and predictability. Therefore, PDP work can be described as a complex network of interactions [28]. In the case study the researchers propose a methodology using SNA ability to map social relationships to aid in visualizing the mapping and analyzing PDP stakeholders; to identify the role and influence of different stakeholders and stakeholder's categories according to their positions within the network. The authors provide four steps procedure for SNA implementation:
• identify a strategic/operational of the company goals;
• conduct in-depth interviews to capture data for the stakeholders' meaningful relationship;
• use a SNA software package visual map and analyze the results from the data gathering process;
• use a software package, quantitatively analyze and determine the centrality measures and groups within the network.
This approach provides a rigorous decision support tool for project managers who must alter ideal activity sequences due to specific schedule, budget, and expertise constraints encountered on their projects using the analysis to identify important or overloaded activities.
1 Such as Opinion Tracker, Simplify360, Radian6, BrandsEye, Brandwatch Tool and many others (cf. Goldbach Interactive Social Media Monitoring Tool Report 2012: www.goldbachinteractive.com/aktuell/ fachartikel/socialmedia-monitoring-tool-report-2012)
o o o
c
o o
o _
o
Fig. 1. A business model with integrated social media
<
CL —
o
SMA in Crisis Interaction
Critically discussed by Neal [22] a comprehensive multilevel approach for SM use in crisis illustrates the prominent role of traditional media/crisis communication and the promising potential of the multilevel use of SMA as a basic layer and channels of open source information in all phases of crisis and disaster management.
In the course of a crisis there are multiple ways in which SM can assist the management team. Karin Rainer with his colleagues grouped them into the following, mutually non-exclusive, three categories of SMA: information, communication and collaboration [25]. They classified the risks and boundaries of use of SM in crisis into two major categories: the information affluence generated by SM and the loss of control over the communication process. First, stakeholders of any kind require more resources (e. g. time, personnel) for filtering out relevant from irrelevant content. Too much data within little time might also trigger fear and anxiety and eventually result in mass panic. The second big threat that SM constitute for crisis management is the empowerment of organization-external communicators.
SMA in Construction
Another example is the development of a SN model of construction. In the publication by Paul Chinowsky et al, the engineering-based approach to project success is recon-
^ figured to reemphasize the need to develop high performing teams by recognizing the q importance of the project network [4]. This recognition is formalized in the SN model ^ of construction that integrates classic PM concepts with social science variables to o enhance the focus on knowledge sharing as the foundation for achieving high perforce mance teams and project results. This connection between traditional social analysis o and project enhancement is the motivation for extending the network concept to the ° area of high performance teams where each construction project is a combination of 5 social interaction and project collaboration.
> The researchers emphasize that significant challenges exist in the construction domain □z that will affect the implementation of the SN model. First, the construction industry is 2 based on network instability where project participants are regrouped on almost every ^ project with little regard to past network connections. This instability places the network
< in a scenario where minimum experience exists between the participants and thus m forces the network to rebuild a significant portion of the trust relationship in each proj-^ ect. Second, construction networks are often required to move from the formation stage ^ to the collaboration stage very rapidly due to schedule constraints. Hence, this leaves jE little time for the participants to build trust prior to the execution of the project tasks. ^ Finally, the contractual relationships defined in a project context can serve as barriers ™ to the free exchange of knowledge due to liability concerns.
Although, it is beyond the scope of this paper to further explore the relationship ^ between SN and the challenges mentioned above, it is recognized that these issues □i could impact the successful implementation of the SN model in the territory developer ment field.
<
ü PROS AND CONS
x Traditional PM practices create defined and hierarchical communications paths. SPM E recognizes that while these traditional communication and collaboration channels may reduce information and communication overload, they are too slow, filter out important information, and do not allow the right information to get to the right person.
There is a huge amount of PM software for the enterprise. Even so, the essence of great PM is ensuring sustained useful interactions between the team, away from the software [1]. SM ensures communication within the team and between the project stakeholders. The idea behind incorporating SM into a PM process is to improve collaboration and create a more conducive environment (Fig. 2) wherein problems are solved faster.
Recently, project team members worked mostly in the same physical space, using PM applications on personal computers (exchange files on floppies, cd or flesh -devices) with weekly team meetings and senior management monthly information updates. Nowadays, project team workers do not depend on the physical space attendance and on the common working hours (eight-to-five). Senior managers have unlimited access to needed project information. Hence, the information exchange between the team members and stakeholders serves as the root source of continued competitive advantage [29].
Using social concepts to improve team communication is an exciting prospect, however, in the research by Rohan Ayyar pros and cons of implementing social into PM strategy are denoted [1]. Contrary to the declaration that merging SM with PM is a challenge, the author previses from using SMN since a SN's privacy features will hardly ensure data safety toward social integration in PM and as a result, it can become one of the bedrocks of a results-driven PM process. He concludes that SN should not be seen as an alternative to PM software, but a means of enhancing the channels of interaction that improve coordination between stakeholders of the project.
<
CL —
o
Internal stakeholders
User generated content
Initiation
Completition
o o o
c
o o
o _
o
<
CL —
o
External stakeholders
Fig. 2. Environment of social media for PM
The use of Web 2.0 technologies to enhance project collaboration and coordination, assisted greatly in enabling teams, especially virtual teams, to collaborate and share information. However, these tools, such as wikis, blogs, online file sharing, while enabling participation and automation, do not assist the PM-er in the management of the core PM process, and in many ways make his work more difficult [27].
One reason why most organizations are hesitating to incorporate SM in their traditional communication strategy is that the mono-directional flow of information evolves into a multidirectional flow where the population can not only publicly respond to the news-issuing organization, but where individuals can communicate with each other without the organization being able to act as a regulating force [17]. SPM recognizes that the members of the project community need constant access to certain key information: project goal, set of tasks, the team members' skills and knowledge, required to complete a task, role assigned
^ to each task, changes in the environment, that affect the team or the deliverable, specified q source to get needed information and assistance. Having access to the information listed ^ above is every project team's goal, however it is difficult to achieve in practice as the abil-o ity to access and search content through various applications raises questions about the o necessity to protect content from others' access. Hence, privacy has become a crucial
0 issue as the use and adoption of SM has grown [8].
° Another issue of SM incorporation in PM lays in the existed between groups negative 5 ties which have been presented by Everett and A. Borgatti in negative clique concept > [6]. Thus, we consider this concept crucial for PM that involve using negative cliques □z to guide interventions.
2 Additionally, user low technology literacy and lack of clear process are the common ^ barriers of SM use in PM according to Joseph Guarino [9].
< The researchers underline several key aspects of SMA usage: m • Legal aspect — it is data protection and privacy issues [11];
^ • Ethical challenges — is referring to awareness raising measures of all stakeholders
of an SMA tool, notably of the end users [16]; jE Cultural aspects — languages, written dialects, communication habits between men ^ and women — which we consider as important management reality in nowadays Glob™ al economy.
McKinsey estimates that the economic impact of SM on business could exceed $1 ^ trillion, most of which is gained from more efficient communication and collaboration □i within and across organizations [5].
^ Versus to Rohan Ayyar there is an assumption for the incorporating SMN into enter-
<
1 prise life that employees' activity in SM within their personal time as well as at work is x based on SM leaders' actions:
uj • get vital snippets of information out to audiences fast (Twitter); x • naturally build groups with common interests and synergies (Facebook, Google+); E • spontaneously create space to exchange ideas and opinions (Meatballwiki);
• make information easy to assimilate (YouTube, Vimeo);
• attract interest and support for suggested projects (Kickstarter, Indiegogo). o Note on PM benefits from the use of SMN:
• project visibility and engagement with management and stakeholders;
• shared knowledge and ideas;
• improved organization and deployment of project teams, with more flexibility and productivity;
• faster and more effective collaboration yielding better decisions and higher quality output.
Obviously, the major reason why SM is now so important in successful project team is that it corresponds point by point to today's PM needs.
<
conclusíon
Social media is not a remedy for all problems that project management is confronted with. Therefore, they need to be seen as an addition to the traditional information and communication channels, not as a substitution. Given the fact that the INTERNET and mobile handheld devices are constantly pushing towards omnipresence, the incorporation of new media as an additional channel is only a matter of time, though their use will vary according to available resources, organization types, and other contextual factors (e. c. — cultural or legal background). We would also to note:
I. Source to high performance is the recognition by the team that the success of the team is of primary importance and that this success is based on the individuals openly exchanging knowledge for the benefit of the solution. The relationship between knowl-
edge exchange and trust among the members of the team is crucial. The same applies ^
to the territorial public network or to the whole territorial community g
II. Different social networks have different working models1. Social strategy is specific ^ to different organization according to the business objectives, challenges and corporate o culture. Exclusively, the appropriate network with the right kind of model should be inte- o grated within the existing communications architecture of the project management process o to promote the professional interaction dynamics within project management team. °
III. Social media and Web 2.0 applications have not only become an integral part of 5 everyday life, they also create new possibilities for the advancement of project manage- > ment by the strategic collection and exploitation of information, communication and □= interaction between stakeholders of a project and team members. The use of social 2 media changes business models (e. g. outsourcing) as the technology options are ^ abundant and cost effective. A social project management is not just a project manage- < ment that uses a Facebook page and a Twitter handle, it is — one, which embraces and ^ cultivates a spirit of collaboration and community throughout its organization both in- ^ ternally and externally. ^
IV. As outlined in this paper, the sanctity of a project can be undermined if the inflow, ^ interpretation and outflow of project information is not properly controlled and managed. ^ Thus, social media policy should be followed up by each organization beginning with ™ the establishing a guidelines, much like an Acceptable Use Policy sets of use, which ^ must be concise and clear that explain a clear focus and purpose, IP2 (Copyright and ^ Trademarks, etc.), dealing with confidential and proprietary info, security issues. □=
The social network model for project management outlines an innovative and trans- ^
<
formative approach to enhancing project team performance. The historic approach of
emphasizing a continuing refinement of tasks as a basis for achieving high performance x
teams is not a viable approach to achieving significant performance improvement in uj
projects. Rather, it is time to recognize the key role of individuals within project networks, x
including the communication and trust that is the basis for achieving high performance E
results. The social network model addresses fundamental research questions in the ^
territory development domain through the integration of social science and engineering ^
concepts. o
Social media is not a technology, it is a culture, created, supported and enabled by various technologies and applications that are constantly growing and changing in which people think, act, and communicate in a completely different way. The social networks model demonstrates that new technology combined with a greater understanding of project networks and interdependencies provides a foundation for achieving high performance outcomes as well in a territory development program.
ROi ANALYSiS [18]
Impact of New + Existing Customers
New Customers Total Est. Conv. Customers, $ PV per Customer, $ NPV, $
Visits 75,000 1,875 233 437,500
Context Registrants 25,000 6,000 167 1,000,000
1 While Twitter is founded on a micro-messaging model, Facebook is driven by shares, where content is distributed by users, LinkedIn is configured for professionals with its features wherein the connections take place in a formal environment.
2 IP (internet protocol) — standard which regulates computer connections on networks that make up the Internet (Computers).
o o o
c
o o
Tell A Friend Actions 5,000 2,250 233 525,000
Coupon downloads 10,000 3,325 184 612,500
Store locator clicks 5,000 1,800 278 500,000
Average 615,000
Investment 150,000
ROI* 410%
*ROI Calculation does not account for Word of Mouth (Buzz), PR value, internal recognition and exposure, impact on brand, value of user generated creative.
< —
o
o _
o
<
CL —
o
SM Roi CALCuLATioN [26]
Take a $1 B company:
• Typical production cost 40% ($400M). Save 1% (logistics & procurement) $4M;
• Cost of sales 30% ($300M). Save 5% / increase effectiveness (advocacy) $15M;
• Marketing expenditure 3% ($30M). Save 10% (Social Media) $3M;
• Support cost 10% ($100M). Save 10% (joint support) $10M;
• R&D cost 5% ($50M). Save 5% (co-creation) $2.5M;
• Overhead 5% ($50M);
• Profitability 5% ($50M). Increase 69% (Social Media) $34,500,000 to $84,500,000
SM ROI = M-IC • 100
iC
CM — Contribution Margin; IC — Interaction Cost
Generates $ 4M contribution margin from revenue of $12M. The cost of managing and servicing the communities with teams, technology and other resources is $3M.
SMROI = 4M - fM • 100 = 33%
oiW
ROI — In the project management group
R&D $5,000,000.00
10% Failure rate $500,000.00 $250,000.00
Launch cost $500,000.00 $350,000.00 $600,000.00
Strategy $180,000.00
Systems and tools $25,000.00
Education $20,000.00 $225,000.00
ROI 167%
Preventing product design mistakes by 10% by co-creation through product design community. Reducing product launch cost by $350,000 by joint product launch with advocates, engaged customers and other stakeholders.
some ADoPTioN FACTS ABouT PM AND SoCiAL MEDiA
• 76% of organisations use social media in project management;
• There are more than 123,000 members in Linkedln's Project Manager Networking Group — an increase of 45 percent in the past year;
Nearly 7,000 YouTube videos about project management; E
A rapidly growing member base in other social media outlets such as the Project g
Management Institute's online Communities of Practice, Yahoo's PMP® Best group ^
and Google's PMHUB group. o
References
o o
1. Ayyar, R. (2014) Merging Social with Project Management: What are the Benefits? ^
2. Borgatti, S. P., Brass, D. J., Halgin, D. S. (2014) Social Network Research: Confusions, > Criticisms, and Controversies. http://www.steveborgatti.com/research/publications/ ^
3. Borgatti, S. P., Foster, P. (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: A review 2 and typology. Journal of Management. 29(6): 991-1013. <
4. Chinowsky, P., Diekmann, J., Galotti, V. (2008) Social Network Model of Construction. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management. ASCE. ^
5. Choi A. L., Sun G., Zhang Y., Grandjean P. (2012) Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a sys- < tematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 120: 1362-1368. °
6. Everett, M. G., Borgatti, S. P. (2014) Networks Containing Negative Ties. Social Networks. 38: cc 111-120. http://www.steveborgatti.com/research/publications. h-
7. Gerhard, G. van de Bunt, Rafael, P. M. Wittek, Maurits, C. de Klepper. (2005) The Evolution ^ of Intra-Organizational Trust Networks. The Case of a German Paper Factory: An Empirical Test ™ of Six Trust Mechanisms. Vol. 20 (3): 339-369. CL
8. Gross, R., Acquisti, A. (2005) Information revelation and privacy in online social networks (the 2 Facebook case). In ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. Retrieved December ° 18, 2008, from http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/Zfacebook-gross-acquisti.pdf.
9. Guarino, J. (2000/2003) Social Media for Project Managers. <
10. Hanneman, R. A., Riddle, M. (2005) Introduction to Social Network Methods. University of q California. E
11. Johansson, F., Brynielsson, J., Quijan, M. N. (2012) Estimating citizen alertness in crises us- ^ ing social media monitoring and analysis. IEEE. 189-196. http://foi.se/Global/Our_knowledge/ x Decision_support_system_and_information_fusion/F0I-S--4091--SE.pdf. E
12. Kane, G. C., Labianka, M. A. G., Borgatti S. P. (2013-2014) What's Different About Social ^ Media Networks? A Framework and Research Agenda. 5
13. Kaplan, A. M., Haenlein, M. (2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons. 53, 59-68. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor.
14. Kilduff, M., Brass, D. J. (2010) Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals. 4: 317-357.
15. Kilduff, M., Brass, D. J. (2010) Job design: a social network perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 31: 309-318.
16. Krieger, B., Grubmüller, V. (2012). D 2.6. Legal, Cultural, and Ethical Aspects Report. UniteEurope (Deliverable). Retrieved December 18, 2012, from http://www.uniteeurope.org/images/deliver-ables/UniteEurope_D2.6.pdf.
17. Laad, G., Lewis, G. (2012) Roles of Social Media in Crisis Communication. http://www.gera!-dlewis.com/publications/Role_of_Social_Media_in_Crisis_Communication_Jan_2012_Gitanjali_ Laad.pdf.
18. Latham, S. (2008) Spur Digital. Measuring Value from Social Media.
19. Mehra, A., Borgatti, S. P., Brass, D., Labianca, G. In Press. "The Social Network Perspective". In Stanley D. Brunn (Ed.) Engineering Earth: The Impacts of Megaengineering Projects. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.
20. Monge, P. R., Contractor, N. S. (2003) Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Moreno, J. L. (1934) Who Shall Survive: A New Approach to the Problem of Human Interrelations. 466.
22. Neal, R. (1997) Markov chain Monte Carlo methods based on "slicing" the density function. Technical Report N 9722. Department of Statistics, University of Toronto.
23. Nielsen Social Media Report Q3 (2011). Social Software.
24. O'Reilly, T. (2005) What Is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.
o
^ 25. Rainer, K., Grubmüller, V., Pejic, I., Leitner, P. (2013) Social Media Applications in Crisis o Interaction. Systems. Connecting Matter, Life, Culture and Technology. Volume 1. Issue 1.
° 26. Schultze, A. (2009-2011) Social Media ROI. Social Media Academy.
g 27. Trilog Group Whitepaper (2012). Social Project Management: Engaging the Social Network to o Deliver Project Success.
° 28. Yee Ming Chen, Mi-Yuan Chen. (2010) Social Network Analysis Aided Product Development o Project Management: IC Substrates Case Study. Management Science Letters. http://www. ° GrowingScience.com/msl.
U 29. Why Social Networkers Now Rule Project Management? http://www.business2community.com/ brandviews/getapp/social-networkers-now-rule-project-management.
o _
o
<
CL —
O
