• « I am not sure whether this is due to the fact that most of these Enterprise Social Software offerings have been designed and developed in the US, where we all know privacy and security may not be as tight and strict (Probably to the extreme!) as they are in other European countries or whether this is due to the fact that most vendors may well think that since they are developing social software tools for behind the firewall so both privacy and security are not really of a primary concern to them€¦ »

    tags: socialsoftware, privacy, security

    • How inaccurate! If privacy and security need to be taken into account for any software vendor it is actually essential that those two aspects are being taken well into account if that social software tools suite is meant for internal collaboration. If not, have a wander around in countries like Germany, Austria, Italy, Denmark, France, Spain, etc. etc. where an oversight on these two important topics can be rather costly. For both employers and knowledge workers.
    • So I am hoping that those of us who will be at the Enterprise 2.0 conference will use that opportunity, once again, to challenge, and make rather uncomfortable, those specific vendors who we feel are letting us down not confronting these issues, just because they think organisms like the EU and various other countries are not important enough.
  • « Seen in that light, the rise of Enterprise 2.0 is not some newfangled revolution, but a kind of return to our roots in the digital age. The mechanism for this is social computing. But what we’re really talking about is human computing.

    It takes more than software to humanize the modern digital workplace. Enterprises need to cultivate a culture of participation, and that’s no simple task. You can turn to myriad consultancies and other sources of advice to help you here.

    What can get lost in this effort is developing an architecture of participation. Most vendors offer social computing as discrete applications or proprietary add-ons to existing enterprise applications. Some of these tools are quite good but work only as freestanding or one-off systems, requiring employees to leave their existing flow of work to access them. A more durable enterprise architecture looks at social computing as a set of services rather than a set of application »

    tags: socialasaservice, socialsoftware, collaboration, technology, socialcomputing, silos

    • The advent of social silos is all the more frustrating because, as these applications serve many different business purposes, they typically share many functional services in common. Commenting, tagging, individual profiles, activity streams, content ranking and rating facilities, and various other services are ubiquitous across these tools. But in almost every case, competing tools don’t talk to each other.
  • « The Aggregation methods on the other hand describe how these decisions are made or this work executed: Independent, Autonomous, Consensus, Deliberative, and Combative. These again are alternatives to each other to create results.

    Very briefly:

    * Independent€”Members work on the task separately, but the results are aggregated across all members
    * Autonomous€”Members work on the task separately of each other, and their results are distinctly visible to other members as separate work.
    * Consensus€”A group of members works directly together on the task with the intent to deliver an overall collective result, even if it’s not unanimous or convergent.
    * Deliberative€”A group of members works directly together without the intent or necessity of coming to a consensus on a single result.
    * Combative€”Members must compete against each other to derive the best result from the group, denying other choices. »

    tags: leadership, decisionmaking, decision

  • « So why don’t we collaborate more then? Specially, using this next generation of collaboration and knowledge sharing tools (You can see how right here, using such terms, you have a great opportunity to escape the Enterprise 2.0 hyped term, too! 🙂 heh). What is it that is stopping us all from collaborating and sharing our knowledge with other knowledge workers? I am sure if I would go ahead and ask you that question, you would probably venture into sharing along a whole bunch of different reasons as to why people don’t collaborate. Feel free to chime in through the comments adding those various reasons. For now, though, I will share with you briefly what I think are the top 3 most damaging reasons that prevent people from collaborating effectively: « 

    tags: collaboration, performance, community

    • Recognising Individual Performance vs. Team / Community Performance:
    • Lack of long term vision
    • And, finally, lack of education
  • « At the core of this discussion is this essential question: Can social tools reach the “hard numbers” part of a business enough to make a real difference?

    This is a key point: Despite growing evidence, which I’ve presented here and elsewhere, there still remains for many people a real question about the overall ability of social software to improve how organizations get things done. It doesn’t help that €˜performance€˜ itself is a loaded word that is shorthand for a wide variety of measures including improved efficiency, innovation, financial results, customer satisfaction, and many other metrics. Thus, even when good data is available, one person’s vital performance measure is often another person’s irrelevant statistic. »

    tags: Enterprise2.0, performance, ROI, metrics

    • However, in my experience, most organizations don’t calculate ROI regularly after a project has been funded, but that may change with Enterprise 2.0 given that CIOs are actually continuing to tighten their reign on social networks.
    • There is still not enough objective evidence that key business performance metrics are directly improved by social software deployments.
    • is a concentration on developing solutions to achieve specific business objectives. When you have tool myopia, it sometimes seems like every business problem looks like a nail for your particular software hammer.
    • it’s becoming clear that for it to drive better business performance, we’re going to have to get to the second wave, and probably the third, before real business performance is achieved. And we’re going to have to put the primary focus on how we meet business objectives, instead of on the tools themselves.
  • « But all of this isn’t merely an exasperated rant €“ rather it’s a cry to think about culture, not technology. All the microblogging, collaboration, e-this, i-that and mobile everything else technology in the world is of little effect if the people within the organization have a culture that doesn’t encourage responsiveness, dialogue and open-communications. So please people €“ focus on the system, not the technology€¦. »

    tags: culture, collaboration, processes, systems, technology

  • « Imagine that you are a unit manager in an organisation, and your CEO comes to you and says: “We need to be more innovative €“ you’re in charge of making that happen.” What’s the first thing you should start thinking about?

    In many cases, people in this situation go out to find tools that will help their organisation improve innovation. They set up communities of practice, or they buy a big software package designed to capture ideas, or they investigate technologies that support the innovation process. In other words, they try to figure out which tools they need to do the job.

    This is wrong. »

    tags: innovation, processes, strategy, execution

    • When you’re trying to improve innovation, the first thing to consider is people. Who should be involved in our innovation processes?
    • Once you’ve thought about people, then you need to think about innovation process. Innovation is not simply coming up with novel connections between ideas €“ that’s just the first step in a three-stage process. In addition to generating ideas, you need a system for selecting and developing the most promising ones, and once you have them working, you need to be able to get the ideas to spread so that people adopt your innovations.

  • « So here’s a simple message to understand and act upon: businesses that can harness that essential change will outcompete their rivals because they will be able to react much faster while operating with much lower costs.

    This was brought home to me when I had a preview of the new Chatter-enabled FinancialForce.com €” an accounting application that incorporates Salesforce.com’s Twitter-like notifications stream €” ahead of its announcement last week [disclosure: Salesforce.com is a recent consulting client]. In fact, the vendor has gone further than simply Chatter-enabling its application (easy enough, as it is built on Salesforce’s Force.com platform, which incorporates Chatter). It has released an application called Chatterbox, which can be used to build rules to initiate a Chatter stream around any Salesforce or Force.com object.  »

    tags: salesforce, chatterbox, chatter, financialforce, activityspecificsocialapplications, reactivity

  • tags: defense, enterprise, socialmedia, socialsoftware, pentagon, government2.0, enterprise2.0

  • «  »Best Practices » are the worst thing you can apply to any kind of knowledge work. Any kind. Social Computing is no different! More than anything else because best practices will always suggest concepts like static, fixed, inalterable, unmodified, unbeatable, perfect. And, as you can imagine, those are the kind of characteristics that would be rather the opposite to what knowledge is all about and the capturing of some of it; knowledge is supposed to be dynamic, flexible, malleable, modifiable, flowing, a continuous learning experience, imperfect. Always leaving room to improve the already existing knowledge by acquiring plenty more! »

    tags: knowledge, knowledgeworkers

  • « Barely Repeatable Processes (BRPs) is where at least 60% of the world’s value creation takes place, and in those processes about 65% of the time and resources are spent on manually running the processes and not on value creation.

    This means that we, World Wide, spend 40% of all resources and time on things that are basically a waste and that could be automated. Or to put it in other words, by automating the BRP flows we could increase World Wide GDP by 67%. Value damned well needed as it could mean much suffering wiped out and much less limited resource use, but now wasted due to old habits and unwillingness to face reality. Just like in 2007.

     »

    tags: brp, value, automation, enterprisesocialsoftware

  • « Mayo Clinic, which has a campus in Jacksonville, has come a long way in just a few years, since adding a Facebook page with more than 3,000 friends, a YouTube channel with videos of doctors talking about illness, treatments and research, a health blog for consumers and another for media to improve the process of medical reporting. It’s also creating “secret groups” on Facebook to connect patients to others with similar illnesses, an area it hopes to expand in the future. »

    tags: health, health2.0, socialnetworking, healthcare, mayoclinic, medscape

  • « This is a transcript from Gary Hamel video on management innovation. The author of Future of Management presents his Maslow pyramid describing the hierarchy of human capabilities within a work environment.

    There are 6 levels of engagement and human capabilities in the work space :

    1. Obedience : show up, do the job
    2. Diligence : work hard, stay focus, long hours etc €¦
    3. Intellect : taking responsibility for their own skills, bring best practices to the work place
    4. Initiative : taking ownership for a problem, an opportunity before you ask them, not bound by a definition of their job
    5. Human creativity : brought by people who would ask how to do this in a fundamental different way ? What is there to learn from other industries ? Where are the chances for radical innovation in this product/service ?
    6. Passion and zeal : for whom their job is not only intellectually meaningful it is indeed spiritualy meaningful to them. Enormous meaning comes out of their work. »

    tags: garyhamel, innovation, humancapabilities, employeesengagement

  • « The Pew report states that a majority of Millennials « say that the older generation is superior to the younger generation when it comes to moral values and work ethic. » The phone survey conducted for the report found that Millennials are the only generation to not list work ethic as a Top 5 claim to generational distinctiveness in an open-ended question.

    Believing that work ethic isn’t amongst the Top 5 unique characteristics for one’s generation is very different from actually admitting to having poor work ethic, a point lost on many commentators. This and the Millennials’ response that other generations have a greater work ethic are in fact self-assessments rather than a qualitative behavioral analysis using some objective tool or metric.

    The Millennials’ educational accomplishments alone, as noted in the same report, would belie any assumption that we don’t work hard or value the process and outcome of said work.  »

    tags: millenials, generationy, ethic, hr

  • « For now, I want to raise another discussion topic which is the current gap between what companies are doing and what customers expect from companies. The image below depicts this gap. »

    tags: output, socialcrm, customers, customersatisfaction, airlines, quantas, hawaiianairlines

      • So here we have two airlines with two very different responses; one of those airlines got my business, the other did not.  Qantas solved my customer expectations of:
      • Prompt resolution (had someone on the phone within a few minutes)
      • Two-way communication (on Twitter, email, and phone)
      • Collaborative relationships (helped me select destinations)
      • Personalization (I received a custom PowerPoint presentation with steps outlining how to get the special offers)
      • Feeling of importance

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.