Enterprise 2.0 by A. McAfee : my review

Enterprise 2.0 - McAfeeThe long awaited “Enterprise 2.0” by Andrew McAfee was issued a few weeks ago. There were lots of expectations towards  the book of the father of enterprise 2.0 which issuing was delayed earlier this year. Now that the book is available, it’s time to answer the traditional questions : does it meet people’s expectations, what does it bring, who should read it and…is it worth buying it.

1°) A course which ends comes at the right moment

Even if “enterprise 2.0″ is not the first book that tackles the issue, it’s the first that is expected to become a reference, what supposes some maturity. This maturity is obviously there and is the result of two courses.

The first course is peculiar to enterprise 2.0 itself. Even if the subject has been discussed for years, we’re only beginning to get a sufficient number of reliable feedbacks and cases to demistify the E2.0 thing and take into account some issues that were often neglected at the beginning due to some kind of angelism that always come with new things.

The second course is the author’s. McAfee clearly explains how, before being the father of enterprise 2.0, he first was a sceptic who tackles the issue to demontraste of useless it was. And, then, how objectivity made him revise his prejudices. This is a part of the book that has its importance since it made us see things with a new and different angle and take the heat out of the topic.

2°) The right tone…

When one is a well known expert in a given field and writes a book, there are two possibilities that are both relevant. The first is to make a technical book to help those who are already mature and want to go further, the second is to make something educational in to order to make anyone understand what matters, what’s at stake and focus on the right issues to design a projec. McAfee chose this second option. People who are used to reading his blog will see the difference : if a blog is a space where experts gather, where the discussion is often technical because hot and emergent topics are discussed, a book must be understandable by all. McAfee brilliantly succeeded in the (difficult) exercice that consists of adapting one’s writing to a book.

So this book is very easy to read and understand. There’s no need to be an expert to read it.

3°)..to tell nice stories…

Deciding to be educational, McAfee chose to teach by the example and, more than cases, offers us nice stories. Rather than listing the benefits of enterprise 2.0 and illustrate with cases, he starts with a few real business issues and clears them in parallel, what helps the reader to understand, step by step, all the challenges. All the cases are different enough so that anyone can find something that is close to his own situation.

This also has another positive side : McAfee does not start from the solution to find problems but starts with the problem to demonstrate how the responses were built. As he said, none of the mentioned companies wanted to “do something 2.0″ not implement social media but solve a real operational issue. Would they have started from the wrong end they would have surely fail.

4°) … to the right people…

The way the book is writen makes it accessible to any manager or decision maker facing such issues and to students who want to go into something that is not taught that much.

Does it mean that more advanced people won’t take any benefit from the reading ? Not at all. First, because everyone having his own approach, it’s a good way to re-evaluate one’s options and choices. Second because it formalized in a structured way things that are often scattered in our thougths and blogs. Last, because the way things are introduced makes it easy to build arguments to evangelize traditional businesses and decision-makers in a way they can accept.

That’s a consequence of the above : when such issued are tackled, one can choose to behave as a change integrist or as a change facilitator. McAfee chose the second option. Hardliners may be disappointed but the best way to make organizations change is to take the heat out of the debate , not by attacking them.

5°)…without looking the other way

What I liked in McAfee’s book is its objectivity and the fact no issue is evaded, even those that don’t please people, that’s to say things that say it’s going to be difficult, that it won’t work everywhere, that companies can choose not to go this way.

Some points I liked :

- varied cases that show many different scenaris demonstrating that there is not a single model.

- objections are dealt with in an objective and argued way.

- the “on the flow” vs “over the flow” comparison that is key to failure / success and is not discussed enough neither on the web nor in books.

- lot of attention paid to culture and management related issues

- not a passionate defence but the objective introduction to many tools and practices that perfectly add to the existing.

Enterprise 2.0′s weakness ? Decision

Let’s assume that, through a mix a community management and socio-collaborative management, businesses manage to make information and people for identifiable and accessible in order to facilitate and accelerate workaday execution, solve problems and invent tomorow’s products and operating models. Even if that sounds seducing, there’s something wrong in the reasonning.

All these dynamics and informations don’t create any value by themselves. That’s one of the reasons why, even if the value of such things is admitted by nearly everybody, there’s still something in decision-maker’s heads that prevent them from seing the tangible value behind.

All these things, this informal, organizational, human capital etc.. create nothing but a potential. A hudge potential though, but only a potential. This brings us back to what I wrote about strategy maps. All this things does not bring anything if not reused in structured and formalized operations. There are some ways to do so :

Social routine that brings information reuse on the flow.

• Decision : that makes possible that something new is used or started.

I’d like to focus on this last point. [Read more...]

Links for this week (weekly)

  • “If the intelligence agencies want to get further gains from the site, they need to incorporate it into their own formal decision making process, he contended. Until that happens, the social networking aspect of Intellipedia is “just a marginal revolution,” he said.”

    tags: decisionmaking, intellipedia, cia, collectiveintelligence

  • “Failure has been around since the time two people first starting working and collaborating together, so it’s safe to assume that it’s going to be with us in 2010. Let’s spend a few moments thinking about and predicting the shape of failure in the coming year.”

    tags: IT, enterprise2.0, failure, cloudcomputing, socialcomputing, socialcrm, crm, saas, process

    • Next year, organizations will continue to buy heavy-duty backbone systems from major vendors, such as SAP and Oracle, and some percentage of those implementations will just not meet expectations.
    • Relationship failure arises when a cloud vendor does not follow through on service quality, pricing, or other commitments. Service availability fails when the the cloud vendor goes down, effectively locking the customer out from his or her own data.
    • Unfortunately, many enterprise buyers learn too late that deploying social computing successfully is easier said than done. These poor folks will implement blogs, wikis, and undertake a variety of other social computing initiatives, only to discover a sad truth: just because you build it doesn’t mean they will come.
    • During this coming year, many large companies will learn painful lessons about what happens when you stop paying attention to customers.
    • Social CRM can help companies develop greater responsiveness and a more intimate conversation with customers. Companies that recognize this and take active steps to foster genuine customer relationships will find success in 2010.
    • Successful relationships between an organization and its customers, or between two individuals, depend on the parties coming to tacit or explicit agreement around basic expectations for both process and results.
  • In this environment, companies need to evolve into what I call an Aligned Enterprise which I’ve defined as:

    An organization that acts cohesively and embraces change in its environment

    tags: alignment, alignedenterprise, leadership, design, engagement, responsiveness, adaptability, customers

      • Purposeful leadership. Establishing and maintaining a clear and compelling vision for where the organization is heading and why it’s going in that direction.
      • Adaptive design. Infusing the realities of the marketplace (customers, suppliers, technology change, etc.) into the creation and evolution of products, services, and processes.
      • Customer-responsiveness. Increasing the magnitude and speed with which an organization learns from, and responds to, customer feedback.
      • Employee engagement. Building strong commitment from employees through alignment of hiring, on-boarding, training, coaching, communications, and incentive programs.
  • tags: iberia, airlines, casestudies, web2.0, communication, blogs, twitter, socialmedia, socialcomputing, socialnetworks

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

Enterprise 2.0 adoption : you need both a voice and a screwdriver

This is a sequel of my previous post related to enterprise 2.0 adoption, enriched by the many discussions and comments that followed. Here’s a synthesis of what emerged from that.

• There must be someone on the driver seat

As Oscar Berg pointed out, there must be someone in the driver’s seat. Seen from this angle, of course, adoption can be driven. Rather, it has to be embodied : someone has to embody both change and novelty and carry it all with a loud, clear and intelligible voice. It’s about explaining, convincing and, in some ways, create dynamics and a kind of enthusiasm that will help things to happen. That’s the role of internal evangelists, adoption leaders and advocates.

• Enthusiasm and good words are not enough.

Even if those who are convinced, the passionate ones, the early adopters are numerous, we are forced to admit this is not enough. If it was, the adoption isue would have been solved for long and we wouldn’t be discussing it anymore. In their daily job, employees can hear the voice that says “it’s possible, it’s good, it’s beneficial….” and still prefer the status quo. Sometimes by fear but it can be dealt with with a good accompaniment. Sometimes the problem is deeper. Employees think that “yes, in a perfect world it would really be great, but it makes no sense in my particular case”. And they are often right.

John Tropea tackles a part of the issue here and here. Generally, if what the voice says is counter to what the common logic would make employees do, they won’t listen to it and follow the old rules that design their job and the way they are measured  even if they find them irrelevant. More, the benefits being inexistant if only a few people change, one has to change with his peers (or a large number of them) in a coherent way.

This pointis not about convinction or carrying a message. Even the bggest enthusiasm can’t do many things against the daily reality nnd workaday concerns. So it’s about working on alignement and make things become coherent. This is the manager’s call and has to be done as close to employees as possible. Of course the “voice” matters, it will explain things to managers, will share hints, best practices, but at the end the solution will imply a screw will be given in the organizational day to day mechanism, that will make that what the voices says will  not be only words anuymore but will be turned into facts.

This adoption depends in no way of enthusiasm and advocacy. It’s a matter of sense and alignment.

• What can be driven ?

Obviously everyone has his own vision and I won’t pretend mine is better. In my opinion, to drive something, you must be able to concretely change it by your own will and actions. One must have a hold on something to actually be able to drive it. So a part of the daily activities can be redesigned in order to align them with the pursued goal, assessment and measurement too as it was done at Cisco. But, in the other hand, and despite the hudge amount of energy spent, it’s impossible to have a hold on people’s mind, to be sure they will be convinced and change their minds. Evangelists can only do their best to make it happen but, since they don’t have any hold on the complex human mechanisme, it’s impossible to modelize what will make everyone see the light whithout any exception.

In the strict sense of the word, if activities’ transformation can be driven, leaders can only do their best to change people’s minds. We also have to acknowledge that the ratio between the ressource that are involved and the final result are more predictable in one case than in the other. [Read more...]

Links for this week (weekly)

  • “Des chercheurs de la Fondation travail et technologies de Namur, en Belgique, se sont penchés sur une “fracture numérique” méconnue : celle qui touche les jeunes de 16 à 25 ans. Si leur étude montre que peu de jeunes sont totalement “offline”, elle révèle aussi qu’en moyenne les jeunes Belges ne sont pas aussi à l’aise avec les nouvelles technologies qu’on pourrait l’imaginer. Entretien avec Gérard Valenduc, codirecteur du centre d’étude de la FTU et coauteur de l’étude.”

    tags: digitalnatives, digitaldivide

    • il est très difficile de franchir la passerelle qui sépare “leur” monde Internet, le chat, le téléchargement ou l’écoute de musique et de vidéos en ligne… de l’utilisation que la société attend d’eux, à commencer par leurs employeurs.
    • Oui, mais elle ne sépare pas ceux qui ont accès au Web de ceux qui n’y ont pas accès. C’est un décalage entre un univers de divertissement et un univers plus large.
    • Nous estimons qu’il faut faire davantage converger, notamment à la fin du secondaire, l’éducation aux médias et aux technologies.
  • “I believe it is a way to better achieve some of the strategic goals of internal company communications, but I want to engage the reality that it isn’t yet displacing legacy approaches in significant numbers by articulating the realistic questions that proponents of social computing should be asking themselves in light of these findings:”

    tags: internalcommunication, communication, intranet, email, socialcomputing

    • 2. What is the proper role of social computing in a company’s internal communication strategy? Is it to replace previous tools and do better the same things those tools were trying to accomplish, or were there internal communication needs that previously went unmet that now could be addressed using the new tools of social computing
    • Why posters are so popular in 2009 is a mystery to me. Maybe people like posters because there are times when you have something the organization should hear, but you may not know precisely the audience for that content — so you post it where all can see it and the people who need it, you hope, will find it. Although, of course, you really have no assurance that actually happens.
    • But it’s also interesting to note that, with the exception of face-to-face, all of these are push communication styles:
    • People want to have productive back-and-forth exchanges with precisely the right people who can help them and a face-to-face conversation does that. But what about when you are not in the same physical location and yet you need to collaboratively exchange expertise with someone else, or a group? That’s when social computing tools can fit the bill because they are web-based approximations of the face-to-face dynamic.
    • Finally, it’s interesting to me that there’s an implication in the reliance on push communication technologies that I think is worth addressing. When these tools are used to communicate corporate messages to the employee population, they imply a finality to the thinking contained in the messaging — they do not invite debate, collaboration, response or input.
    • But what about times when that’s not the implication you want to communicate, times when you do want input from the organization? Such cases are ones in which social computing tools might be the appropriate choice
  • “The way we currently think about community management – for the most part – is a role played by someone managing a set of relationships often mediated by an online destination”

    tags: communitymanagement, role, management, conversations, workflow, outcomes, metrics

    • Over the last nine months working with and speaking with a wide array of individuals who are practicing community management it has become apparent that community management is not only an explicit role or career but also a general approach to management. 
    • A better understanding of how to incorporate real-time conversation into traditional workflows
    • A persuasive approach to business outcomes such as inbound marketing that lowers costs, reduces cycle time, and increases satisfaction.
    • Methods of looking at and tracking not just the last touch point before a business outcome but the behavior paths that drive business outcomes.
    • While we typically recommend that the metrics used to measurement business outcomes today be the same as the ones used to measurement performance in a community-oriented approach, the cycle time and investment/return profile look different.
  • “I was recently asked for one word that best describes the skills needed by community managers. My answer was ‘translation’ – community managers sit at the nexus between various groups both within and external to the community. Translating – not in the traditional sense of translating different languages – but in the more complex sense of translating the same concept or decision in to the language used by various groups is core to gaining support, resolving conflict, and communicating effectively to groups of people over which the community manager has no direct authority. But that’s my perspective “

    tags: community, management, sense, translation, language

  • “We discussed definitions, and models, and strategies and plans. What they are doing, what they want to do, what they would love to do. Ended up with a great view of where the market is now from all different perspectives. There are three different views of SCRM.”

    tags: socialcrm, vendors, organization, strategy, crm, sales, marketing, services

    •  Since there is no defined SCRM market beyond taking on the social channels and integrating them with CRM, they are all right.  What they call SCRM is an integration between Social Media (Channels) and CRM functions (Sales, Marketing, and Service).
    • This reality will start shifting in 2010 as consolidation starts to take over and a market begins to materialize (led by customers spending again, slowly at first), and larger and well-funded vendors begin to look for tools to complete their suites.  We will see a lot of movement in this market as we approach the summer, and very heavy towards the end of the year
    • There is a realization that beyond the hype, vendors and organizations are actually beginning to understand that, and starting to see the path.  And the echo chamber (what happens when visions of the future and how to achieve it become common speech among practitioners and no one else) is quieter than usual. We also see more organizations embracing the concepts early on.
    •  On one hand there is a group of people led by those inexperienced in the enterprise applications market that is screaming at the top of their lungs how you have to engage, you must listen, become social or begone.  On the other hand we tell them they must create a strategy, that it is all about a strategy and everything else falls into place, don’t worry about the social aspect yet.
    •  I cannot even count how many meetings and conversations I had in the past four months with executives who wanted to talk about SCRM – only to be asked how to setup Twitter or Facebooks Fan Pages.
    • Control was made to be the evil word of 2008-2009.  Guess what? organizations won’t simply empower an employee or group to become their social voice without some degree of control.
    • This trend will result in a large number of formal SCRM strategies created and implemented in the second and third quarters of next year.
    •  CRM is not going away.  Nor is SCRM going to replace CRM.  Neither is Social Business going to make CRM and SCRM irrelevant.

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

What future for enterprise social networks ?

Social networks are often the key part of every “2.0″ internal projects ? Why ? Because when the purspose is not to find people or informations anymore but to link people through information and information through people, that’s the essential link between tacit and informal knowledge, those who have it and those who need it.

Social networks may come in different forms :

- declarative : every user declarates his networks as he does on Facebook or Linkedin. It’s not very relevant, in my opinion, since refusing a connection request from a connectophile manager may not be very appreciated in the corporate world and such practices may only lead to duplicate the organization chart. More, criterias that may be professional at first sight but that will always have a part of  personal and uncounscious discrimination may put the actuality and quality of connections in question. Last, because no one can think of all his weak ties and, even more, formalizating them can be counter-cultural regarding to corporate culture : considering those who will wonder if they will dare asking and those who’ll wonder if they should accept, the game may be very difficult.

-  fact-based : the network, but maybe shoul I say “professional nearness sphere”, is not declared by users but analyzed through their activity on social spaces. Who read whom ? Who shares the same topics ? All these things can easily be found by analysing what people do in their flow, the tags they use, their profile.. In my opinion this may is more relevant and helps to identify the “real” networks, according to actual interactions and topics of internet. Since it does not rely on people’s arbitray power it’s more objective and there are few risks of favoritism, diplomacy and popularity competition.

Since networks are fed by social acitivity, they are tied to the applications that supports this activity. Most of times, they are a part of these applications. THe social component of people’s activities not being able to take place anywhere else thatn on specific applications, each vendor built a social network layer above its social application and native social networks vendors added sharing and publication functionalities.

This the enterprise social software landscape as it is today. But how long will it last ?

Voilà le paysage du réseau social d’entreprise tel qu’il se présente aujourd’hui. Mais pour combien de temps encore ?

[Read more...]

Links for this week (weekly)

  • tags: intranet, communication, worsepractices

  • “As Walton mentioned in our last post, the challenge is only in part technical. Broad culture change and user input became integral to Hello’s rollout and acceptance within the firm. This is one reason he staffed the team with as many change management people as technical people. Enterprise 2.0 systems are more transformative than many past technologies. Walton said that in the past a person with the most knowledge has power. Now the person with the most connections has power. “

    tags: boozAllenHamilton, casestudies, management, change, changemanagement

    • This transformation has to be both understood and accepted in the organization. Walton related a meeting with 25 partners about the new transparency

    • Hello is not a mandated system like email. It was rolled out in a “soft” launch and then promoted virally.
    • Walton started the roll out in the largest office outside of the central offices. He wanted people in the field to feel that the system was for them and supported their needs.
    • Prosci advocates building strategy around creating Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Action, and Reinforcement (ADKAR). Hello’s change strategy used the ADKAR approach to focus messaging for social media advocates, early adopters, mid-adopters and late adopters. They did not invest in resistors as they either will adopt at their own pace or will continue to resist.
  • “So what I have been trying to do in a new book is say what that looks like, and yes, I have incorporated certainly some of the things that we did in Management 1.0 and Management 2.0. I think it really has to have a different philosophy and a different orientation with respect to both organizational design, how we treat the work force, how we think about the work force and basically how we lead in this kind of economy and in this kind of competitive environment.”

    tags: management, management2.0, management3.0, organizationaldesign, involvement, control, organization, wirearchy

    • It seems to me that, if you are going to have a valid, viable 3.0, it has to include the right blend of leadership behaviours. Yes, where you inspire people by a sense of mission, sustainability, accountability – but also have a valid management approach which deals with fundamentals like goal setting and work specifications and product evaluation produced by employees.
    • I think it depends substantially on what business you are in, how sophisticated the business is, and how complex it is, but I see much more self organizing, much more use of information technology, social networks, and perhaps even internal markets to create the forum and allocate financial resources within organizations, and that’s an area where there would be enormous differences.
  • “Because of these potential benefits, some companies are moving quickly to embrace Web 2.0., but others see challenges and barriers that should be addressed before their organizations can realize the new technologies’ full potential.”

    tags: web2.0, enterprise2.0, kpmg, collaboration, productivity, innovation, benefits, adoption, security

  • “Bolting an “S” onto the CRM seem to make it harder not better. Of course in the days of Social Media companies need to do something. But sCRM seems to be the opposite direction. sCRM seems to be accelerating the disaster we have on the sales side. “

    tags: crm, socialcrm, dataadministration, relationship, sales, lead

    • The worst are the ones who still promote the “low touch sales model”.
    • We are customer data admins, not customer relationship managers. We manage the theoretic aspects of the relationship but I am about 10-20% of my business hours with a customer – at best
    • AT BEST. Other activities are reviewing the lead process, the nurturing process, we have very sophisticated processes and it takes a lot to actually go through them every day”.
    • Take the C out of the sCRM”. As our networks grow exponentially, we also may need a good tool, but we need a tool that helps us with the actual relationship
  • “It seems to me that English (or Chinese) are going to be replaced as the must know language. Tomorrow, we need to learn to talk to the machine. Technology skills will be basic skills for the future blue-collar or white-collar worker.”

    tags: technology, automation, language, knowledgeworkers, contribution, productivity, leadership, googlewave, bots, problemsolving

    • When a platform like Google Wave is adopted, the difficult thing will be to adapt to bots, to make them more friendly, and then to develop new ones, adapted to real needs
    • As a matter of fact, we already have bots all around us, we just did not know they were bots until someone (Google) called them by their names
    • We will be slowly entering a new era, the «I have to automate it era».
    • we’ll go from solving problems to designing systems that solve problems
    • Tomorrow, we need to learn to talk to the machine.
    • But slowly, in some enterprises, Enterprise 2.0 is gaining speed. In these workplaces, people are still users, but they need to get ready to continuously master new usages. Not learn them once or twice. Continuously change usages
    • If they succeed, the next challenge is to become contributors
    • When these corporate collaboration platforms are widely spread, we are going to become builders.
    • Training is the answer today to people obsolescence. Not enough. Because not everyone can be trained at the same pace, and training is still an industrial process, based on a mechanical view of the corporation. Adoption of collaboration platforms should also lead towards changing our mindset as organisation and value are concerned.
    • Contributors build value differently. They are helping the corporation built another key system : if we assume the IT network was built for users, now we needed the knowledge network for contributors.
    • What about builders ? We have builders all over in our corporations : leaders, researchers, managers, … But they are still in the minority side of the company.
    • When collaboration platforms are adopted, more and more people will be considered as builders, because building will be expeced of them
    • Users are left with a difficult choice : become a contributor or go be a user to any other, lesser, corporation; similarly, contributors are left with the choice to become builders or go contribute some-place else. Even builders, once they have put all they had in a bot, will have to learn to build bots for something different or go build solutions to other, lesser corporations.
    • Or maybe not most value will come from productivity … maybe, as some companies already do, people development will become the central process of the corporatio
    • Corporations are not bots. They are machines from hell. Whatever is expected of them, they do. Today, leaders expect quaterly earnings from corporations, at whatever cost. It will be good to challenge this short term vision.
    • At this point, one thing is clear to me: leaders are needed to define what the corporation needs to become. Otherwise, the disparity in household income that we consider high today, will have just been the beginning of a sad story.
  • “You may be the reason your company isn’t growing. You are micromanaging — and it’s stifling the organization you are trying to build.”

    tags: management, micromanagement, bottlenecks, decisionmaking, quality, revenue

    • Entrepreneurs cannot avoid getting their hands dirty with the nitty-gritty. That said, decisions and the information necessary to make them should be pushed down the ranks whenever possible
    • Successful entrepreneurs know that their time is best spent preparing their employees for potential difficulties and helping those same employees learn from their mistakes. Only then can future mistakes be avoided.
    • Routing every decision through yourself is unsustainable. Entrepreneurs that fail to evolve their management style from “doer” to “coach” will never have the resources to seek new opportunities!
  • “Measurement and metrics tracking is not a decision-making tool. It is a performance indicator. The numbers neither know what you are trying to achieve nor are they the only factor in understanding performance. Do not use them that way – it is simply poor management to rely on numbers to make your decisions. Use them to assess and evaluate.”

    tags: communities, socialmedia, indicators, decisionmaking, measurement, performance

    • From my experience, metrics are essential to understanding if where you are spending your time is working well or not
    • The result of the measurement is not to dock your pay, criticize you, or indicate that you should stop blogging.  It was to learn something about how you did something to improve it the next time.
    • .  Better management would say “Well, let’s track week over week and see where you are after a few months and evaluate whether we want you to continue blogging.
    • Combine them with content analysis, the business outcomes you are looking for, and some contextual judgment to make decisions about how and what to change if the numbers are not where you want them to be

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

Enterprise 2.0 and the measurement hypocrisy

Managers use to say that one can’t manage what is not measurable. We can also add that businesses don’t undertake things they can’t drive. So the conclusion is that businesses don’t unertake anything if they can’t measure the result. It may be a statement of the obvioux but it’s always worth reminding it. Talking about social media, how many projects were left in the waiting room due to the lack of measurable impact. “You know…connect people, share information etc… is very nice, but it’s hard to demonstrate the impact”.

Then let me add a third adage of my own invention : there is not a thing that is harder to measure than those one dont’ want to measure.

Please remind that a social software projet has to be measured at three levels : activity, alignement of contents and business purposes and use of the contents and new “connection practices” to improve organizational performance.

I won’t write again what I wrote in the above-mentioned post, but if a social software project, whatever its nature is, does not bring any change to a few and clear business metrics, that means that either the tools are used on a wrong way or that is was implemented regardless to sense and alignement.

Let’s state it once and for all : everything can be measured. Sometimes in a simple and easily identifiable fashion, sometimes with more complex tools when it comes to back by figures intangible things. All the same, many tools exist to measure how people feel about such or such things, sometimes by conducting surveys, and it’s up to project managers to decide to use them. That’s the way to know if people find things are going better, if knowledge is more accessible, if they feel more engaged, if they find that a better access to their colleagues helps them doing things better and faster, il they think discussions makes the corporate message easier to understand…. For all the rest, direct and quantitative indicators exist.

Knowing that, we may be able to say that, depending on the project, we can measure the impact of social software through business indicators or (sometimes with…) surveys (for what is about subjective feelings…especially in the communication and HR field) and that the issue is closed. Unfortunately it’s not. Not because things are not measurable but because people don’t want to measure them.

[Read more...]

Will you know how to export your conversations and focus on transactions ?

The world of communication and marketing is worried because of the consecration of digital medias, an highbrow word used to talk about the web by people who are suddently feeling out of date.

For many people, the revolution brought by the web is the so-called new “power” that’s in internauts’ hands. According to me this power, that has to be relativized because old rules still apply and only 1% internauts really use this power, is only one side of a global shift of the point of contact between a business and its environment.

People didn’t wait for web 2.0 or social media to talk about companies and products in their back. Over a cup of coffee, in real life, first, then on forums and, after, on social medias. It changes many things and made them more complicated for businesses is that discussions are scattered all around the web what makes it hard to take an inventory of them and follow them. This scattering is not a bad thing when one know of to take the most of it but causes headaches to people who consider corporate communication as a centralized thing.

Scattering can be an opportinity. The (few) companies that “buzzed” wisely are a good example. Those who crowdsource too even if they could do much better. As a matter of fact, what’s sure is that internauts don’t want to be pulled toward a corporate site anymore. On the other hands they are opened to the messages and to discussions provided the subject is relevant and the discussion takes place on their own ground. Now the only way to adress the audience is to do it on Facebook, Linkedin or any social network of this kind (even blogs but it needs some targetting), most of all if rather than delivering a message the purpose is to start a discussion to get opinions, advices, to ask for participation.

When a business decides to follow the internaut on his ground, there is something to be aware of and an answer to find. Be aware that no one can prevent a discussion from happening and an issue to be discussed. The question is to know how, among all  these discussions, some of them will be about something the enterprise wants to be discussed, even questions it would like the audience to answer.

[Read more...]