Wandren PD; considering online networks

The current vogue in many practitioner organisations is for developing networks as part of their public diplomacy activity. After surveying the technological landscape and their options online, some organisations may seek to continue this network building in virtual worlds and social spaces. This presents a vast array of options – as such it requires an organisation to be clear on certain aspects of the programme and poses certain questions about working online.

Last week’s panel on Technology and Public Diplomacy during the symposium on Transformational Public Diplomacy; Shaping the Future of International Relations, provided an opportunity to discuss various questions about online engagement. This is a written up version of the notes I used.

Things about which to be clear:

1) The organisation should be clear what type of network it is building.

This means considering whether the network is centralised around the organisation (which creates the platform for engagement amongst network members in a walled garden). Alternatively it may take the form of decentralised or distributed / dispersed networks. Graphic representation of these networks can be found in On Distributed Communications published by RAND in 1964 (page 2)

Each type of network has specific characteristics which would need to be considered.

2) The organisation building the network needs to be clear why the potential participants or target audience are using particular online platforms and social spaces if it seeks to begin building a space in which it intends to develop a network.

For example, the organisation needs to be particularly clear what role cutting edge technology and coordination games are playing in the choice of platform or social space. There’s little point creating a social space with cutting edge technology if coordination games are already causing the participants to shun equally technologically advanced spaces, in favour of their chosen environment. The reverse is equally true; if users, particularly early adopters, will rapidly migrate from social space to social space in search of the latest tech, building a space based on 6 month old tech is unlikely to attract them. This needs to be established during product design.

3) An organisation probably needs to consider whether it is seeking to build a network through a single online platform / social space or whether it is going to adopt a multi-platform approach.

A single platform may be easier to conceive and plan, but a multi-platform approach has a stronger chance of engaging with individuals in the way the want to be engaged – and in the spaces which coordination games lead them to frequent.

Questions to consider:

1) If working online does the organisation need to revise its targeting criteria from that used in the physical world? Does for example, occupation or place of birth of equal importance in online network building?

2) Is network building online, intended to contact the same people in a new way or about engaging different participants?

3) Do we need to stop using the traditional ‘hierarchical’ language when considering online engagement?

i) Authority within online and social spaces does not necessarily come from position in the physical world. In most instances it has to be earned online. Many also equate high numbers (whether of views or of links) to demonstrating value or ‘authority’. Technorati’s measure of ‘authority‘ is a good example;

Technorati Authority is the number of blogs linking to a website in the last six months. The higher the number, the more Technorati Authority the blog has.

This measure is distinct from the authority which traditional diplomats may be used to, and may require a mental shift when engaging in working online.

ii) To realise the true power of a distributed network online, an international actor must give up the image of hierarchical position so ingrained in the methodology of the traditional diplomat.

Some of these comments may seem an uncomfortable prospect for those not necessarily accustomed to using the technology and who do not necessarily understand the cultural or social expectations of the various social spaces. However, the good news is that within the organisation there’s likely to be members (probably in more junior positions) who already use this technology in their private life. One challenge is how to empower these individuals to make that knowledge part of their work life.

Attempts to achieve this may have to start by allowing or even encouraging the use of social spaces in work time.