Participate in the 4th Global Intranet Strategies Survey

As every year, Jane McConnell is working on her yearly survey about intranet Strategies. A survey that is eagerly-expected because of the high quality of her works.

You can still participate until August 31st.

The 4th annual Global Intranet Strategies Survey opened at the end of June and will stay open until August 31. All participants receive a complimentary copy (pdf) of the ” Global Intranet Trends for 2010″ report that will be published in the second part of October.

The key themes this year are:

- The workplace: Are intranets catching up with what people need to do their jobs?
-  Collaboration: How does the online workplace support virtual teams and communities of practice?
-  Social media: To what extent is social media being used internally and for what purposes?
-  Search: Is enterprise search still a perennial problem? What strategies and resources are being put into place to optimize it?
-  Ownership, governance and strategy: Who owns the intranet and what operating models and strategies are in place to drive business value?
-  Measuring value: What indicators are being used to measure the value the intranet brings to an organisation: adoption, usage, satisfaction, workforce coverage, reduction of risk, business value?
Instructions for applying:
http://netjmc.com/survey/sign-up-JMC-global-intranet-survey-2009-2010.html

Generation Y and Boomers : Together They Can

One more article that adds to the already imposing amount of Gen-Y related things. I (finally) recently came across something really worth on the subject in the latest issue of the HBR, an analysis relying on a survey conducted across 50 multinational companies and that confirms what we’ve been seing on the ground, even if it does not please those who’d like to find a generation divide where it’s not.

As surprising as it may seem, Yers and Boomers have nearly the same expectations. They want, thought their work, to contribute to something that goes far beyond the business, something that looks like what Gary Hamel called a “higher purpose” in his 12 moonshots. Both are looking for flexibility. Neither one nor they other want too much telecommuting because they value real huan contacts. Boomers are alsovery likely to be involved in networks, rather in order to give something back to the society. They are still impregnated with the ideals of the 70s. Globally speaking, both value social relationships at work. I let you read the whole article to have the whole comparison.

So, at the end, where are the differences that are supposed to radically transform the workspace ?

First, we can wonder why they are so similar. Yers have their expectations, that’s a fact, but even if current organizations frustrates them, they’re not feeling like doing the revolution. But they’ll take the most of every existing breach and use the fact they’re shown as change drivers (self fulfilling prophecy ?) to make their moves when possible, in order to build a workspace that fits their expectations.

As for Boomers, they still have some social ideals, inherited from the end of the 60s. More, they don’t have things to learn anymore from the system and clearly see its limits. They reached a point in their career where they can pull off the masks : they won’t climb the organization chart anymore, are growing away from power and competition issues. It makes them have a vision that’s more collective and less selfish, to distance themselves whose they know the limits. They are also reaching an age when people often want to give, to give back, to transmit their experience to youngers as they know their careers are close to the end. For instance, 65% of boomers like to take younger people under their wing.

Sharing many values, these generations have many things to do together. The article suggests an intergenerational mentorship (humm… reminds me of something) and quotes Cisco and Booz Allen Hamilton as examples. Strangely, these are two enterprise 2.0 successful examples (is it really luck ?). Notice, if you don’t like modernism, that Jack Welch did something similar at GE.

So, is there really any generation gap ?

There is, between Yers and Boomers, a middle generation made of people born between 1965 and 1978, called Generation Y. It’s  made of all the people aged between 30 and 40, who merged in the matrix, forgetting their own expectations, and are not very likely to approve the end of the existing system while they are so close to gets the benefits of their efforts (ie replacing boomers) after 10 or 15 years of sacrifice. More, they can’t understand why they should adapt to Yers whereas the previous generation didn’t make any effort for them. That’s why some call them Generation O, that stands for “Organization Chart”.

quadras qui se sont fondus dans le moule, enterrant parfois leurs propres aspirations, et voient d’un mauvais oeil la fin d’un système auquel ils se sont conformés et qui toucherait à sa fin alors même qu’ils sont prêts, enfin, d’en toucher les dividendes (comprenez…prendre la place des Boomers) après 10 ou 15 ans de sacrifices. D’autant plus qu’ils ne voient certainement pas pourquoi s’adapter aux Y alors qu’on ne les pas accueilli avec autant d’égards en leur temps.

In a minority regarding to Yers and boomers taken together, they are the missing link, those who stand on the brakes. Maybe most of them are also facing the “mid-managemer syndrome”. The weight of the two other generations and the beneifts of making them move forward together implies, according to the author, that companies should favor the “Y+boomers” duet.

Do you think that X will move if they are caught in a pincer movement ? Or, making them really feel alone would be like a bomb with a timing device ?

10 things I believe about the ROI of Enterprise 2.0

The “ROI” question is still very discussed even if it irritates many people and is used as a pretext for many things. Here are 10 things I believe (right now, at the moment I’m writing…) on the subject. These are only personal beliefs and are subject to change once I find more relevant ones..

1°) This is not a trival point. When a company is asked to invest money, it’s logical they want to have at least as much money as they spent in a direct or indirect return. “Invest time and money..you want to know what you’ll get in return ?…. But we don’t care, it doesn’t matter” is a discourse that enterprises can’t hear. If you don’t agree with me, I suggest you to send me 1000 euros (I accept cheques and paypal), knowing I won’t explain you what I’ll do in return (and if I’ll do something in return). If I’m a milionaire at the end of the week, maybe I’ll change my mind.

2°) ROI may have new forms. The ROI as a predictable mathematic profitability model is not the only way to measure things anymore. R is not a function of I but also depends on peripherical elements (sense, alignment, management…)

3°) Agreeging to the previous point forces us to find new ways to trace created value.

4°) We have to admit that the “ROI question” is an easy way for many people not to do what they don’t want or do not have the courage to do. But it doesn’t mean than those who raise it necessarily want to lay a project aside.

5°) ROI has not to be measured in tools but in people’s and organizational performance. Measuring the ROI of a tool through its content is hazardous. Measuring how individual and collective performance is improved since a tool is used is more concrete. Measuring how a tool is used (contribs, comments…) is value less. Value is in the use of the contents for business purposes, outside of the tool.

6°) Measuring what is lost because of “not doing” is also interesting. In a transactions economy, measuring the cost of current transactions and the cost of missed opportunities due to transaction that can’t happen brings a new perspective.

7°) ROI is a systemic measue : tools + org modes, at an individual and collective level.

8°) Repeat that “no one cares about the ROI of electricity” makes no sens. More, all companies are trying to lower their electricity costs and improve their “energy performance”.

9°) If the value chain is protected from the E2.0 project, there are few chances any return will happen.

10°) If some businesses are successful with their E2.0 implementation and keep on thar way, that’s not for the pleasure of spending money and time. Using their case not only in order to know that “it’s possible” but as a laboratory to invent new ways to trace value would be worth.

Links for this week (weekly)

  • How do you break free from the curse of knowledge? Spending a lot of time with customers helps. The more you listen to what the customer says and doesn’t say, the more you can make sure that your intuition is attuned to the customer’s knowledge base. Recognizing the curse helps as well. Make a regular habit of asking questions such as, “Is this our view, or the view of our target customer?”

    tags: innovation, knowledge, customers

    • The basic problem: people who have deep knowledge about a topic sometimes assume other people have that same knowledge. That can lead to major missteps.
    • How do you break free from the curse of knowledge? Spending a lot of time with customers helps. The more you listen to what the customer says and doesn’t say, the more you can make sure that your intuition is attuned to the customer’s knowledge base. Recognizing the curse helps as well. Make a regular habit of asking questions such as, “Is this our view, or the view of our target customer?”
    • Make a regular habit of asking questions such as, “Is this our view, or the view of our target customer?”
  • Your best salespeople possess vast knowledge about how to connect with and motivate people – and perhaps take the company to the next level. But they rarely get to share their knowledge with senior managers. As a practitioner and student of business-to-business selling for more than half a century, Clif Reichard has learned to translate sales knowledge into leadership knowledge. This post is one in an occasional series.

    tags: management, leadership, salespeople, sales, connect, motivation

  • People follow their leader’s example. Have you looked in the mirror lately? Do you use a respectful tone when interacting with your employees and customers? Does your summer wardrobe look more like cruise wear than business attire? Take a close look at yourself, before passing judgment on others.

    tags: humanresources, employees, engagement, behaviors, management, authority, empowerment

  • Today we launch our Social Media Strategy Framework. This provides guidance and a frame on how organizations can approach engaging with social media, following in the tradition of our highly popular frameworks such as Web 2.0 Framework, Future of the Media Lifecycle, and Influence Landscape.

    tags: socialmedia, strategy, framework, marketing, communication, engagement

  • Ceci est le dernier billet avant la pause de mi-année. Je reviens sur une interview accordé au McKinsey Quarterly par John Chambers le CEO de Cisco, , qui pour moi est l’exemple même de l’entreprise 2.0. J’avais déjà parlé de cette entreprise ici. Si John Chambers aborde différents sujets (la crise, les partenariats public-privé, la question du leadership, les technologies web), c’est surtout la partie sur l’entreprise collaborative qui m’intéresse dans ce cas.

    tags: cisco, enterprise2.0, management, leaderhip, decisionmaking, appraisals, communities

    • Ainsi Chambers s’investit dans seulement deux ou trois
      communautés, les autres directeurs aussi (malgré leur penchant pour le
      commandement), et ainsi ce n’est plus 10 personnes qui font tourner
      l’entreprise, mais 500.
    • Il ne s’agit plus pour les directeurs d’attendre les “reportings” des
      collaborateurs et vérifier le budget. Le directeur doit devenir le porte-parole
      de sa communauté et la représenter efficacement. Surtout que les décisions sont
      transversales et impactent toute l’organisation.
  • Corporate leaders do not need to hire pollsters but they do need to be more cognizant of the impact of their messages. Most managers are very good at giving messages; following up with repeated iterations is more of a challenge, but a greater challenge is often gauging the effect of the message. We see this most evidently during organizational transformation efforts. There is a lot of energy and enthusiasm expended in getting the word out about the “big change” but relatively little follow up in terms of listening and evaluating impact. To address this, consider these suggestions when crafting your next communication plan.

    tags: communication, message, corporatecommunication, feedback, fee

  • A study has found that revenue, gross margins and profits correlate nicely with companies that are the most engaged with social media. Should you build a portfolio around these highly engaged social media friendly brands? Probably not.

    tags: socialmedia, margin, finance, bottomline, revenue, incomes

  • Earlier this week, a post by Thomas Vanderwal on Microsoft SharePoint 2007 caught fire on Twitter and a few blogs. What started as a spirited discussion on whether Sharepoint is a respectable Enterprise 2.0 offering or not, quickly turned into a debate on Enterprise 2.0 definitions. Mike Gotta masterfully jumped in front of the parade and steered it hard right, questioning whether Enterprise 2.0 is even a category or a rather, a philosophy around the use of social computing within existing business processes. With due respect to Forrester, I’m convinced it’s the latter.

    In preparation for a meeting with an old client next week about social computing and the opportunities it presents for lead generation and sales operations, this discussion could not have been more timely for me. Here’s how I see it:

    These are social computing concepts. Not Enterprise 2.0.

    tags: enterprise2.0, socialcomputing, businessprocess, process

  • Most tools labeled Enterprise 2.0 just scratch the surface of enabling people to change the way they work, but not necessarily change the work itself. Indeed as John Tropea (@johnt) suggests the greatest natural adoption of these tools is using them to work around existing business processes. Creating Enterprise 2.0-class software that can fundamentally change business models and operations is a whole different beast.

    tags: enterprise2.0, process, businessprocess, socialcomputing

  • The leading question

    Should companies organize outside innovation through collaborative communities or competitive markets?
    Findings

    * Communities are useful when an innovation problem involves cumulative knowledge, continually building on past advances. Markets are effective when an innovation problem is best solved by broad experimentation.
    * In general, communities are more oriented toward the intrinsic motivations of external innovators (the desire to be a part of some larger cause, for instance), whereas markets tend to reward extrinsic motivations (such as through financial compensation).

    tags: innovation, openinnovation, crowdsourcing, communities, competitivemarkets, motivation, rewards

      • The leading question

        Should companies organize outside innovation through collaborative communities or competitive markets?

        Findings
        • Communities are useful when an innovation problem involves cumulative knowledge, continually building on past advances. Markets are effective when an innovation problem is best solved by broad experimentation.
        • In general, communities are more oriented toward the intrinsic motivations of external innovators (the desire to be a part of some larger cause, for instance), whereas markets tend to reward extrinsic motivations (such as through financial compensation).
  • According to Harvard Business School professor Karim R. Lakhani, Boeing’s approach is an excellent example of how not to manage external innovation. The right way to do it is the subject of an article in the current issue of MIT Sloan Management Review by Lakhani and collaborator Kevin J. Boudreau (London Business School), “How to Manage Outside Innovation” (free registration required).

    tags: innovation, market, communities, boeing, collaboration, suppliers, businessmodel, motivation, openinnovation, crowdsourcing

    • The solution then is to connect with external innovators and invite them to participate with you on your critical problems. Of course, the Internet and the massive reduction in communication and computation costs have made accessing external innovators a much easier task than what was possible 10 or 15 years ago
    • More practically, working with outside innovators does not mean that all the “keys to the kingdom” have to be given away. Instead, firms can become intelligent about selectively revealing core issues in ways that their IP is protected. Firms like Procter & Gamble and IBM have learned to do this—others can learn as well.
    • An important element in P&G’s effort was to create an infrastructure for external innovation that would enable the various business units to access the outside world. For established firms, CEO interest and commitment is necessary to make this happen.
    • Boeing failed on two critical counts. One of the key tenets and advantages of external innovation is that you have access to multiple parallel approaches to solve the same problem.
    • Second, my read of the situation from media reports is that Boeing kept a very long arm’s-length relationship with suppliers. So problems that came up with various modules were not recognized until much later.
  • While they’re certainly heavy adopters (our data proves this) –it’s not limited to the youth only, take for example this report I did on the active Boomers. Using low cost interns are critical in getting an often unfunded skunk-works project is a good way to get the program up to speed in house –but relying on them for strategic corporate communications is a risk.

    tags: socialmedia, interns, technology, training, seniormanagement

  • In Sense-making with PKM I described some personal knowledge management processes using various web tools. The overall process consists of four internal actions (Sort, Categorize, Retrieve, Make Explicit) and three externally focused ones (Connect, Contribute, Exchange). Personal knowledge management is one way of addressing the issue of TMI (too much information).

    tags: PKM, personalknowledgemanagement, connect, contribute, exchange, km

  • Linden Labs, l’éditeur de Second Life, vient de publier une étude de cas sur le Loyalist College, une université canadienne, qui, entre autre, forme des douaniers. Selon l’Université, l’utilisation de Second Life comme outil de simulation et de formation, aurait permis d’augmenter les succès aux examens de 30%.

    tags: secondlife, learning, loyalistcollege, training, virtualuniverses

  • tags: enterprise2.0, strategy, culture, adoption, change

  • There are three key reasons why people resist changes in technology.

    1) Internal factors to the person or group – where it targets reactions like “People resist all change; People with analytic cognitive styles accept systems; while intuitive thinkers resist them”
    2) Application or technical factors – if its a crappy system, people will resist it.
    3) Interaction factors – where the new application or system would change the balance of power in organisations and people who are threaten by it would resist it.

    tags: enterprise2.0, adoption, change, technology

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

Web 2.0 is not people-centric. It splits people up

A few words about a founding principle of web 2.0 that appears to be a big mistake. This won’t be without impacts on future usages, on the werb as inside companies because we are reaching the limits of the central component of any collective dynamic : the user.

Founding principle : contrary to the original web, web 2.0 is “people centric”. That means that internauts are not passive receivers anymore but stakeholders, active players, who can take the lead on existing medias and even build their own.

So people should structure the web and its flows, building a network which nodes would be the internauts. It seems logical : in a people-centric system, people are at the center and the rest is supposed to be turn around them.

We are forced to acknowledge that web users, and above all power users, feel more and more like not being at the center of anything but like being split up.

[Read more...]

A 15 yo consultant wrote a white paper about teenagers. And so what ?

The case made much noise last week. A  15 years old consultant at Morgan Stanley produced a white paper on how young people of his generation uses medias. And all the world to swoon over the document, to such an extent it was propelled on the front page of the Financial Times website. I hastened to read this report that was supposed to change the face of the world.

I let you read them before we dig a little.

Media&Internet How Teenagers Consume Media

[Read more...]

Socialize your business ? What does it mean ?

So this is the continuation of the reflection I started here. The purpose is not to discuss any management related thing but to position enterprise 2.0 regarding to the real enterprise.

Why ? Because lots of feedbacks converge on this point. The question about Enterprise 2.0 is not anymore about knowing what are the benefits, if a business should try or not, if it’s a fad, but how to implement it in a company that has a past, certainties and used to work without that for ages.

So what we need first is a reflection about positioning and integration with pre-existing logics. As a matter of fact, a reason why so many projects fail is that they were not positioned in order to have any impact on business, would it be negative or positive, and, consequently, failed to engage people who didn’t understand both the purpose and the method.

Let’s take knowledge management as an example. When businesses faced issues that needed such projects, the very name of the approach was meaningful enough to make people understand what it was about. It doesn’t mean that KM projects were successful, but understanding what things are about are essential for success. Say “we’re launching a KM project” doesn’t mean it will be successful but makes everyone understand what it is about. Say “the solution to you problem is Enterprise 2.0″ and have a look at the doubtful face of 95% employees and you have to admit the road will be very, very long.

Everyone needs to understand “why, what, how”. It’s the preliminary condition to the ownership that is needed for success. This ownership means that people should not be taken to an unknown ground they will consider as hostile, but need to start from a well known groung and, step by step, push its frontiers. The whole while being aware of making sense regarding to they day to day job and concerns, what is their current paradigm.

[Read more...]

Links for this week (weekly)

  • While these perceptions are typically not found at the top of IT or business organizations, they are prevalent in the trenches where the work gets done. And they need to be addressed. Without effective internal collaboration between IT and the rest of the business, technology will continue to be underutilized and the potential under-realized. How, for example, can companies leverage collaborative technologies when the teams tasked with exploiting the tools have difficulty collaborating?

    tags: IT, business, collaboration, trust, mistrust, learningcurve, relationship, problemsolving

  • What does this development mean for your company? In effect, that its marketers are being replaced. As markets morph into Web 2.0 “conversations” and consumers gain much greater freedom to pursue their own interests, customers are doing things that online marketing managers don’t necessarily want—or expect—them to do.

    tags: web2.0, web3.0, innovation, LEAD, marketing, mckinsey, socialmedia

  • Follow these 10 upgrades to increase employee traffic to your intranet—from the easiest to most difficult.

    tags: socialmedia, intranet, traffic, workflow, portals, adoption

  • To help managers in this decidedly challenging time, we present a framework for understanding three waves of transformation in the competitive landscape: foundations for major change; flows of resources, such as knowledge, that allow firms to enhance productivity; and the impacts of the foundations and flows on companies and the economy. Combined, those factors reflect what we call the Big Shift in the global business environment.

    tags: knowledge, competition, knowledgeflow, ROA, flows, collaboration, problemsolving, innovation, creativity, socialmedia, productivity, ecosystem

    • The first, foundational wave in the Big Shift consists of the extraordinary changes in digital infrastructure that enable vastly greater productivity, transparency, and connectivity. Consider how companies can use digital technology to create ecosystems of diverse, far-flung users, designers, and suppliers in which product and process innovations fuel performance gains without introducing too much complexity.
    • The second wave involves the increasing movement of knowledge, talent, and capital. Knowledge flows—which occur in any social, fluid environment where learning and collaboration can take place—are quickly becoming one of the most crucial sources of value creation.
  • RollStream fixes specific problems – inefficiencies in the supply chain via Private Supplier Social Networks. Counting well known companies such as Walgreens, Owens & Minor, Johnson & Johnson and Tesco as customers, their SaaS solution services the partner relationship lifecycle for retailers, manufacturers and distributors. Business activity-focused capabilities cover partner on-boarding, compliance, performance management and dispute resolution.

    tags: enterprise2.0, supplychain, RollStream, socialnetworks, suppliers

    • one of the biggest opportunities to enterprises using such social computing technology is be able to to pry open the gates that lock out supply chain access to core processes such as product management, R&D, marketing, end customer support, etc.
    • First, no one knows the true power, limitations and opportunities for each component of a product better than the very folks who build them
    • Social Software can open up the lines of interaction beyond R&D, Procurement and Product Development, allowing suppliers to learn, first hand,  any pain felt by the end customer.
    • All that said, the use of collaborative software in this context can bring massive, measurable business benefit if its treated as a strategic initiative by enterprises
  • Despite the current strength and promise of the Internet software market, the future pace of growth and innovation is not assured. The principles of choice, opportunity, and interoperability were important in the growth of PC software and in the overall health of the information technology ecosystem, and these same principles will shape competition in Internet software, according to HBS professor Marco Iansiti

    tags: software, internet, interoperability, IT, innovation, internetsoftware, cloudcomputing

    • firms should allow consumers and partners to have a real choice between complementary products and services from otherwise competing firms
    • specifically, opportunity that is facilitated by giving developers platform access and the ability to innovate and build on platform technologies to create new products and services.
    • vendors should enable products to work together so customers can realize the full benefit of complementary products
  • People have always been one of the weak links when it comes to breaches – time and time again. There are technical things that vendors proclaiming themselves as “E2.0″ solutions should be doing but that does not remove the need to raise these issues with employees and the responsibilities they have re: communication, information sharing, and collaboration using social tools and applications.

    tags: security, enterprise2.0, privacy, confidentiality, intellectualproperty

  • When I attended Forrester’s first Customer Experience Forum last month, I was struck by two themes that recurred through both the presentations on stage and the hallway conversations afterward.

    tags: customers, customerexperience, multichannel, management, silos, incentive, web, web2.0

    • “Web plus one” may be a perfect first step in defining a multi-channel experience for your customers, but it’s only that — a first step. In my work, I’ve seen the insights about customer behavior and psychology that were spearheaded (and funded) by web groups trickle out into the rest of the organization, informing customer experience efforts far from the web. By feeding the work of these other groups back into the web group’s work, the organization can take the next step toward developing a truly integrated customer experience strategy.
    • This is no small challenge, and it’s a rare organization that’s ready for it. Channel-specific organizational silos rarely have incentives to coordinate their activities, and in many cases have stronger incentives to go their own way. When those silos regularly compete for the same ever-shrinking slice of the budgetary pie, the cultural antipathy between them can be systemic. It takes politically savvy leadership with a strong mandate to erode those barriers.
  • IT projects need define a combine the engineering work to be done and the results that they create. Doing so requires more than giving the project a business based name. Here are a few steps for an alternative way to define an IT project.

    Combining these three ideas, when companies pay to execute a project, it’s not the project they want, it’s the result. They want more revenue generating customer relationships, not processes around a CRM system or even the capability to look up customer names. What they want is the result.

    tags: IT, results, project, ITproject, business, businessneed, control, productivity, visibility, engagement, customervalue, finance, ROI

  • Consider this a supplement to my latest report on “How Companies Should Organize for Social Computing“. I continue to get questions from clients, and have spent time with more large brands are connecting with customers. Diving in further, I’ve noticed that there are three ways that companies allow employees to participate. Update: On a related note, I gave my thoughts to CNBC about the roles of social within corporations.

    tags: socialmedia, socialweb, employees, policy, brand, culture

  • Moreover, the role of prizes is changing: nearly 80 percent of those announced since 1991 have been designed to provide incentives for specific innovations rather than to reward excellence in general. An understanding of the characteristics of effective prizes and of how they are evolving would be useful for not only philanthropists but also public- and private-sector players hoping to harness their potential for innovation.

    tags: prize, rewards, innovation, philantropics, socialbenefits, nonprofits

  • Your company has been operating on the premise that people—customers, employees, managers—make logical decisions. It’s time to abandon that assumption.

    tags: economy, rationality, rationaleconomy, behavioraleconomy, employees, customers, collaboration, teamwork

  • tags: communitymanagement

  • Ultimately, Ford’s social media strategy looked something like this:

    Humanizing the company by connecting Ford employees with our stakeholders, allowing them to connect with each other when appropriate, and providing value in the process.

    tags: ford, socialmedia, marketing, strategy, twitter

  • L’immatériel constitue aujourd’hui un enjeu incontournable pour l’ensemble de l’économie. A en croire certains, les actifs immatériels ont un rôle non négligeables en termes de croissance. C’est la raison pour laquelle nous aimerions approcher avec vous le profil macroéconomique de cette «nouvelle» économie de l’immatériel.
    Tout d’abord, si vous me le permettez, il est nécessaire de clarifier les définitions et les différents concepts dont on parle, et avec lesquels tout le monde n’est pas forcément familier.

    tags: intangible, intangibleassets, growth, knowledgeeconomy, productivity, competition, knowledge, IT, valuechain, innovation

    • Dans la «knowledge economy», le savoir et la production intellectuelle deviennent des inputs de production, la matière première, mais également l’output de cette nouvelle catégorie d’industries (en d’autres termes, on produit du savoir, ou des œuvres de l’esprit, avec d’autres savoirs ou œuvres de l’esprit). Tout cela correspond à de l’information «numérisable» qui peut être «traitée» par les TIC.
    • La nouvelle économie est plus difficile à définir. Elle traduit l’impact des TIC et de la knowledge economy sur les processus productifs, la réorganisation des chaînes de valeur et on pense bien entendu que cette réorganisation des chaînes de production s’est basée sur des gains de productivité.
    • Dans l’économie de l’immatériel, les coûts fixes sont très importants, et les coûts marginaux quasi-nuls, ce qui engendre des rendements croissants et des économies d’échelle
    • L’économie de l’immatériel est aussi caractérisée par l’existence d’externalités. En effet, l’utilité sociale tirée du savoir est bien supérieure à son utilité individuelle
    • Ainsi, le savoir devient plus que jamais un élément de la concurrence. Il y a donc une relation entre le degré de concurrence et celui de l’innovation.
    • D’autre part, si on pense que les TIC représentent une révolution industrielle, la vocation des produits TIC est d’entrer dans les entreprises et de générer des gains de productivité. Or, l’Europe (en général, mais il y a des pays qui font exception, notamment en Europe du Nord) reste en retard sur le plan de sa dynamique de productivité. Sur les raisons de ce retard, il y a un débat entre économistes, et deux écoles s’affrontent.
    • La deuxième école est plus pessimiste. Elle met en effet l’accent sur les conditions qu’il a fallu pour que ces gains de productivité se matérialisent. Sans réorganisation des processus productifs, rien ne peut se produire.
    • Or, à ce jour, les statisticiens ne savent pas encore effectuer avec exactitude ce genre de calculs. On se contente pour l’instant d’évaluer la production des branches TIC, sans pouvoir vraiment mesurer le poids et l’impact sur l’économie de ces secteurs producteurs de TIC
  • Le College californien a repensé son approche pédagogique pour tenir compte de la plus grande versatilité de l’économie moderne: “Il y a 20 ans, un diplômé d’université avait entre 2 et 3 jobs différents dans sa vie. Les diplômés d’aujourd’hui travailleront dans 7 à 10 ans dans des jobs qui n’existent pas encore aujourd’hui. Notre but est de préparer cette nouvelle génération de façon à ce qu’elle soit capable de se remettre perpétuellement en question”

    tags: otiscollege, education, jobs, art, creativity, jobdesign

  • In brief, it is suggested that the main objective of a 2.0 business is to generate spaces in which people can realize their personal projects on a collective basis: a distributive network that encourages new relations without being bound by centralized decision-making and in which those on the periphery are just as important as those in the middle.

    Some time ago we designed this chart to make a diagnosis for an Argentinian top telecommunications company, in which we aimed to survey 400 top managers about this topic, and we share our conclusions with you.

    tags: enterprise2.0, diagnosis, socialenterprise

  • So, the main problem in the past Enterprise 2.0 debate is likely a lack of systems thinking. We do not look at the complete picture. We do not articulate clearly enough how causes and effects are linked to each other. Consequently, our view on the phenomenon remains incomplete and we do not see some of the obvious reasons that make that Enterprise 2.0 is not the homerun we were hoping for.

    tags: enterprise2.0, adoption, collaboration, system, systemthinking, systemic

  • And the most successful projects have at least two things in common: They were built with a key business process in mind, and predicting their ROI was not part of the equation.

    tags: enterprise2.0, businessprocess, culture, ROI

  • Ryan Tracy thought he’d entered the Dark Ages when he graduated college and arrived in the working world.

    His employer blocked access to Facebook, Gmail and other popular Internet sites. He had no wireless access for his laptop and often ran to a nearby cafe on work time so he could use its Wi-Fi connection to send large files.

    Sure, the barriers did what his employer intended: They stopped him and his colleagues from using work time to goof around online. But Tracy says the rules also got in the way of legitimate work he needed to do as a scientific analyst for a health care services company.

    tags: generationy, facebook, socialnetworks, worktime, web, access

    • That’s what Joe Dwyer decided to do when he started Chicago-based Brill Street & Co., a jobs site for young professionals. He lets his employees use social networking and has found that, while they might spend time chatting up their friends, sometimes they’re asking those same friends for advice for a work problem or looking for useful contacts.

      “So what seems unproductive can be very productive,” Dwyer says.

    • But that also means many companies are still figuring out their online policies and how to deal with the blurring lines between work and personal time — including social networking, even with the boss.

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

Too much governance leads to ungovernance

IT governance is all the more strategic since it applies to the backbone of the business. As a matter of fact, it’s hard to be effective when the strategic line is unknown, when what’s allowed and what’s not is not well defined. Effective companies need well defined rules.

With the emergence of web 2.0, governance took a new dimension with tools that are more people and usages oriented, which needs even more concertation before implementation. That’s how IT departments become center of services instead of center of costs. Notice that it does not only apply to web 2.0 projects.

Anyway, such projects have to comply with the current governance. That’s why things often go wrong. Two situations can be faced :

• Ensure that new tools comply with the actual governance what is like trying to put squares into circles. Low customization by users, restricted rights depending on people, hierarchical validation needed etc… It can’t work.

• Improve the current governance according to these new tools. But if this governancre is built upon principles like “limit user’s autonomy”, “users are a threat to the system”, “autonomy depends on position” etc… which are those who led to the current governance, there are many chances the new one will look loke the the old one.

You can’t govern what you don’t understand. Lack of understanding causes fear which leads to strict rules. It’s interesting to see that the best “2.0 compliant” governances were edicted by people who immersed themselves into a new paradigm in order to understand it. On the contrary, those who try to regulate everything are often those who did not try to understand them. They mistake “regulation” and “protection against”.

At first sight this may not be harmful. Everyone is free to miss opportunities because of excessive certainties. This can even be better than letting things go, thinking some questions can wait. But the danger is more insidious : there are many examples of employees who opened workspaces or used general public services for business collaboration. Since everything is made under the radar, governance can’t be enforced. Now every employee, every team, can create and manage his own IT.

In short, an irrelevant governance often leads to ungovernance.

Governing is anticipating. But anticipating is understanding. So, in order to govern wisely, IT depts must take the time to understand.

A last point : exploring the general public web in order to understand can be a good start. But businesses have also to think that what they’ll see on the web is not what will happen inside the firewall, that usages have to be professionalized. Maybe, in the context of a well conceived governance, this call for professionnalization may be the job of an expert team which will be the garantee that the governance will be enforced, explained, and will be perceived as a strategic pattern, not as a coercitive one.

Those who want to read more about governance should read this post by Ross Dawson.

Entreprise 2.0, gouvernance, Social computing, social-software, usages, web-2.0

From the enterprise that adds to the one that removes

Still in the “how to adapt the way we work to new challenges”, a frequent question is to know how to get employees involved.

If we rely on what I said here, three cases can be distinguished.

- when employees follow rules, processes.

- when employees are left alone and have to go out of the usual patterns to achieve their goals.

- when the organizaiton relies on employee’s willingness to participate.

I won’t tackle the third one here because it’s marginal in comparison with businesses main issues and needs a specific approach. But the two first still remain.

In the first case, which is about enriching an existing process, one or two rules have to be added. I specify that adding rules doesn’t necessarily mean adding an extra workload : it’s often about making public things that used to be kept for one’s use, that were only shared by two people (debrieffing a mission or a project with a superior…) because there was no relevant way to sharte them, or that were shared through irrelevant tools (email…)

In the second case, it’s the contrary. What can make people switch to an “adhoc” work mode in order to attain their assigned goals ? The answer can be found in the difference between a “push” and a “pull” mode : in one case the organization has to add pressure to move forward, in the other it has to remove constraints.

For some reasons you will easily find by yourself, no one never think about removing things while managing a transformation project. Managers, project leaders, executives have their pride, which is about what they built, not what they remove. Building, adding, shows that one is really doing somethings, it increases one’s status. Removing make people think you have no solution, you try the easy way. To some extent it’s considered as lazyness. Even if removing needs a lot of work, even if it’s more complex that adding something, organization only pay attentions to those who do, those who add. Anyone who build a huge labyrinthine system will be rewarded, not the one who removes barriers what is seen as a “non-achievement” that is not worth being on a CV.

Just imagine what this kind of attitude would look like in medicine. It would be like treating appendicitis not by removing an useless organ but by making a difficult transplantation. You can find the opposite example in the software industry where many OS or softwares are made by endlessly adding new layers on an old base no one masters anymore, because things have been added for decades without simplifying anything. Ten years later, we all can see what it means in terms of user experience, maintenance etc…

Businesses who will do things the right way will be those who will learn how to reward those who remove instead of endlessly adding useless layers that harm the organization.

Years ago I wad told that the evidence that a software has reached maturity can be seen by its designer’s ability to make it more simple and remove useless things instead of adding unneeded features, a pretence of progess that is in fact a true regression. Some industries discovered the LEAN method, knowledge industries need to learn from them.

Then, and then only, organizations will reach a kind a maturity.