In practical terms, there a some usual questionings like  :

- I’ve 30 000 employees who know my company and my products so why should I take the risk of opening to the outside world ? We are numerous enough like that.

- do I have to make internal and external work together ? Should I put them in watertigh bubbles ?

The truth is while businesses that adopt such strategies do it with a purpose, participants, regardless to their sincerity, may  unconsciously be pursuing personal goals that may differ from the corporate ones. It does not matter as long as companies are aware of that and act in the proper way.

At first sight, there’s nothing better a motivated employee who wants to help his company to improve. That’s a well known fact : consummer want to tell businesses what they have on their mind, so losing the opportunity of listening to those who spend their day working for your business would be a true waste. Things precisely get complicated at this point and that’s the reason why businesses have to conside their external ecosystem to get different feedbacks.

For employees, an enterprise is a hierarchical place. That’s a place where power games rule and many think, rightly or wrongly, that even the most constructive feedback or opinion may cause reprisals if some feel they’re being questioned . The fear of sanction may limit participation or bias the results.

So let’s talk about sanction. In any organization, the power of sanctioning belongs to the hierarchy. And who can sanction the hierarchy ? Indirectly the customer who is free to buy or not, what is the supreme sanction (I don’t even mention e-reputation issues).

So customers would be more sincere because they don’t have anything to fear and are in a logic of progress (they want better products and service) while employees may be in a fear logical that can refrain them for involving or may make them misrepresent the truth to say what others want to hear instead of what they have on their mind.

The irony is that your employees are more confortable to criticize and help your competitors to improve their products…and reciprocally. That’s a fact.

So, should employees be excluded from the system ? Not at all but businesses will have to think about the mechanism that will allow to bypass the bias.

There are less dangers with clients, and above all with general public. The downside is that it’s very hard to get the attention from people who are seeked a lot. This is a techno-political challenge that should not be underestimated either.

That’s why listening to your own employees is not enough and why engaging with customers matter.

clients, crowdsourcing, Innovation, open innovation, social crm

- the world is full of stakeholders. You already knew for your shareholders, your employees. For your partners and clients too. Now even your non-clients are a part of the game, they all have expectations, they all thave things to say about your products, why they trust your or not, they can all be the cause of a mass reaction that may impact your business, either positively or negatively.

- stakeholders matter as much as shareholders : it becomes harder everyday to satisfy the ones while neglecting the others. Worse, sometimes you have to listen to the first to satisfy the second.

- value is a flow. It does not self generate in the till or when a contract is signed but though a flow (many people already got that) that has its source outside the company, go through it and ends outside.

- localization is obsolete. People recently start to understand that interactions between the enterprise and its stakeholders did not depend anymore on where each was physically located but have moved online.  But “online” does not mean the corporate website anymore, it could be anywhere, depending on the blogs or social networks people use to read/use. Businesses can’t afford to wait for customers to join them, they have to join them where they are.

- the way business is done is at least as important for performance than operations. It’s a matter of values, of culture (what a company like Danone has identified and turned into a key asset years ago) but also (for how long ?) of ethics.

- The famous “to” in B2C, B2B…. and its “one way” connotationis being replaced by a bijective “with”.

- vertical hierarchy won’t disappear but articulates with an horizontal one. As a matter of fact the above mentioned flow does not advance by itself. It is fed by noise that has to be turned into information, then in decisions, then in actions that have to be monitored. It implies an horizontal decision making model in organizations that are structured for vertical decisions making only. So the organization has to be rethought in order not only to obey to “people from above” but also to “next door colleagues”.

- the value chain becomes social. Processes too.

- la chaine de valeur devient “sociale”, les processus également.

- in an information econmy, the only things that businesses can value is what the public can’t create alone, without them.

- what matters in communication (both internal or external is not how much information is pushed but the level of gained attention.

That won’t go without some challenges such as :

- implementboth the process and the “human factors” that will help to embed stakeholder’s creativity and knowledge into products, services, operations.

- manage employee’s schizophrenia. They are a part of the ecosystem, of the stakeholders, but often have radically opposite behaviors depending on whether they wear their corporate or their customer suit.

- rethink the enterprise, still as a production driven organization, but not as a push engine anymore, rather as the industrial element of the market to market loop.

- offer only products, information, services that mass collaboration between internauts can not produce.

- separate the wheat from the chaff in all the social noise and not go to the opposite extreme what would be like a “social submission” with inconsistent actions and unreadable

chaine de valeur, création de valeur, Innovation, Management, marketing, parties prenantes, social crm, socialisation, socialnomics, valeur, .

Innovate, Innovate ! You must innovate. That’s this year’s hit ! Even this crisis’ hit, since crisis and especially this one force us to review many certainties and reinvent many things we used to take for granted. Innovation is shown as being the enterprise’s call. Innover ! Il faut innover. C’est le tube de l’été, en tout cas celui d’une crise qui met à mal quelques certitudes et nous amène à revisiter nombre de choses que l’on croyait acquises. Et comme de bien souvent l’innovation pèse sur l’entreprise. C’est bizarrement lorsqu’elles en ont le moins les moyens que c’est d’autant plus vital qu’elles s’y mettent. Cela n’est pas sans quelques aspects positifs : tout d’abord les entreprises ouvrent leur leur innovation en impliquant leurs clients, leurs salariés, leur écosystème au sens large, ensuite elles comprennent que la prochaine fois que tout ira bien elles ne se reposeront pas sur leurs acquis et travailleront à se doter de quoi bien se tenir lors de la prochaine période de vache maigre.

Mais l’entreprise ne fait pas que ce qu’elle veut. Elle évolue dans un cadre économique et législatif dont elle ne maitrise pas tous les éléments. C’est là qu’entre (ou non d’ailleurs) l’état dont le rôle est de créer les conditions de la sortie de crise. Au départ cela commence par des exhortations : “Nos entreprises doivent innover”. Ce qui fait une belle jambe au patron de PME empêtré dans le marasme économique et une législation parfois peu facilitatrice. Cela se poursuit souvent par des financements. Des enveloppes distribuées plus ou moins à propos, pas forcément aux bonnes personnes et pour les bons projets, et en fonction d’un processus administratif qui fait que les fonds sont débloqués au milieu de la crise suivante. Quoi qu’il semble que coté français on s’améliore de ce coté là (même si le caractère purement “web” des initiatives en cours tendent à négliger les efforts dont ont besoin des industries plus traditionnelles).

Et ensuite ? Besoin de coordonner, d’actions sectorielles spécifiques. Car on ne parle pas que de financer le développement de nouveaux produits (il est d’ailleurs souvent trop tard). On parle de nouveaux produits, mais de nouveaux business models, de se donner les moyens de créer et explorer de nouveaux marchés, de nouveaux modes de travail.

Le problème de l’innovation c’est que cela relève de l’économie, mais également des PME, des grandes entreprises. Un peu de recherche. Un brin de fiscalité. Sans parler des secteurs d’activités qui ont un ministre de tutelle dédié : transports, éducation, santé, TIC, industrie, et pourquoi pas d’ailleurs sport et culture.

Bref, repenser la manière dont on fait les choses n’est pas une affaire simple. empiète sur de nombreux territoires sans qu’on sache en définitive qui a leadership, coordonne, et donne le ton aux autres. On peut créer une taskforce dédiée, mais le caractère nouveau et provisoire de ce type d’organismes nuit souvent à son autorité. Ou alors donner un grand coup de balais dans l’existant histoire de matéraliser ces priorités nouvelles et rappeler à ceux qui en ont la charge ce qu’on attend d’eux.

Jamais en retard en terme de modernité, la Lituanie a décidé de transformer son ministère de l’économie en Ministère des affaires, de l’Innovation et du travail. Pas un simple changement de nom mais une véritable restructuration.

Bon…et chez nous il se passe quoi ?

The starting point is known by everyone. In a world that gets more interconnected everyday, consumers do things on thgeir own that are totally out of marketing people’s control and do not always please them. They make their own opinion on a produc, give pieces of advice the one to the other, share their positive and negative feedbacks, propose ideas to improve products or to conceive new ones. Consequence : some say nice things about a product, passionate communities are forming. But the opposite also happens.

The truth is that marketing depts do not control what’s said about products anymore. Worse, people don’t listen to marketers anymore. Hence the consequence (hastily ?) drawn by the report : marketing is being replaced. Consequence : rather than keeping pushing messages, businesses should listen. That’s not without reminding me of the community management debate. Those who are passionate about this issue should read how Xavier Comtesse revisited the value chain, taking into account the 2.0 paradigm and the concept of “consumActor” (detailed here) and very well illustrated by this chart.

I won’t add anything about ideagoras, crowdsourcing and similar things that have already been discussed a lot on this blog and all over the web. But it’s obvious everything is converging. One more example of business socialization.

McKinsey proposes a pragmatic model judiciously called LEAD (listen, experiment,apply,develop). By the way, it does not bring anything new to the abundant litterature on the topic. More, it has already been implemented by many businesses (P&G for instance). At the end, by pointing at marketing’s weaknesses, it’s the need for a re-invented innovation that’s highlighted.

Beyond my disagreement on the title, I don’t thing that the conclusion that has to be drawn from the report is the pointlessness of marketing. Marketing only has to be rethought regarding a value chain that should be coherent with today’s business context and highly involved in innovation processes (and idea sourcing) which are the the fuel that will power companies in the upcoming years. This is the needed shift from a logic of local push to a global pull one.

As for the conclusion that suggest businesses have to get prepared for web 3.0 I let you make your own opinion. Nobody knows how the future will look like, and since businesses are only starting to understand how to embrace web 2.0 without mistakes and unnecessary worryings, I find the injunction irrelevant, premature and superflous.

This document is not about internal issues. But drawing its consequences in terms of management would be an interesting exercise…and I’m sure McKinsey have its ideas about that.

One may answer that always looking for compromises leads to solution that bring nothing, that choices have to be made and that’s the reason why people never chose : they’re afraid of making a wrong decision so making none is the best way to avoid failure.

I’m one of those who think that when two contradictory assumptions have to be taken into account, one or the other must be false. Or they rely themselves on false assumptions.

Example : having to climb up a high mountain vs. not being able to do any effort. This only on the only fact that, a priori, people take that a mountain must be climbed up on foot for grand. What about an helicopter ?  But everything starts with a false assumption that makes us think that a choice has to be made.

I wonder what would Steve Jobs think of that, since he teaches us to always keep a beginner’s mind.

• The principle

Growth rely on two factors : innovation (ability to propose new products that meet the maket’s expectation and conceive new processes and business models) and integration (ability to make separate entities work together in order to lower structural costs, higer overall production capacity and discover new opportunities).

• The constraints

Integration and innovation share a common point : they are not in most of corporate DNAs. Innovation because it breaks with traditional habits and is more often stifled than promoted, integration because it goes against local optimization that it tries to replace with a systemic approach.

More, because they suppose more exchanges and an increased work on information, these logics need a strong support from IT departments and yet the article mentions a survey that shows that if half the IT depts are in charge of integration and a third of innovation, very few of them are in charge of both.

• Issues

On the innovation side the problem is not the generation of new ideas, companies being full of them. But they need to be identified, harnessed and resources have to be allocated to develop them. The search for ideas must take place both inside and outside the company, and ideas can come from anybody.

On the integration side, efficient operations need transparency which is very hard to bring into organization because of the logics of silos and the lack of courage from manager.

• Operating mode

The authors propose to create two groups

• A distributed innovation group

These people are not themselves innovators but facilitators. Scattered in the organization they also scan what’s happening outside and serve as internal expertise centers.

• An integration group

In charge of giving an horizontal consistency to local initiatives, sometimes disorganized or even competing. It develops management practices making it easier to integrate the initiatives in the company’s business.

• The role of the IT dept.

It’s to provide the tools that makes it possible to articulate global and local. It’s also to provide a framework and the tools for experimentation. And to end, it’s to make it possible for people located inside and outside the organization to interact together. In viewpoint, IT depts will have to acquire skills about both innovation processes and social networking tools.

So three requirements :

- deploy platforms made of reusable elements instead of a traditional information system with poor functional perimeter.

- external services : in order to focus on innovation and inegration, IT depts will more and more rely on external services providers. To stay up to date and benefit from the best talents, it’s better to put specialists in charge and don’t spend resources to maintain things. In other words, hosting one’s information system on premises will become less and less justifiable.

- web 2.0 : IT depts must get used to it and understand what these tools can bring for communication and sharing purposes, in order to gather, use and reuse information in a more productive way. Web 2.0 tools will make the link between adhoc and formalized activities.

• Examples

They are not that new but we can mention them again.

• Procter&Gamble and its “connect and develop” program about which I have bookmarked some links here in the past. Result : the ideas catched from the outside increase by 50% while the productivity of the R&D doubled.

• Nokia designed a collaborative process involving clients, suppliers, academics, inventors and its own innovation labs.

• Nokia a mis en place un process collaboratif incluant ses clients, ses fournisseurs, des académiques, des inventeurs, ses laboratoires d’innovation.

• Royal Dutch Shell and its “GameChanger” program. In addition to R&D which was working on short term, distributed innovation groups working with 10% of the R&D budget worked on long term issues. Everyone can propose an idea in order to fund a proof a concept. Since 1% of the R&D budget goes to GameChanger, the initiatives coming from the program incubate 30% of its projects.

• To be noticed…

Anticipation is key. The authors note that, too often, new tools are deployed and, then after, people learn to manage differently. It’s a real weakness of these integration initiatives. Companies have to anticipate and visualize how things should be, what would happen, how people should work and the implied changes in order to facilitate them.

It’s important to think globally, not locally.

Il faut penser systèmiquement et non localement.

• Urgency does not mean lack of vigilance : state of urgency makes people focus on short term which bad effects are know…on long term. Moreover, enterprise compartmentalization and a hard context lead to a strong deterioration of communiation. At last, blind faith in systems disconnects managers from reality.

• short term and lack of markers. The contractual short term logic destroys people’s markers and confidence disappears.

• Innovation is key to survive a downturn. But it will have to be cooperative and operated inside alliances, with partners.

• Intangible assets are a source of differencitation and development. Companies must identify therm and build their new strategies upon them, using new appropriate dashboards and indicators for this paradigm.

• Digital as a tranformation lever : companies underuse the capabilities new technologies offer and don’t reinvent themselves because of overcautiousness and fear of changing era.

• Maintening the links with the ecosystem in crisis time is very important, knowing that it’s a time of high customers volatilty and that the public opinion will try to analyze even the weakest signal. Mastering one’s communication and information will imply to use tools that allow this new form of transparent communication.

• companies need to be more and and more reactive in order to run their traditionnal activities in a more and more complexe context, where foreseeability is very uncertain and where sharp competences and complex competences assembling are needed in a short range of time. Something like “special forces forces for special taks”, running in parallel with traditionnal activities which are companies common background operations.

• in order to match this need, adequate expertises and competences are needed.

We have no choice but to admit that high levels of performance are reached in legay and “institutionnalized” activities and the money that has been invested to improve many business processes often provided a ROI. Competencewise, we also have to admit they are really present within organizations. But, for what’s about building efficient adhoc self-organized teams, even if the need is identified it gets harder and harder to be successfull since more and more situations requires this way of doing things.

One reason is that what we call intellectual capital, if present, is not easily accessible and its owners can barely be identified. To improve things, experience and knowledge should be “findable” and “findability” can only come from putting it all in words because it’s (and will remain for years) the more efficient way of indexing and finding datas in an online network, the so-called online network being the only commons space shared by all employees in scattered companies. So people would be able to search the experience and, if they can’t find what they’re looking for, identify referent people they could contact and ask.

All this is nothing more than a matter of information and readiness.

On the information side, it’s about harnessing “soft knowledge”, not what’s strutured, validated and is a part of the corporate corpus, but all the micro-knowledges available in mailboxes, personal memos, and above all in people’s brains.

It implies to officialize a new source of knowledge (people) a new way to harness it that would be more like storytelling.

Some may say that if it was possible it would habe been done for a long time. But it needs appropriate tools and that’s where web 2.0 tools bring something really new. By their very nature they can harness and make all these unstructured knowledge available, ready to be used, where usual knowledge sharing tools reach their limits because they need a structuration that does not apply to this kind of knowledge and, as a consequence, are very time consuming for poor results.

Whenever all these issues are taken into account, the common weakness of many approaches is lack of information readiness, due to a lack of appropriate tools.

Let’s consider a sales team for instance. A CRM allows to answer some questions like : who ? how much ? when ? Sales methodology allow to answer (even partially) to “how”. and what about qualitative informations (arguments, context….) ? They are key to understand what happens during the sale cycle but are not available nor ready to be (re)used except by asking directly to sales people. In this case, information is given orally or by email which make it impossible for anyone facing the same situation, working on the same account to access it, so the person will have to ask again the same question, provided he found the right person to ask it to.  And when the time come to gather and organize sales best practices, better  look for a needle in a haystack
The same reasonning can apply to innovation. Companies are full of ideas. But making them identifiable et make things in order to they can be transformed into projects is another story.

In brief, without improving information readiness which is both about harnessing and availability, the biggest part of the intelectual capital is useless because not usable.

You may find this nice but need a value-oriented reasonning.

Assuming that intangible assets play their part in value creation even if lots of people don’t know how and why, after having read that, remember that intangible assets’ impact on value creation deponds on :

• alignement ; of course competences, knowledge, ideas are needed, but they have to be alignent with company’s concerns and purposes. It’s a corporate issue, for managers and HR people.

• the use of these assets in usual business processed. For instance, ideas are useless without a process in order to identify them and turn them into real projects. In other words, intangible assets are valueless if businesses don’t know how and when to use them.

• information readiness that makes the previous point possible. If there’s a business issue and is intellectual capital makes it possible to respond to it, information readiness will determine to what extent this capital is usable. With structuring top-dow tools, this might be around 20% which is far from being satisfying in a knowledge economy. To improve this rate, adequate tools and processes are needed. 100% is unreachable, but a 40 or 50%  readiness rate must be a seducing target for many businesses.

Web 2.0 tools as readiness boosters ? I really believe in that, especially since the impact on finance is obvious.

I can’t see anything particularly cleaver when some people say that when the economy’s going through hard times, the more fragile companies may come off badly. Among those companies there’s no need to have a second sight to guess all those that operates on an emerging market may be concerned, which is the case for web 2.0 startups…but not only. Not enough to convince me of real soothsayer abilities, nor to applause such perceptiveness, knowing it’s easy to ring the alarm when the city is burning just when you’ve been knowing fire raisers were at work for a long time. Those who were pushing for “everything 2.0″ even without sense or business model, prefering the “buzzyness model” could wonder about their past analysis. They themselves killed “their” web 2.0, turning it into a hudge holdall where they put everything and anything. But once smoke will be gone, many interesting things will remain, the only things that value creation can rely on, that makes it possible to build real business models. For this reason, I see these troubled times we’re experiencing as a salutary stabilization phase. I’ll end with a comparison with our late web 1.0. Even if some babies were thrown with the bathwater, companies that adresses a real need, that delivered a real valuable service, survived the crisis and are still alive.

In brief, I’d rather rank the “web 2.0 is dead” buzzword in the “who lives on noise can only survive making more noise” category.

So, what’s about Enterprise 2.0 ?

Things can be seen from two points of view : companies that are changing (or not) and companies whose job is to play a part in this transformation. But both are tied : since some companies have a vital need for deep change, there’s a market for their suppliers.

Don’t think in terms of solutions, what would be mistaking means for goals one more time and take the market by the wrong end, but in terms of needs.

Of course, during a crisis period, budgets are shrunk. But it doesn’t mean there are no budgets : it’s all about allocation. And allocation goes to what will help companies survive or play their game well, knowing it’s often by working hard and seriously when market shrinks (working…not withdrawing into oneself) that an enteprise acquires the ability to make the difference when times will become easier. So let’s have a look at what matters.

• Innovate : I’m not talking about finding the next big thing, but all of the small improvements that makes a company more efficient in day to day business in order to survive hard times.

• Do more with less : because of restrictions, businesses will have to be more agile than ever. I think there will be be two main trends : less fat and more insourcing

• insourcing : it means taking outsourced key competences  back into the enterprise (because of coase law…) knowing in such hard times it’s cheaper to have them inside than paying for outside supplier. But it will be only about core and rare competences;
• Less fat : organizations 1.0 developped an impressive non productive mass with people whose job is to control the guy to whom reports the one who checks the one who controls the person in charge of cleaning the toilets. Some disintermediarization won’t harm organizational performance. Most of times it’s not about people but about the usefulness of a part of their job. A few weeks ago I was talked about a 32 levels of hierarchy company…no comment.

• Strenghten teams : there’s nothing worse, when companies need all their people’s energy to face big challenges, than having people who doubt, who fear the future, feel lost in their organization. Since it’s proved that involvement directly depends on the ties people forge at work, a nework-based approach my have a critical impact on cohesion. It also applies to external relationships : clients, public opinion.. people ask for transparency, trust, proximity, above all when they have the impression of having been tricked. Future will belong to those who’ll the courage not to curl themselves up but to open themselves. I even believe more of the impact of networks in bad times than in a growth context : they are times when people need more than ever not being alone, humanly speaking but also in order to be successful in business.

• Face the generation Y challenge : it’s still hard for companies to find enough talented people for junior positions.

• decrease latency time: involve recently hired people as possible in order they’ll be effective as soon as possible. It takes 6 months to anybody to know his company and start creating value ? What’s about a mentoring and expertise sharing system that makes it possible to win one month are business critical.

• Expand external networks. In order to make money go in, nothing’s more efficient that being smart and some elbow grease. Sales managers begin to digg into their adress book in order to help their teams, to find opportunities. In brief a crisis is the time when one need to know how to use his network. Globally speaking, contacts will be gold if, and only if, they could be used. Businesses will also have to learn to work very closely to their partners, identify opportunities faster and respond together faster. More than being good, businesses will need to be agile and smart. There again it’s more about network than process.

• Get ready for the end of the crisis : imagine, and that will be the case in many businesses, that a “no initiative and no investment”, “hold on”, “people should thank us for hiring them” policy is adopted. One day, business will restart. What will happen this day ? People marked by a “frugal” and curled up company will feel like going elsewhere and take the most of an active job market. More, while some businesses will be able to rely on motivated people, some will ran out out “fuel”. It’s a pity to survive winter and be unable to tak off when spring comes just because your people are disheartened and your innovation pipe is empty.

In brief, there are many things to explore in order to spend winter in a warm and safe place. Each of them implies an organizational model and specific tools. The way you call it doesn’t matter at all but it oddly looks like what was called enterprise 2.0. Due to such vital needs the need for answers is not about to decrease.

By the way, please notice that if enterprise 2.0 have been showned as an organization designed for growth, it now show special capabilities for strenghtening organization in difficult times. Who said “social security” ?.

Gary Hamel and McKinsey said that change was not in corporate DNA and that a major crisis will be needed in order companies understand in which way they have to change. Here we are. Let’s hope lessons will be learnt.

Let me also add that I wouldn’t have said all that one year ago, when enterprise 2.0 was a big holdall, seldom focused on value creation. Last reports and what I can see every day confirm that businesses begin to understand that such dynamics have to be used in order to improve their business. And that’s more important than ever.

Now it’s time to focus on business improvement. With courage 1.0.

No need to repeat what I said in my former post. But I’m coming back to this topic because Rex just sent me thr pdf of an interview he gave to Business Digest. The document being for (paying) suscribers only I was about to make a short excerpt here when Rew finally get the authorization to publish it. So I relay it, hoping you’ll find it useful.L’article étant payant j’allais vous en faire un petit résumé lorsque Rex a eu l’autorisation de le publier. Je relaie donc en espérant que vous y trouverez votre bonheur.

Some thoughts before you start reading my favorite collaboration director…

• Company’s problems are not only company’s problems : they are everybody’s problems and everybody has to find solutions together.

• Governance is about aligning ideas with corporate issues and not about the presumption some people more be more revelant than others : someone from the IT dept may have very good ideas about marketing., his freedom of speech may not be restricted to IT isses.

• It’s essential to determine at the very beginning of the project what ideas would become. Here, people know best ideas will be presented to top managers. It gives credibility, it helps changing minds, and above all, it’s the evidence of a necessary transparence that improves motivation.

• Votes and “wisdom of crowds” are not enough. The most disruptive ideas seldom meet people’s attention. So they have to be identified “manally” and give them as many chances to be exploited than those that got the most voted ones.

• First of all it’s about cultural change, it needs leaders and it takes time to happen.

• Tools are important but they are the last step. It must not make forget the human side of the project. “don’t think that a technical solution can resolve a problem that’s fundamentally a human one;[...] it can take the organization’s pulse, but you need to go further to change the corporateculture to one of collaboration…being responsive to what [employees] have to say, and carrying out real actions”

• You may have noticed how we started with ideas management to end with collaboration. At first sight it may be surprising that a collaboraiton director may be so involved into innovation, creativity, problem solving. It’s because, and I had the confirmation of that during our conversation, Rex and I share the same vision according to which, today, collaboration is “finding together innovative solutions to problems”.

Enjoy your reading !

Tags: bell , collaboration , culture , ID-ah! , Innovation , innovation collaborative , résolution de problèmes

change change management cultural change