Recipes and Jobs

This week Google introduced a new flavor (sorry about the pun), to its search engine by launching Google Recipe Search.

With Google recipe search, in addition to normal keyword-based searches ('bacon'), supplemental criteria like other ingredients on hand, desired cooking time, and total caloric value of the dish can be indicated using new tools along the left-hand sidebar. The idea being that by allowing the entry of these other critical factors, Google can present more applicable and relevant search results.  How often have you searched for a recipe only to discover that you lack a key ingredient or two, or don't have the time required to complete the cooking process for a certain dish?Blue = 'jobs', Red = 'recipes'

What powers this kind of targeted search is the use of underlying structured data that is built into the web pages that house the recipes themselves, sites like Epicurious and Food Network. These sites are coded to include information like ingredient names, cooking times, and caloric value in structured, defined, and machine readable tags - tags that Google recipe search can find and evaluate when the search is executed.

According to a Wired piece, about one percent of all Google searches are for recipes, so this new advanced recipe search capability makes sense from a user satisfaction perspective, by returning more precise matches based on a more nuanced evaluation of the user's requirements, users are connected with recipes they are more likely going to be satisfied with.

After reading about the new recipe search, I started to think about another frequent subject of Google searches - searches for jobs. We know from both anecdotal evidence and referral analysis that a large percentage of traffic to corporate career sites, job boards and job aggregators results from Google search. Heck, there is an entire cottage industry populated by consultants and companies offering organizations assistance and tools to improve their career sites' position in Google organic search. The importance of having your organization's jobs high on Google searches for your desired keywords is pretty much a given today.

So to me it stands to reason if Google has spent the time to develop a 'vertical' search for recipes, then why not one for jobs? By my crude reckoning, 'jobs' searches are even more common than recipe searches. And 'jobs' searches certainly do lend themselves to the application of more structured search criteria, like required education, salary range, technical skills, and work location among others.

Now I have no way of knowing, nor could I find any information (ironically by 'Googling'), about whether or not a vertical and structured Google search capability for 'jobs' is something Google will develop, but I also would not have thought a vertical for recipes was really all that important either.

But it would not surprise me at all to see the development of a specific 'Google Jobs' search vertical. Google built the recipe search to help users connect more directly and rapidly with the specific recipes that meet their criteria, certainly job searches could use that same kind of utility. And if indeed Google decides to do the same thing for 'jobs', then it may be your organization's time to connect with your SEO consultant/webmaster/ATS vendor - whomever it is you rely upon to keep your job listings up high on today's keyword-based organic search. Will your keyword-heavy, search optimized, micro-landing pages work in a structured search process? 

It makes sense to me that for job seekers that finding the right Google search result for their job requirements and capabilities should be as simple and precise as finding the right bacon, onion, and maple syrup recipe that I can make in under 30 minutes, having less than 500 calories.

That recipe surely exists, no?

Robotic Moments

Tomorrow night on the HR Happy Hour show we will be joined by MIT Professor Sherry Turkle, author of the recent book 'Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other'.

'Alone Together' is almost two separate, but linked works.  Today, I will take a look at the first half of the book called 'The Robotic Moment: In Solitude, New Intimacies', which explores the world of 'social robots'; creations as simple as LED-powered children's Tamagotchi pets, to much more complex robots developed in the MIT Labs and other places, that ostensibly are the pre-cursors to the next (or next-next) generation of robots that will care for children, the elderly, and even provide companionship of a sort for really anyone.

Professor Turkle explores not so much the technical capabilities of the increasingly complex robots, but rather our relationship with them.  The 'Robotic Moment' has nothing at all to do with feats like IBM's Watson playing (and at the moment), defeating human competitors at Jeopardy!; instead is has everything to do with our willingness to accept and perhaps compete for the attention of and connection to these social robots.

Professor Turkle describes studies conducted at MIT with advanced social robots named Cog and Kismet; robots that were capable of engaging in simple conversation, that would respond to verbal and non-verbal cues, and perhaps most importantly would seek out people in the room, make eye contact, and demonstrate what to many of the study participants felt like 'caring' behaviors. And that, is the key, the Robotic Moment.  When we think robots can move beyond simply performing according to their programming, and acting in caring and nurturing ways.

But we are misguided in these beliefs. Even the most advances, lifelike, and realistic social robots can't truly 'care' about us.  But as Professor Turkle details in the book, that may still be acceptable for many. She recounts numerous stories from her research of Grandmothers ignoring their grandchildren to attend to a robot 'Real Baby's' needs, elderly nursing home residents accepting robot baby seal-like creatures as companions, and even the developers and programmers of the most advanced robots seemingly conflicted about the true nature of their creations.

A book about robots, and the wonderful things they can do, is not really all that interesting, pehaps only from an engineering perspective.  But an examination of what the increasing development and more complex and nuanced relationships that we have with these social robots, and what it might suggest about ourselves is fascinating.

Do we want to develop better and more capable social robots as babysitters or elder care companions simply because those are the kinds of jobs that we no longer value highly enough to staff with people? And do children and the elderly seem willing to accept these robots, while (mostly) aware of their shortcomings as 'good enough' substitutes for parents and adult children that are often too burdened, too busy, and too distracted to devote the time and attention needed?

And if (or perhaps when), robots do become more a part of our cycle of life - as babysitters, assistants, emotional companions, and elder care givers, what does that say about us, and about our conception and definition of emotional connection?  When robots make the progression from 'Better than nothing', insofar as they serve as stand-ins for roles that people no longer can or want to perform;  to 'Better than Anything', preferred over humans as companions and care givers, then the Professor argues we are on the precipice of a dramatic slide. The robots are smart, they 'know' that we want to nurture them, and that we come to love the things we nurture, and nurture the things we love.

But can we really 'love' a robot?

Tomorrow, I will take a look at the second half of 'Alone Together', called Networked: In Intimacy, New Solitudes', which focuses on the always on, always connected world of social networks and virtual worlds. 

What is the connection between robots and social networks? Think it is sort of crazy to think you could ever love a robot?

How do you feel about your smartphone?

You've got mail, you know Email

The marketing research firm comScore recently released its 2010 US Digital Year in Review report that measures and analyzes trends in digital communications, social networking, device usage, and so on.  The report is a fascinating examination of the forces that are shaping and changing the way we consume, share, and even produce content and information.  

There are a ton of interesting charts and data points in the 2010 report, and several that are/should be interesting and important for leaders of organizations and HR professionals that have an eye towards how people demonstrate their preferences and inclinations in the consumption and interactions with digital content.  One of the most notable findings in the comScore report has to do with the changes in the usage of Web-based email (Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, and so on) in 2010.  Despite an overall increases in broadband access and total time spent online, web-based email usage actually declined 8% in 2010.

See the chart below from the comScore report:

Most notable in the results are the really dramatic declines in web-based email usage in the 12-17, and 25-34 age brackets, while the 18- 24 cohort was essentially flat in 2010. The only age groups that showed an increase in web-based email usage in 2010 were the 55 years and up groups, largely rationalized with explanations like 'C'mon Grandpa, get an email account so we can keep in touch'. For what it's worth, these same age groups also saw double digit percentage increases in their use of Facebook and Twitter.  Essentially, these older folks are getting online in greater numbers, and more or less doing the same things their kids have grown accustomed to.

What might this trend in decreased preference for web-based email as a method of communication by younger generations mean for the present and future workforce?

Well, it could mean nothing I suppose.  Or next to nothing. I mean once those 15 year olds grow up a bit and start entering the working world they will simply be forced to use email. I mean, email makes the working world go around, right?  Besides, you are the boss, not them, and if you declare that 99% of your electronic communications will be emails, then by golly that is the end of the discussion. Get with the program, Junior, just go easy on the 'Reply to all' button.

Or these macro trends in technology consumption, particularly by the upcoming generations of workers could be really important to the organization tomorrow, (maybe even sooner than you think).  Some would argue that the growing popularity and adoption of SMS text messages and social network status updates and connections as the de facto means of digital communication for a generation may and will inevitably change modern business.

The data continue to reflect shifts from the more formal and traditional means of electronic communication (email, voice mail), to more social, casual, and dynamic ones (SMS, social networks). The next set of new workers to join your organization will most likely see nothing at all unusual about sending hundreds of SMS messages a day, and looking over their Facebook news feed while brushing their teeth. 

What they are not as likely to understand, accept, and flourish in, is an environment where they might get 200 emails per day.  Emails are kind of long, mostly kind of boring, and usually have things like 'greetings' and 'salutations'.

Come to think of it, you may need to update the old acceptable use policy, to explain what a 'salutation' is, the next generation probably never heard of the term, and even Grandma is getting sick of crafting them as well.

It's a brave, strange new world out there. 

Postscipt - after finishing this post, I saw this piece on ReadWriteWeb - Smartphones outsell PCs for the first time ever. Stay thirsty my friends.

Balance or Separation?

According to this Reuters story, a new  BlackBerry Application called 'Balance' that is designed to support a virtual segregation of 'official' corporate data and email from a user's personal data and applications, is expected to be released in the North American market in the next few months.

The idea behind 'Balance' seems to be BlackBerry's realization that many of their corporate users also purchase and utilize a second, personal smartphone, often an iPhone or Droid, partially for the more robust application ecosystem, but also due to a sense that their trusty BlackBerry is a 'work' device, and it seems best to keep their Facebooking, Tweeting, and texting activities completely separate from 'real work' done on the BlackBerry.

From the Reuters piece on Balance:

RIM's solution is software called BlackBerry Balance, which will allow corporate IT departments to retain control over data such as business-related email sent via a BlackBerry Enterprise Server, or BES, while keeping the Web browser and an employee's social networking and photographs separate

Employees are normally and traditionally inclined to keep their personal activities personal, and enterprise IT and Information Security professionals are probably happy with that kind of separation as well. Confidentiality, control, encryption - these are the core objectives of the IT staff.  Privacy, freedom, and demarcation - these are the motivations of the employees that elect to carry both a work smartphone and a separate device for personal use.

So when viewed in that light, 'Balance' seems like a win-win. Corporate IT gets the assurance that the company issued BlackBerry applications and data are kept separate, secure, and distinct from whatever personal shenanigans are going on over on the other side of the smartphone. Facebook status updates, the odd Tweet, pictures from the weekend - they all stay safely on their side of the wall, not to impact or harm the important business of work happening on the company side.

The BlackBerry, equipped with Balance becomes a handheld version of 'Good Cop/Bad Cop', or a high tech manifestation of the old angel on one shoulder, devil on the other shoulder gag.

It is a cool idea, and likely one that will make corporate IT happy, as well as any employee that suddenly feels emboldened to drop that second, personal device and maybe save a few bucks (as well as some pocket or purse space).

But looking at 'Balance' from a different perspective, I wonder if it really is an application that supports the attitudes and expectations of a rapidly retreating age. In the Work/Life arena the professionals I know that are most engaged and invested in these kinds of issues almost universally loathe the term 'balance' when it is introduced to these discussions. They prefer terms like 'fit' or 'flow'.  The idea being that 'balance' implies and suggests a constant give and take, one side always fighting against the other, always at odds as work and life, corporate and personal fight for attention.

More progressive and modern approaches to the debate, and seemingly the preferred approach of more and more younger workers, is that corporate and personal activities and networks naturally flow more freely, and blend more readily.  Many would not think twice about asking their Facebook friends or Twitter followers for advice or guidance about a work-related matter.  Why should their access to and ability to leverage their communities be partitioned and segregated either physically or virtually?

In fact, why would any smart and evolved organization place barriers or walls around their people, whether these walls are real or programmed into the cold memory board of their corporate BlackBerries?

On balance, 'Balance' seems to be a product that will deliver functionality that many organizations will say they want, but I wonder if it is capability that they really need.

Conversation and Being Liked at Work

Last week the popular enterprise microblogging service Yammer, released a new set of features under the name 'Leaderboards'.  With the new 'Leaderboards' capability, organizations that have deployed Yammer to support internal sharing and collaboration will now be able to gain additional insights into what conversations and topics are generating the most activity and interest, which employees are the most engaged on the Yammer platform, and how other employees value and respond to topics and each other.

Some of the metrics that the new feature will provide include:

• Most Liked Members: Top 10 users whose messages have received the most ‘Likes’
• Most Replied to Members: Top 10 users whose messages have received the most replies
• Members with the Most Posts: Top 10 users with the most public messages posted
• Most Replied to Threads: Top 10 threads with the most replies
• Threads with the Most Participants: Top ten threads with the most participants

A screenshot of the 'Leaderboards' feature is below:

The Leaderboard offers a small, but important step for organizations that have deployed Yammer as an internal messaging and conversation platform. Having a better view into which employees are most active and 'liked', which employees consistently and effectively engage the community with topics and updates that generate interest and dialogue, and what general subjects and conversations drive the most overall response rates across the entire organization, can provide organizational knowledge and insights into the pulse of the enterprise; and the kind of understanding the is often difficult to discern, particularly in large or dispersed organizations.

Looking at active and popular network participants and assessing what topics and conversation threads generate the most activity are valuable inputs that can lead to potential improvements in organizational design, workforce planning and deployment, and even with creation and execution of business strategies.

What users generate the most engagement? Perhaps their roles in the organization may need to be reviewed and enhanced?  Or more likely, the enterprise many need to make sure adequate succession plans exist for these drivers of network engagement?

What topics launch the most conversation?  It could be that senior management needs to do a better job articulating their messaging around these topics, or perhaps more attention needs to be paid to a particular popular or recurring theme.

It used to be that managers and leaders could try and sort out what was really going on at work by hanging out in the lunch room, or the watercooler, or the local bar at Happy Hour. Today though, many of the other informal and serendipitous meetings are taking place virtually, in places like Instant Messaging chats and increasingly, enterprise collaboration networks like Yammer.

Still for many managers and leaders, the value of a platform like Yammer may be hard to quantify, but with the development of tools like the Leaderboard, the 'sell' to these decision makers will continue to get easier. Knowing which employees are most engaged, who is capturing the interest of the most of their colleagues, and what conversations and topics are most resonant with the workforce is the kind of insight that can be incredibly difficult for management to gain.

Even if they spend a lot of time hanging around the lunch room and watercooler.

Of course cynics might say that once employees catch on the the metrics that drive the Leaderboard that they will try to find ways to artificially 'game' the system, to raise their profile and position, but in an online platform, with 100% visibility and attribution of comments and activity, it seems like any reasonably healthy community would sniff that out and put a stop to it rather quickly.

Do you use Yammer, or another similar internal microblogging too?  

Would this kind of insight into network activity help your organization?