Knowledge Communities

May 2, 2013 By eJP

Why Do So Many Online Communities Fail?

by Naava Frank

The good news is that technology has created unprecedented opportunities for people to meet like-minded peers to learn, collaborate and support each other. The bad news is that so many of these well-meaning and inspiring projects that have enormous potential to help people and strengthen causes, are failing. Not just in the Jewish community, throughout the nonprofit world, hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least) have been spent over the past decade on designing systems that ended up not being utilized. I don’t mean to point a finger – my guess is most of us have participated in, dreamed of, sponsored, or funded one of these projects. And there is no simple answer to explain what went wrong. What I would like to present today is a way of thinking that in my experience has helped communities succeed.

The idea is that when we focus on building a technology infrastructure, we often neglect to build an accompanying relationship infrastructure. The word community can be defined as “a group of people with a common background or with shared interests within society.” Those interests may be shared geography, affiliation, values, purpose, enemies or problems.

When you bring a group of strangers or acquaintances together for a gathering, a party, you don’t expect them to suddenly bond, reveal their secrets or foibles, or become best friends. So why do we expect that if we build a website or community platform which is even more remote than an in person gathering, people will jump in and participate? An online space has fewer social clues such as age, clothing, body language or accent than a face-to-face gathering. When we go online the only social clues we usually get are an email address or name, and if we are lucky a small image of the person. We all know how resistant we are to completing the profile section of online social platforms, even though it would help a lot.

So what would you do if you were a host or hostess at a cocktail party? You would circulate and get to know people, introduce people to each other that have shared interests, maybe set up some games or some interesting conversation pieces. You might encourage a few of the more gregarious folks to help make people feel comfortable. There might be some people you would not invite because they cause trouble.

In order to make online communities successful we need to pay attention to the relationships not just the technology infrastructure. We need to help people find each other and connect around shared interests.

What does relationship infrastructure consist of? Roles, protocols, norms, expectations, motivations, mission and purpose and other social structures. (Think about Daniel Pink’s work on motivation.) Note I said motivation – not incentives – research has demonstrated that incentives are only good for simple tasks not for complex knowledge based tasks. So let me be concrete about what relationship infrastructure looks like:

This past week I was working with the Helen Keller National Center – they are just finishing up a platform for a national community of practice that includes representative from 50 states. They want to introduce the platform to their 20 staff members. We talked about the usual approach – a technology training – letting staff get in the site and press buttons. The focus was on technology. Then we asked ourselves, how can we do this in a way that develops relationships – both relationships between people and relationships to the mission of the organization? We came up with the following protocol.

• We paired people up – intentionally thinking about who might benefit from doing this work together – make sure someone who is technology averse is paired with someone who is technologically comfortable. Maybe pair people who work on the same team? Or maybe pair people across teams?
• We sent them into the platform with an assignment. While they are in the site and “kick the tires” we helped them imagine what it would be like driving the car. We gave them some guiding questions to think about.
• Name 3 ways this platform can help you forward your mission.
• Name 2 technology improvements you would like to see for this platform.
• Name 1 surprise from this experience.
• We asked everyone to post these responses in the site so that others can see how their peers respond to the experience. (Thereby giving them another opportunity to get to know others – by reading their responses.)

Relationship infrastructures have to be carefully matched to the culture of the community, stage of development of the community (how well do people know each other) and many other factors. Just like technology may need to be revisited and upgraded, the relationship infrastructure needs to be revisited and changed as the community changes.

So next time you think about designing a technology platform for a community – don’t forget to take the time and effort and get the expertise you need to build the accompanying relationship infrastructure that will ensure the success of your investment.

Naava Frank, EdD, is a consultant and researcher focused on the impact of communities of practice and networks. She can be reached at naavafrank1@gmail or knowledgecommunities.blogspot.com

1. Jonah Gabriel Rank saysMay 2, 2013 at 4:17 pmBrilliant and thoughtful piece! Thanks for writing this, Naava!
2. Kevin Martone saysMay 2, 2013 at 4:54 pmNaava-Thanks for posting this. Great insight to think through the relationships at the outset and actually have people connect in the physical world and in the community to start building relationships immediately.Where possible, connecting at in person get-togethers (or online video calls with a subset of participants?) with the launch of a community could also help connect people in constructive ways.Kevin
3. Miriam Brosseau saysMay 2, 2013 at 5:19 pmSo simple and so poignant and so important. Love it; thank you, Naava.I think we all need to remember that social platforms – however shiny, however cool – are just trying to catch up with the depth and nuance of real human relationships (think of Google Plus introducing Circles to better reflect the way we think about the different groups of people in our lives, or Twitter not requiring a “mutual follow” because not every relationship is equal in the real world – why would they be online?). So we need to teach the tech, yes. But it’s even more important to learn how to bring the humanity into that technology, and not confuse/conflate tools and strategy.
4. Rabbi Hayim Herring saysMay 2, 2013 at 6:24 pmThanks for the lucid reminder that it’s more important to be enamored of people than technology if we want to build online communities. Especially appreciate the concrete example of how you provided an experience of how technology could serve the needs of individuals.
5. Jennifer Weinstock saysMay 2, 2013 at 8:20 pmNaava-You make such excellent points. As a Community of Practice facilitator for development professionals I tried to make sure we had at least one annual face-to-face meeting. After the opportunity to build personal relationships we were much more likely to maximize our virtual ones!
6. Dave Neil saysMay 2, 2013 at 10:25 pmNaava,Thank you for such a wonderful article- so on target and so helpful!
   When building websites which aim to create community, rally people to a particular cause or help professionals in the same fields connect you really hit the nail on the head- the difference between success and failure will often amount to how much time is developed in helping to foster the relationships behind the scenes- in real time phone follow-up conversations etc. to help real people connect to one another… that is the way these websites which aim to accomplish so much will be successful and without that behind the scenes personal investments- many of them will fail. I’m really glad you brought this to light as one of the most effective benefits for improving Jewish education both formal and informal- is encouraging teachers and informal educators to share their best practices… but the lesson applies to any other area in the professional world where best practices can be shared by collegues.
7. Naava Frank saysMay 2, 2013 at 10:39 pmSo glad this was helpful and appreciate all the wisdom added by each of the comments. In the Kehilliyot CoP funded by Covenant Foundation we asked for volunteers to be welcoming buddies. Whenever someone joined the community they received an email welcome with someone offering to help them get comfortable. At a well-planned party, we would expect to have someone greet us, take our coat or show us where to put it, point out the drinks the restroom. We talk about doing that for members at congregations. And we can all use that same wisdom online. Look forward to continuing our learning together.

Learn how to Unlock the Power of Your Networks on this podcast as guest expert Naava Frank is interviewed by David Shriner-Cahn.

http://tendstrategicpartners.com/episode-395/

We discuss:

• How to understand the value of a network
• Where you can see networks in action, sometimes in unexpected places
• How networks can be formal or informal
• Why it’s important to be part of diverse networks
• How to build your networks strategically and intentionally: See your network, Know your network, Follow the golden rule, Connect your network
• Why you should reach out to your network

 

Engaging your network is a very powerful and cost-effective long-term strategy that can have a major impact on your organization. Having been a network weaver and coached network weavers for almost two decades, I have seen many organizations succeed and a fair number fail.

You may be asking: Where and how should I get started? What kind of investments do we need to make? What are best practices for success?

Below is a free assessment tool that can help you make the important strategic decisions about how to get started or move your network to the next level.

Click here to complete the assessment tool

Your network will love you for it!

Originally posted: Sunday, August 25, 2013

From the Jim Joseph Foundation Website.

“Please find linked here a groundbreaking piece of research entitled “Jewish Virtual Learning Networks: A mapping of online ‘Communities of Practice’ in the North American Jewish institutional world”. This work, led by Bar Ilan University’s Dr. Erik Cohen, is dedicated in the memory of the remarkable Jack Slomovic.”  Jewish Virtual Learning Networks dedicated to Jack Slomovic

Data Isn’t a Four-Letter Word: Measuring Your Impact (4 Sessions)

Taught by Naava Frank and Laura Shefter

This four-part learning lab will take you through the process of data collection, from start to finish, equipping you with the knowledge and tools you can use to measure the impact of experiential education in your organization. Each session includes practical tools and worksheets, as well as resources from the Schusterman Data Playbook by Rella Kaplowitz. The learning lab will teach you about each of the four stages of measurement: determining your goals, collecting data, analysis, and communicating results. Together, we will apply these steps to measuring experiential education outcomes. As part of this lab, you can engage in your own data collection practice to apply your newly acquired skills and tools, with the support and feedback of a hevruta partner. Finally, you will learn important concepts, terms, and questions that will empower you to become a critical consumer of data. Upon completion of this lab, participants will receive a certificate of completion in “Using Data to Measure Impact.”

Naava Frank

 Naava Frank, Ed.D. is Founder and Director of Naava Frank, LLC. Naava consults to foundations and non-profit organizations on networks, professional development, and using data to be proactive and measure outcomes. Naava is a nationally recognized expert in the use of communities of practice and networks in the Jewish community. Naava holds an Ed.D. from Harvard Graduate School of Education and a B.A. from Barnard College/Columbia University.

Laura Shefter

Laura Shefter is an Ed.D. candidate at the William Davidson School of Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary where she studies professional identity and professional development. She focuses on experiential education and has a background in Hillel work. Recently, Laura served as a coach for summer camp inclusion professionals who were doing action research. Laura has a B.A. from the University of Toronto, where she is originally from.

The Experiential Jewish Education Network

The Experiential Jewish Education Network, funded by the Jim Joseph Foundation, currently serves the 200+ graduates of the four experiential Jewish education connected programs launched under the Jim Joseph Foundation Education Initiative at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, The Davidson School of the Jewish Theological Seminary and Yeshiva University.

The Experiential Jewish Education Network strengthens the professional knowledge, skills, connections and leadership capability of experiential Jewish educators, increasing success, innovation, collaboration and engagement in the Jewish community.

Follow-Up

For more information about the Experiential Jewish Education Network contact Micol Zimmerman

To sponsor a webinar series or sign up to participate in a webinar series contact Naava Frank

Testimonial: “I am already supremely impressed with the level of professionalism this offering is providing.”

Read the EJE Learning Lab Report Final – Naava Frank LLC .

Advisory Committee
Thank you to our Advisory Committee: Dr. David Bryfman, Deborah Grayson Riegel, and Rella Kaplowitz for their feedback, guidance, and support.
Thank you to Pearl Beck for being a project mentor. Our appreciation to Mark Young and Dr. Jeffrey Kress of The Jewish Theological Seminary for their encouragement and expertise. Our gratitude to the Jewish Evaluation Network of UJA Federation of New York.

I had the pleasure and honor to attend the Pardes Center for Jewish Educators – Teaching Tanakh in Jewish Day Schools Conference on Nov 13-15, 2016 at Pearlstone Retreat Center. 

I was asked to facilitate a 3-part collaboration track for teachers of Tanach. Our goal was to explore how collaboration with colleagues could improve the teaching and learning of Tanach in Jewish day schools.

Our working definition of collaboration for these sessions was:

1.  Deep, rich and ongoing back and forth exchange of ideas.
2.  Generates new options.
3. Includes the possibility that you will be changed by it.
4. Takes place with other adult colleagues*

We explored three guiding questions:

1. Why collaborate? With whom?
2. How can you take your collaboration to the next level?  What will it take to create a shared culture within your institution to enable effective collaboration? Are there tools that can be helpful?
3. What role can collaboration play in achieving your own professional goals once you leave the conference?

In preparing for the event I was inspired by an article I read in the Hayidion Fall, 2016 issue, devoted to the subject of collaboration.  The article titled “Dialogue Across Difference: The Power of Collaboration When Colleagues Disagree” by Lauren Applebaum and Sivan Zakai advocates for the benefits of collaboration between professionals who do not necessarily have shared perspectives.

Applebaum and Zakai use the metaphor of a mirror to describe the outcomes of collaboration with like-minded colleagues and a microscope to describe the outcomes of collaboration with diverse colleague. We are naturally drawn to colleagues who are like us.  Collaborating with a colleague with whom you share perspectives and values is both useful and important and provides a mirror to see your work more clearly.  For example, you may both be committed to supporting students’ development of textual skills and can share and compare assessments and student outcomes.

However, Applebaum and Zakai point out that there are many assumptions not tested and questions not asked when working with someone who mirrors your perspectives.  Collaborating with a colleague who does not share your beliefs and values is more challenging — which has both positive and negative implications.  For example, if you are collaborating with someone whose focus is helping students make personal meaning from Tanach, and your focus is the development of textual skills, it is more difficult at first to understand each other’s work.

Nonetheless, the challenge of being understood by someone who is different also encourages you to dig deeper, think harder and examine questions you might not otherwise consider.  The metaphor of a microscope points to the details that become visible and open for examination when you collaborate with someone who holds different assumptions.  Research shows that unlike pairs produce new thinking that is stronger, richer and more innovative.  In the case of teacher collaboration, the result of collaborating with more diverse colleagues can be the ability to successfully reach more diverse students.

I developed and then piloted this Setting the Table for Collaboration Tool at the Pardes Tanach Conference. The tool engages teachers in exploring assumptions about working with colleagues who have different perspectives. It could be used in schools at the beginning of a collaboration as part of a conversation about norms. Taking the time to discuss and agree upon norms can establish an environment and culture that is safe, respectful and welcoming to all perspectives. The result of fostering a rigorous and productive collaboration culture is sure to maximize the learning outcomes for teachers and students alike.

Please click here to download the Setting the Table for Collaboration Tool along with instructions for how to use it.  Find yourself a collaborative partner and give it a try. Feel free to share the experience and tools with others.

Read more about norm development from the National Staff Development Council.

I am grateful to the Pardes Center for Jewish Educators, authors of the article, Lauren Applebaum and Sivan Zakai, Prizmah‘s Hayedion, and Suri Jacknis of The Jewish Education Project.

*While there is much to say about collaboration with and between students, that was not the focus of this series of sessions.