Last hours at blueKiwi…and thanks for everything !

At the moment this note will be published, I’ll be finishing my last day at blueKiwi. An exciting adventure, started 3 years ago and that’s now close to its end.

Being one of the first employees to join a company at its beginning, see it grow, go international, is a wonderful experience I recommend everyone to try once. I’ve at the same time the impression that it started yesterday because things went so fast, and that I’ve been there for a decade because so many things happened. The day when I bumped into people with a cool project in they wallet in 2005, recruitment in the early days of the company in 2006, being 4 people, then 10, then 30…seeing the product evolve, seing the company grow, take on international markets….3 (even 4) very rich years that taught me lots of things.

So I wish good luck to my ex-colleagues. But with a good product, an experienced staff and solid investors, they hold all the cards to go far, both business and geographically speaking.

As for me, back to the consulting industry. My main topics of interest being about things that are both around and before the tools, I wanted to make one step further in that direction.

After a month “off” that will help me to breath some fresh air, to restart some personal projects I hadn’t time to care about, I’ll join Netxmodernity in the beginning of 2010 (only available in french at this time…a brand new english site will be online in a few weeks). After all, it was written from the start : when I started to focus on all these 2.0 things, I learned a lot from  Marc de Fouchecour and Richard Collin, at the beginning by attending conferences where they were speaking, then by having a closer relationship and talking a lot with them. One day or the other we had to join. That’s done. The pupil is now joing his masters…and is happy to.

I’m joining Nextmodernity, of course, as a consultant, but with some side attributions I’ll tell you about later.

What to wish me ? Nice hollidays and good luck. But don’t forget to wish the same to those I’m leaving and those I’m joining : in both cases the stake is high but there’s really many opportunities to do great things. And we’ll do our best to.

Links for this week (weekly)

  • “ECM is not about managing content for the sake of managing content. What matters is that we can use the content, and get the information we need when we need it.

    tags: enterprise2.0, ECM

    • To tackle the challenges of ECM, we need to create an vision and strategy for ECM and ensure commitment to this from top management. Secondly, we have to establish some sort of governance for ECM which allows for common funding and decision-making for enhancing shared ECM capabilities. Finally, we need to build some kind of competence that can provide the required resources, skills and support to ECM initiatives. We can see this as a kind of shared for ECM initiatives within the enterprise.
  • “My take. The promise of convergence between consumer social computing and large-scale enterprise technology is at hand, making this a vibrant and creative time. As definitions of consumer and enterprise blur, future success belongs to vendors that innovate and adapt to evolving perceptions around what “enterprise” actually means.”

    tags: enterprise, 2.0, social, computing, crm, vendors, SAP, chatter, salesforce, ERP

    • Chatter introduces an important concept of software that combines messages from machines with status updates from people in a simple interface.
    • Chatter’s ability to create feeds for not just people, but content and applications is both its unique feature and its most important benefit
    • Chatter is software-is-social as in “software sending status updates.
    • SAP’s Imagineering Group has done substantial work on the idea of placing sensors into the fabric of an organization. This concept is similar to Salesforce.com’s view of combining human- and machine-generated status messages into a single stream, although SAP’s vision is far more sophisticated and complete.
  • The group did a web survey of its 100 members with 77 responding. That may seem like a small number to use for any quantifiable conclusion about the state of Enterprise 2.0. But the people who responded lead or help lead Enterprise 2.0 efforts at some of the largest organizations in the world. Thirty-four percent of the respondents work for companies with more than 10,000 employees. Twenty-five percent work for organizations that have more than 100,000 employees.

    tags: enterprise, 2.0, adoption

  • tags: socialbusiness, socialcrm, marketing, socialbusinessdesign, organization, network

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

Why haven’t I use this app earlier ?

A few weeks ago I was in a meeting, taking notes. A glance at a colleague’s screen aroused my curiosity and I asked her : “what’s the application you’re using ?”. Then she showed me this wonderful app she just discovered weeks ago. As for me, I only had to blame myself : it’s not been weeks but months that it was installed on mu computer. I even had a “beta” account. When I first tried it, I made a quick tour then switched to another task. Not because the app was good or bad but because, at this time, I did not want to take the time to ask myself some questions. And here comes the lesson I learned through this short piece of worklife.

Like everybody, I have my own routine when it comes to manage information. There are notes I take, what I read on the web…then comes a “buffer” step, then I treat it what means delete/keep for later/bookmark or undertake any action. This routine applies to both my professional and personal watch (in fact both are about the same topics). Of course I organized it with applications : each task has its app and I push the info through my process. An application to read, another to queue, another to bookmark, another to…

Adopting a new app, ie changing one of those I’ve been using so far, would have made me change my routine. It doesn’t matter if the new app is better that the one one it replaces or not. Then, since I was only testing this app before deciding to adopt it or not, it would have meant I spread my datas (or have some data duplicated) before I choosing to switch or not. Since I had no time to waste, I contented myself with testing the functionalities without trying in real work conditions. So, since “testing” things this way is more about playing than working, I didn’t used the app for real work purpose so I couldn’t say if there were real benefits or not. A last point was missing too :  I did not take the time to think about the application’s scope (personnal/profession, notes/notes+…., overlapping….). All these things put together made that I was unable to see myself using this app in my day to day work, to visualize what I could mean to my routine.

That’s why I was about to miss Evernote.

That’s quite a simple case. Imagine what happens when someone has to conduct the experimentation of a social platform at a company-wide scale and how those who are asked to participate may fill. It’s not about one person but 10, 100, 500 peope, that are not as tech-savvy than I can be and have not the freedom I have in the choice of the tools I use at home or at work.

It’s one more point to take into consideration when launching an enterprise 2.0 pilot.

application, Entreprise 2.0, evernote, expérimentation, pilote, routine

Does driving adoption mean being off the point ?

I’ne never been that comfortable with the concept of adoption when applied to enterprise tools. More precisely when the point point was “driving adoption”.

Of course adoption is necessary. And, like every necessary thing, businesses can not afford not to drive it. Nothing but pure logic…but it can’t prevent me from feeling its sounds odd. I was slowly getting used to these words when Paula Thornton brought it back to my attention.

Let’s start with the meaning of words.

Driving : giving oneself the means that are necessary to achieve someting and the appropriate indications to pilot actions.

Adoption : action of making something one’s own in a voluntary way. Supposes the benefit, sense and implications are understood.

If both are necessary, I still can’t put them together in the same sentence. The reason is obvious : if adoption implies spontaneity and a choice that’s not made under duress, driving means make people do something unnatural because if it were natural people would adopt without any external intervention. Some may say that driving only means “create a breeded ground” but I don’t think that’s how companies see things : it would mean they don’t have any hold on the result and, as a result, they only try to make their best so things can happen instead of considering they have an obligation to produce results, what is not conceivable for most businesses. So driving adoptions means making people do unnatural things and such an approach explains how things are so difficult, why people don’t adopt or adopt reluctantly.

Is it a dead end ? Not at all. If both adoption and driving are necessary, we have to be cautions not to mistake what has to be driven and the final result.

[Read more...]

7 web 2.0 words to use cautiously with real managers

Even if enterprise 2.0 has its source in web 2.0, everybody now recognize that what we can see and use on the web needs to be tidied up to enter the workplace. One of the stumbling blocks can be found in language : sometimes even if two people agree on the content, the form can make them not understand each other. That’s why, sometimes, the enterprise 2.0 subject was not taken seriously by the (serious) people who needed to be convinced.

In fact it was one of the conclusions of the discussions that followed the last enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston : the enterprise 2.0 world had to learn the enterprise language and not the reverse. The confirmation was given in this post by someone from Booz Allen Hamilton (which internal 2.0 platform is a true success) : “In the end I’m not concerned with what we call it. I’ve got work to do.”

Anyway, here are some magic words our web experience makes us use (even unconsciously) too often in enterprise oriented discussions and that make our interlocutor look at us with doubtful and surprised eyes (really…you never had this feeling ?). Either because the words that are used are not relevant in a business context or because they make him uncomfortable.

[Read more...]

So you love your customers…and you let others take care of them

Saying that customers are businesses’ most important assets is now a common view. First because their money make the business live, second because they are its best ambassadors when they’re happy with the delivered service.

Of course, an happy customer is a customer who’s delivered a service that meets his expectations. He also gives value to the quality of the quality of the customer relationship. To some extent, some would value more an average service with a good relationship than a perfect service with poor relationship quality because they like to be listened to, to see people do their best to give them satisfaction.

Note that’s the same with prospects, either in a B2B or B2C context : the promise that are made matter, but the relationship a business can foster with its prospects matters a lot. Ditto with employees.

That’s one of the impacts of social business in the relationships between a company and its ecosystem. Either it’s about marketing, sales, support, innovation, both companies, partners, customers, employees are looking for a new form of engagements. This engagement has first to be build then harnessed.

And, of course, many are outsourcinf their customer support, their recruitment, and sometimes a part of their marketing. I’d like to know how to build a strong relationship between a business, a brand, and its ecosystem, by letting a third party act and talk on the company’s behalf.

Outsourcing sometimes mean more control on costs, get access to competences that don’t exist internally. But it also mean the loss of any chance to build something with the other. Through the marketing relationship, through customer support, people want to interact with YOU. They want to discovert who YOU are. A good relationship is a two people game, without any go between. That what helps to save a deal when things go wrong. So you’d like to let someone else initiate and manage this relationship ? Someone who’s not you, who has not your culture, for whom you’re only a customer among others ?

Community management is something serious one has to manage himself. Not an undercontracted job, or a task assigned to an intern with too much idle.

Value is created and survives through relationships. Saying so is good. But that’s not enough if behaviors go the opposite way.

You’re wondering what a customer community can be used for, what your facebook fans are worth ? No you now. Now it’s time to initiate things yourself instead of outsouring, then rely on the group to leverage

PS : Whenever you can’t understand what’s at stake, ask yourselves what would have happened you you asked a friend to replace you at your first date with your future husband/wife. Get it ?

Links for this week (weekly)

  • “So how do you begin changing something so complex? Start by changing the stories that people tell.”

    tags: change, changemanagement, stories, storytelling, norms, deviations

    • If you want to create a culture of communication, leave your BlackBerry at your desk when you go to important meetings. If your actions deviate from the norm, you can be sure people will tell stories about them.
  • “If attendees at KMWorld 09 needed any further convincing that working in interconnected environments where people operate in social networks is an important issue, here’s some brand new research out today from the Society for New Communications Research suggesting that C-level execs are increasingly taking this new set of conditions seriously!”

    tags: socialnetworks, executives, top-executifs, decisionmaking, decisionsupport

    • Professional decision-making is becoming more social – enter the era of Social Media Peer Groups (SMPG)
    • Professional networks are emerging as decision-support tools
    • Reliance on web-based professional networks and online communities has increased significantly over the past 3 years
  • “The challenge is that these teams are unable to scale, even a support team of ten full time folks at Comcast will have a hard time responding to all customers in all social channels. As a result, expect companies to resort to scalable ways to respond to customers, such as:

    The Four Social Support Strategies”

    tags: socialsoftware, customers, support, customersupport, employees

    • 1) Do Nothing: Use Legacy Support Channels
    • 2) Employee Based Support:  Employees Respond to Customers
    • 3) Peer Based Support: Customer to Customer
    • 4) Automated Social Support: Computer Generated Tweets
  • “For decades, business planners have made a distinction between repetitive, lock-step processes, where very little variability is involved (think pharmacy), and more free-form, unstructured processes where a higher degree of variability is expected (think emergency room). Taking the abstraction of a process out of the world of chemistry, manufacturing, and logistics, and treating the people involved as so many chemicals, gears, or trucks seemed like a good idea in the past, but is not going to be workable, going forward.”

    tags: process, networks, socialnetworks

    • We will have to devise a new, richer way to think about people’s interactions — via social networks — and our connection to mechanical processes and devices.
    • We will still get some value out of thinking through business models structurally, and choreographing steps in production or the delivery of service. But the sophistication of machines and customers means that more and more of the steps will have a wider range of alternatives,
    • But the major shift here is conceptual. Processes, like the IV checklist, will still be with us, but they will have a lowercase ‘p’, and be understood as being secondary to higher business priorities, like the humane treatment of the medical patient, or the rights of travelers, or the need to superachieve customer satisfaction with consumer electronics.
  • “Tapping a diversity of perspectives has been empirically proven to increase the quality of ideas. Indeed, this is one of the benefits of setting innovation communities. By investing some time in establishing a community management plan, organizations will see a nice return on their innovation efforts.\n\nThere are three distinct phases to innovation community management:\n\n 1. Pre-Launch\n 2. Early Community\n 3. Mature Community”

    tags: communties, innovation, maturity, framework, campaigns, goals, measurement, metrics, distributedinnovation

      • Early enthusiasts will be found among those with a demonstrated interest in:

        • Advancing innovation
        • Improving the way the company operates
        • Use of social software
    • Providing direction is a key component of surfacing ideas that will make a difference. The focus areas can start out limited to a set of key opportunities and issues that need addressing. Organizations can also use their top strategic initiatives as their innovation target areas.
    • In the initial days and weeks after launch, there should be a program to engage employees on their contributions. This includes commenting and rating the contributions of employees. Comments can discuss the specifics of an idea, or be more general (e.g. “Thanks for sharing”). Feedback on contributions – ideas, comments, blog posts – are also important for establishing an employee’s online reputation
    • A best practice seen with some of Spigit’s clients is to establish recurring ideation events after the initial launch. These events can really be characterized as campaigns. They refresh employees’ innovative juices by focusing on issues that workers are experiencing today.
    • Set goals for ideas generated, conversations held, and ideas that turn into new projects
  • tags: bank, bank2.0

  • “I believe that Sales 2.0 is the addition of new processes and tools layered on top of traditional sales principles that when combined can enable more effective selling. Sales 2.0 is like combining the art and science of sales together for a synergistic effect — one component is not nearly as explosive without the other.”

    tags: sales, sales2.0

  • tags: enterprise2.0, knowledge, learning, filters, filtering, content

  • “Packed full of common sense and combined with a strong sense of business’s responsibility to society, two of my favorite Drucker bumper sticker quotes are ‘Knowledge has to be improved, challenged, and increased constantly, or it vanishes‘ and ‘There is an enormous number of managers who have retired on the job‘, which somehow seem to fit together very well.”

    tags: peterdrucker, management, customers, knowledge, ROA, productivity, objectives, knowledgeeconomy, knowledgeflow

    • The 200 page report systematically examines trends across 14 industries, to further explore by industry why return on assets (ROA) for U.S. public companies has declined by 75 percent since 1965. John Hagel has fleshed out on his blog a summary of the key perspectives emerging from their industry analysis under the following headings:

      * Deterioration in performance is widespread
      * Advances in labor productivity fail to improve return on assets
      * Innovation, at least as traditionally defined, does not appear to offer a solution
      * Traditional measures of competitive intensity understate the challenge
      * Worker passion is at very low levels across all industries

    • Twentieth-century institutions built and protected knowledge stocks—proprietary resources that no one else could access.
    • The more the business environment changes, however, the faster the value of what you know at any point in time diminishes
    • Management by objective works – if you know the objectives. Ninety percent of the time you don’t‘.
    • Silos of ‘knowledge stocks’ are often being transferred into newer more powerful ‘collaboration silos’ – modern technologies used in an old fashioned way.
    • Drucker’s ‘Management by Objectives‘ -  participative goal setting, choosing the course of actions and decision making – works well for larger scale collaboration and is arguably more valid today than it was when he wrote about it in 1954.
  • “Should you happen to be one of those people, we’ve got a number of different resources that you can use to get up to speed with Google Wave. This time around, however, we wanted to look at how people are actually using it now. From process modelling and customer service, to project collaboration, annotation, and gaming, the examples listed here highlight the power of the newborn medium, and in part, showcase what we can expect as the platform matures.”

    tags: googlewave, collaboration, realtime, usecase, casestudies, SAP, salesforce, modeling, customers, customerservice, RPG

  • “A practical guide for Community Management strategies, best practices, and resources.”

    tags: communitymanagement, communities, strategy

  • “These days there are incessant debates about the adoption of Enterprise 2.0 platforms, tools and practices.

    We’ve been here before … we just did not have the infrastructure or the tools, nor the awareness or skill levels of large numbers of people.

    As information technology first began its relentless march into the daily lives of people in the areas of work (mainframes, early integrated systems, desktops computers in the workplace) and general information-seeking (early days of websites and the Web), thinkers and organizational development conultants began paying attention to the intersection of technology and sociology. Many of the grandfathers and grandmothers of the field of organizational development will find the material on socio-technical systems familiar, and perhaps refreshing in the context of networked workplaces.”

    tags: enterprise2.0, management, organization, socio-technical, socio-technicalsystems, workdesign

  • “On a cru au départ au grand paradigme de la transformation globale et uniforme de l’entreprise traditionnelle en entreprise 2.0. La pratique est en train de prouver le contraire… En effet, plus je travaille avec mes clients au déploiement de stratégies Web 2.0 et de certains de ses outils à l’intérieur de leurs entreprises, plus je m’aperçois que ce déploiement doit se faire de façon graduelle, par projets pilotes.”

    tags: enterprise2.0, pilots, implementation, communities, communitiesofinterest, communitiesofpractices, projectcommunities

    • Premier niveau

      Comme nous venons de le voir, le premier niveau de communauté touche l’entreprise dans son ensemble. Des communautés que je nomme d’intérêt et qui sont ouvertes à tous les employés: profil personnel et professionnel à partager avec tous afin de faciliter la communication et la conversation, faciliter aussi l’identification des expertises et faciliter l’innovation participative.

    • Deuxième niveau

      À ce niveau, les communautés se spécialisent et deviennent des communautés de pratique, si chères aux spécialistes des ressources humaines qui ne jurent que par la gestion du savoir. En effet, c’est à ce niveau que les communautés génèrent des contenus d’expertise ou de mémoire d’entreprise™ à partager entre employés d’une même spécialité en vue d’un transfert générationnel.

    • Troisième niveau

      Ce niveau est par essence, beaucoup plus «granulaire», met en scène des communautés de projets et offre des outils de collaboration opérationnels. Ce sont en particulier des wikis ou blogues de projet et dans bien des cas, ces derniers sont munis de système de sécurité et de confidentialité plus ou moins élaborés et seulement les membres des équipes y sont autorisés,

  • “What is today called Enterprise 2.0 can also be seen as the emergent stage of the intersection of significant advances in information technology, management science applied to business process and the analysis and control of operational activities. These forces and factors are converging in today’s workplaces, wherein a continuous flow of information is the rule rather than the exception. Thus, as Hamel asserts, it’s useful if not essential to cast a critical eye on the assumptions about static sets of tasks and knowledge arranged in specific (and relatively static) constellations on an organization”

    tags: garyhamel, enterprise2.0, management, management2.0, decisionmaking, workdesign, organization, process

    • The 2.0 label is said to denote a more interactive, less static environment.  Whether we like it or not, we are  passing from an era in which things were assumed to be controllable, able to be deconstructed and then assembled into a clear, linear, always replicable and thus static form to an era characterized by a continuous  flow of information.
    • I believe that we need to revisit the fundamental principles of work design AND the basic rules used to configure hierarchical organizations in which the primary assumption is that knowledge is put to use in a vertical chain of decision-making
    • The architectural challenge is to design and implement both work processes and the ways humans interact (with both the work and each other)  intelligently whilst allowing for change(s) as needed
    • Clearly we need both objectives, metrics and well-defined processes AND enough slack and support to help people learn, adapt and work around ineffective or obsolete policies, practices and processes.
    • Networks will not replace or supplement hierarchies; rather the two will be encompassed within a broader conception that embraces both.”
  • “In talking with people about the Enterprise 2.0 industry, I like to insert yet another versioning number scheme:

    * Social Software 1.0
    * Social Software 2.0″

    tags: socialsoftware, enterprise2.0, crm, workflow, process, sales

    • Social Software 1.0 is the “Tools Era”. Put these collaboration and information sharing tools in place, then let the benefits flow. And the benefits do flow.
    • Here’s how I define Social Software 2.0:

      The integration of collaboration, increased findability, social networking and crowdsourcing into core enterprise activities requiring defined workflows, specific user sign-offs, results measurement and role-based access.

    • In Social Software 1.0, that’s a standalone wiki. I’m a fan of the notion that collaboration needs to occur in-the-flow of work. And having a separate wiki for collaborating on a customer quotation analysis makes it tougher to get usage.

      In Social Software 2.0, that’s a collaborative space integrated into a sales force automation application. The customer quotation analysis occurs right where all the “action” occurs in the effort to win new business.

  • “Social CRM is the business strategy of engaging customers through Social Media for building trust and brand loyalty.”

    tags: socialcrm, trust, customers, brand, brandloyalty, engagement, financialperformance

    • Research has shown strong evidence that Social Media Engagement correlates to Financial Performance
    • Engagement is more than just setting up a blog or Facebook profile and letting viewers post comments,
  • “Large organizations continue to embrace Enterprise 2.0 as a viable addition to the corporate business process toolbox. As evidence, look no farther than the rapid growth of The 2.0 Adoption Council, which was founded this past June and currently boasts more than 100 member organizations, each of which has more than 10,000 employees.

    Despite clear interest from the enterprise, discussion persists around obstacles to large-scale adoption of Enterprise 2.0 approaches, tools, and methods.”

    tags: enterprise2.0, adoption, change, changemanagement, failure

    • The fundamental challenge to rapid diffusion of Enterprise 2.0 in large companies and the government is fear of change. As with all business activities, the human element remains a basic driver of success and failure. Enterprise 2.0 practitioners, consultants, early adopters, and observers should recognize the reality of these obstacles and plan accordingly.

  • “Peter Drucker est le premier à définir le Knowledge Worker en 1929. L’excellent David Weinberger (un des terroristes du Cluetrain Manifesto) peut bien dire qu’il s’agit là d’une définition pompeuse, elle n’en reste pas moins prodigieusement visionnaire. Toute sa théorie sur les organisations du XXème siècle est articulée autour de ce travailleur de la connaissance.”

    tags: peterdrucker, management, knowledgeworkers, participation, collaboration, emergence, agility, transparence, simplicity, trust, entreprise2.0, management2.0

    • Cette notion de management participatif est aussi au coeur de la reflexion de Peter Drucker :

      Most discussions of decision making assume that only senior executives make decisions or that only senior executives’ decisions matter. This is a dangerous mistake.

    • La réputation dans le monde connecté est l’évaluation quantifiée de la contribution de l’individu par ses pairs.
    • As our business grows, it becomes increasingly necessary to delegate responsibility and to encourage men and women to exercise their initiative. This requires considerable tolerance. Those men and women, to whom we delegate authority and responsibility, if they are good people, are going to want to do their jobs in their own way
    • Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple and stupid behavior.
  • “At the office, you’ve got a sluggish computer running aging software, and the email system routinely badgers you to delete messages after you blow through the storage limits set by your IT department. Searching your company’s internal Web site feels like being teleported back to the pre-Google era of irrelevant search results.

    At home, though, you zip into the 21st century. You’ve got a slick, late-model computer and an email account with seemingly inexhaustible storage space. And while Web search engines don’t always figure out exactly what you’re looking for, they’re practically clairvoyant compared with your company intranet.

    This is the double life many people lead: yesterday’s technology for work, today’s technology for everything else. The past decade has brought awesome innovations to the marketplace—Internet search, the iPhone, Twitter and so on—but consumers, not companies, embrace them first and with the most gusto.”

    tags: technology, productivity, IT, ITpolicies, personaltechnology, corporatetechnology, google, outlook, virtualmachines, search, spotlight, apple, macintosh

    • Companies now have an array of technologies at their disposal to give employees greater freedom without breaking the bank or laying out a welcome mat for hackers
    • Some forward-thinking companies are already giving employees more freedom to pick mobile phones, computers and applications for work—in some cases, they’re even giving workers allowances to spend on outfitting themselves. The result, they’ve found, is more-productive
    • When they get fed up with work technologies, employees often become digital rogues, finding sneaky ways to use better tools that aren’t sanctioned by the IT department.
    • Now consumers buy more PCs than businesses do—and the consumer market spurs the most interesting innovations
    • Some companies have decided the best solution is to start giving workers what they want. Until a couple of years ago, Kraft Foods Inc., the consumer-goods giant, had a rigid approach to workplace technology
    • o, the IT department stopped blocking access to consumer Web sites, and the company started a stipend program for smart phones: Workers get an allowance every 18 months to buy a phone of their choosing. (Over 60% picked iPhones.) Kraft has also started a pilot program to let some of its employees pick their own computer. One catch: Employees who choose Macs are expected to solve technical problems by consulting an online discussion group at Kraft, rather than going through the help desk, which deals mainly with Windows users.
    • “The win for Kraft is employees are more productive if they use devices they’re familiar with,” says David Diedrich, vice president of information-systems technology, security and workplace services at Kraft.
  • “Even if we do all the right things like facilitate, understand human behaviour, create and nurture conditions for participation, have an enterprise-wide concept…I don’t think it’s enough.

    We need a complementary top-down shift to a new culture of working, as I said in my last post, a move from a competitive to collaborative organisation. “

    tags: collaboration, sharing, incentives, rewards, objectives, management

    • If I’m rewarded just for my achieving my personal output, I don’t have an incentive to share as what I know gives me the edge, it’s not about the organisation, it’s all about me.
    • So yes it’s natural to share, as it’s a need, actually it’s survival…but this needs to be seriously recognised and harnessed as a strategy, and a smart strategy where it cooperates and is cohesive with other strategies. ie you can’t have a strategy about sharing is important, if you have another strategy that essentially says hoarding is important
    • Often a cascading objectives model (one in which, you get your objectives from your boss, and she gets them from her boss, etc..), leads to solio’d thinking. Opportunities that arise that cut across silo’s (and requiring collaboration) are simply never seen. It’s not that people want to be malicious, they simply don’t see the opportunity.
  • “There has been alot of talk about creating enterprise 2.0 pilot test groups before a full fledged implementation across an organisation. However, I haven’t read much about how one can go about identifying teams that will succeed in the pilot test groups. So what are the requirements of an Enterprise 2.0 pilot test groups? “

    tags: enterprise2.0, pilots, incentives

    • Must be tech savvy enough to know how to use the Enterprise 2.0 platform.
    • Managers and team members involved have a history of collaborating with other teams/business units
    • There are reasons and incentives for the teams to collaborate
  • “es managers doivent prendre confiance en eux dans ce nouveau challenge et répondre notamment à deux défis, souvent inhabituelle dans les organisations traditionnelles :

    * Savoir coordonner sans centralisme
    * Savoir animer sans hiérarchie”

    tags: management, leadership, community, management2.0, collaboration

    • lead_manag
  • “Le livre blanc ne cache pas les problèmes du secteur en citant d’entrée de jeu les chiffres de Gartner où l’on apprend que 70% des implantations de logiciels sociaux à l’interne sont des échecs. Trop d’entreprises, selon Socialtext, ont adopté l’approche entreprise 2.0 seulement pour faire partie de la parade. D’où la nécessité d’établir au départ une stratégie avec des objectifs d’affaires clairs qui peuvent être mesurés d’autant plus facilement.”

    tags: entreprise2.0, formal, informal, businessneed, customers, partners, value, businessvalue, process

    • Les départements les plus propices à améliorer leurs processus formels avec des outils sociaux sont ceux où les indicateurs de performance sont peu élevés, où tout le monde procède à sa façon sans savoir comment font les meilleurs d’entre eux et où on réinvente la roue au lieu de profiter du travail déjà accompli.
    • Les départements les plus intéressants pour introduire des processus informels de collaboration en ligne sont ceux où les gens ont beaucoup de difficultés à se coordonner quand le rythme de leurs activités devient trop rapide. Les détails tombent dans les craques faute d’un partage efficace de l’information.
    • Les situations les plus appropriées pour envisager des outils sociaux de collaboration sont celles où les représésentants de plusieurs départements mettent beaucoup trop de temps pour synchroniser leurs responsabilités dans le cadre de projets conjoints. L’impact le plus important de la démarche est de régler les problèmes beaucoup plus rapidement parce qu’ils sont pris en charge quand ils surviennent.

    • Les bénéfices les plus importants des outils sociaux de collaboration surviennent lorsqu’il est difficile de localiser où se trouve la bonne expertise dans une entreprise. Comme l’ont démontré John Hagel et John Seely Brown, souligne le livre blanc, les travailleurs du savoir passent la majorité de leur temps à rechercher la bonne information. Les outils sociaux de collaboration permettent de diffuser de façon informelle les sujets importants du moment dans une entreprise et par le fait même de découvrir où logent les différentes compétences internes.
    • Les entreprises en mesure de profiter de l’introduction d’outils sociaux de collaboration avec leurs partenaires passent la majorité de leur temps à s’échanger avec ces derniers tout au plus des mises à jour et des améliorations tactiques de leur collaboration. L’introduction d’un nouveau programme avec ses partenaires exige beaucoup trop de temps et les clients sont peu informés quand il le faut.
    • Les entreprises habilitées à faire intervenir les outils sociaux de collaboration à ce niveau sont celles qui les ont appliqués avec succès à l’amélioration de leurs relations à l’intérieur de leurs départements, entre eux et avec leurs partenaires dans leurs processus formels. Elles aspirent à profiter de leur avancée pour apprendre vite et répondre aux nouvelles opportunités tout aussi rapidement.

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

From Google Wave to Social Networks : the social napoleon

For a long time, and because many thought they could import the social web’s behaviors in the enterprise as is, the projects aiming at bringing the social dimension within employee’s work tried to structure the enterprise the way the web was. That means people will looking for “communities” that were supposed to fill “social spaces”, each community being a project itself. It lead to a very paradoxical situation since it lead enterprises to organize spontaneity.

That’s the reason why, and even if the above mentioned way made sense in some cases, it appeared that facilitating what was really spontaneous was what made the most sense. And, in my opinion, there’s nothing more spontaneous that people’s day do day job, processes and routine they follow even unconciously. Of course, that’s less impressive than trying to mobilize, if not create, a community from scratch (even if it means wasting energy to make communities that don’t exist live), but it ensures that the most obvious communities are adressed, those that are sometimes too obvious to be seen : the communities of people who need other’s help to do the job they’re asked to do. The problem is that these communities are very versatile : they may last a few minutes, a few hours, even be permanent.

There used to be two ways to face this kind of need.

The first is to allow on-demand groups, community, “social spaces” (call it as you want) creation by employees. It’s rather about governance.

The second is more functional and is translated into the integration of microblogging functionalities in social platforms to allow people to exchange and mobilize outside of the formalism of a structured space (yes…sometimes even a blog or a community is too formal) when people does not have a rich content to share but rather one or two lines.

The purpose is to work like what I call a Service Oriented Organization : allowing someone facing a problem to mobilize the right system (people + tools, + way of doing things) in order to solve it and go back to their work.

From the more structured (opening a group, a community, writing a blog post) to the more unformal (microblogging), every problem has a well dimensioned tool, what favors adoption. It’s because employees are often ask to kill flees with a baseball bat and are not allowed to use a flyswatter that they give up and complain.

That’s the best way to make sure tools are serving a need instead rather than trying to create needs to make people use the tools.

Adressing the “fluid” layer of these interactions is the purpose of Google Wave. I won’t explain what Google Wave is since so many experts already wrote exhaustive posts about it.

The tool is still yound and its success will depends on its ability to integrate with more traditional tools, what is challenged shared with all social tools. A good example of its potential is shown by Timo Elliott, with a Wave / SAP intégration.  That’s only the beginning and it seems promising.

This is a good evidence that the social part of the information system is made of many layers :
• the need is too narrow to build a social group. Above all if the IT dept approval is needed.
• the need is about fluid interactions so even a blog is too structured.

But :

• If people were about to work 3 months on that process, a more structured space should have been open because the Wave should have become quite unreadable and informations hard to find for new joiners.

And, last but not leas : I can believe that all the people in this story join the discussion as needed. But it supposes that they know each other what is seldom the case in a merger. They even may have forgotten a fourth skilled person who was not in their radar. Hence the need for a social network to identify the people that need to be invited in the wave. Why ? Because their identification is made possible by a rich profile, fed by both people themselves and datas extracted from their social activities, publications etc… what takes us back to blogs, groups, communties etc…

So, the social part of an information system is more like a napoleon than a monolithic brick. Each layer is necessary to adress a specific part of a global need. If one misses, the whole chain breaks.

Are you “on demand” or “when we can” ? Enterprise 2.0 and the customer perspective

What does social software bring ? Nothing by itself (contrary to many others, a social app doesn’t process or treat anything but allow people to do things…) but since it makes some things more easy to do it should, in principle, help to improve performance and productivity for many kind of tasks provided people understand they have to slightly change the way they work (what does not means changing work fundamentals but only adjust a few things).

Most often, operations managers can’t see the concrete benefits. To do so they would need to take hindsight but they don’t have time and are too involved to. Consequence : top executives often have the vision while people who have their hands in everyday operations still wonder what problem this new things actually solve, why they’d need to socialize their work, share part of the information. Everyone know what a solution that solves no problem (or no problem people are aware of) is worth.

An approach that sometimes work is to ask managers to imagine themselves at the client’s place. Note that a client could either be an external client or an internal client. Their staff’s job is to meet the client’s need and their role, as managers, is to make sure they will, in the assigned time limit, without being directly in touch with the client. Furthermore, in many cases, managers have to get in thouch with clients only when things go wrong. It’s all the more easy to imagine oneself at the client’s place since everyone know how being a client is, either from internal or external providers. Sometimes, realizing that you do exactly what you don’t like your providers to do is a big step to progress.

[Read more...]

Community management Vs Socio-Collaborative management : how to make the right choice

I already wrote how dangerous it was to use community management for every kind of purpose, and that instead of seing communities everywhere (which need community managers), enterprises have to learn to recognize groups who only need a “simple” manager who’s doing his job right.

Using social platforms in the context of teamwork has a purpose : increase both individual and collective performance and I can’t imagine that a manager will let a community manager speak to his staff, start discussions or even try a grab a bit of their time. That’s not the purpose and, anyway, legitimity and competences related issues will quickly emerge. Exchanges, discussions, will be driven by people everyday’s work, by social routine,  and in no way by marketing and communication established as a managent model.

On the other hand, there a cases when the purpose is to make a group emerge, convince them, make them aware of something… where community management is the right choice.

In the on case, a community manager, a “communication perso”, will be needed. In the other, it will be a manager (THE manager) who should has improved his practices, heading to what we could call management 2.0, social management or whatever you want. Reminding of the brillant speach of Andrew McAfee at the last enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston and the discussions that followed, above all on twitter, I’ll suggest socio-collaborative management. Quite a bit longer but more meaningful, and does not sound “buzzy” than social. Anyway, it doesn’t matter since it’s nothing more than a manager with an improved toolbox (on both behavioral and technical sides).

So we need to know what’s the difference between community management and socio-collaborative management in order to make the right choices and apply the right model to each case. By the way, knowing how many people are offering community management services to businesses that are totally lost, it may be a good anti-quack weapon.

[Read more...]