The problem with knowledge economy : it does not exist !

December 14, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Summary : Enterprise 2.0 or social business initiatives aim at crafting organizations that fit what we call the knowledge economy. And that’s quite hard…for one reason. The knowledge economy does not exist. Knowledge work and workers do. Not the economy. What’s missing ? A global environment that would help its blooming, its take-off rather than forcing enterprises to make industrial decisions on matters that are not industrial. Education, law, tax system, accounting has to be rethought from a new angle. In the meantime, anything undertaken by organizations will be bricolage : it will need lots of efforts for marginal or even futile results regarding to the deep transformation challenges that are at stake.

When we talk about new organization or management approach, about the tools that support new ways to communicate or collaborate we often use the knowledge economy as a justification. Moving from an industrial to a knowledge economy means a deep change of context and responses of a new kind from businesses. That’s an obvious fact and none of the current social business or enterprise 2.0 expert has coined anything new : there already was an abundant literacy on these new forms of organization while most of os where still learning writing and counting at school. If we take the technology side apart, any old book from Peter Drucker could be a best seller if published today with the same texts and a socially fashionable title.

So knowledge economy is there and both organizations and people have to deal with it. But what do they do it so slow, with so much reluctance, fears and doubts ? Why can’t we see this draught, this collective march that happened when the world faced its last similar evolution ? The answer is easy : because the knowledge economy does not exist. Not because it’s a dream kept alive buy a few passionate and lunatic people but because it’s not a concrete reality, foundations on which we’ll be able to craft the future.

A field was not enough to craft the agrarian economy. A factory and some steam or electricity did not found the industrial economy. There were organization models designed for the factory. Labor laws evolved to lead the change. Financial mechanisms were set up to make the requires investment possible, what made industrial economy grow. A factory did not made the industrial economy but a set of rules, practices, mechanisms did. They turned a need and an opportunity into reality.

So, what’s about knowledge economy ?

One swallow doesn’t make a summer and a knowledge worker does not make a knowledge economy. Knowledge work exists. Knowledge workers too and they represent each day a bigger part of the working population. They are the resources that may help to build a sustainable growth for the future. But that won’t happen unless some requirements are met.

As a matter of fact, even if the potential exists it’s poorly exploited. First because businesses don’t do everything possible to make the most of it…but that’s an easy pretext. Businesses  also are  looking for sense, for reasons to do things. They don’t find these reasons because they are operating in an environment that did not change that much during the last 50 years. Consequence : they struggle to reinvent their model, to reinvent themselves. Evidence  is those that success, that find the way of a new durable growth, are those who made choices that were both “obvious” regarding to where the world is heading and crazy according to the current environment in which they operate.

What’s missing to craft the appropriate environment ? [Read more...]

Filed Under: Economy & New Models, Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR, Society, strategy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What personal business model in the new economy

December 8, 2011 By 1 Comment

Summary : Beyond enterprise 2.0 and social business, there’s a major change in value creation models. Unfortunately, in  these models that are still in preparation, it’s hard to determine causal relationships between participation in value creation and getting the fruits from one’s participation. Participating in these new channels is now an option for people looking for qualitative rewards. But if, tomorrow, such activities become central in our lives and incomes there are new remuneration models to be found for people who will mainly rely in their participation in this new economy. The will to help others and participate will be replaced by personal business models logics as well as new recognition and remuneration systems in a world where value creation will involve less and less formal contributors and more and more informal ones.

People talk a lot about social business, enterprise 2.0 or similar concepts to refer to new ways to organize work, new relationships between people and between people and their work. But that’s only the smallest part of a global transformation that impacts the whole economy, a transformation that need to be taken into account if we don’t want all the efforts made at a micro level to change the way people work to be irrelevant with the economic structures that exist at a macro level.

Taking into account the deep change of the nature of economy and the relationships between players (not only economic ones) does only not mean  stating that the world is changing and urging people and organizations to change. That’s what has been done for years and we have not admit that was not enough. It’s about aligning the macro context with the new nature of economy, to make efforts that are undertaken at a micro level bear fruits.

We’re heading towards new value creation models that don’t adapt very well to manufacturing and taylorian ones that have been set up to help things in the past. I already mentioned the accounting side of the problem…and that’s only a part of the issue.

Today, value is created through information sharing, connecting people and knowledge, in a networked and decentralized way. In fact…not exactly. To be more precise, this decentralized and connected world works in the background of the economy we know, making it work faster, better, even in a more balanced and responsible way for those for make the most of its new potential. This background activity works both inside and outside enterprises, bridging both worlds. On the other hand, this background world need to make sense for people involved in to work well. They need to know in which way it could be beneficial to them. It’s very well explained in this McKinsey post, titled  “the second economy“.

If the “first” economy, the one we know and see in our everyday lives, works according to well known logics and rules for what’s about people’s contribution to value creation and and what they get from it (even if the balance of the system is more and more questioned), there’s no such thing for the second economy. It relies on the invisible, voluntary and often unsolicited work of lots of people, in either their personal or business lives. The problem is that it creates value and improves competitiveness for the visible economy while there is no remuneration model for participants who created value for others. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Economy & New Models, Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR, Society Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

The future of business starts at school. Still a long way to go

October 26, 2011 By 1 Comment

Résumé :despite enterprises know they need to change the way they work, they make very slow progress at undertaking a deep change process. The unwieldiness ot their organizational structure is not the only reason to that. People have become the slow factor of change and not only because people don’t like to change. Change implies to re-learn many routines deeply rooted into our minds. If habits are learn young and get rooted over time, we are forced to admit that our education system is key to provide enterprises with a human capital that meet their needs if we don’t want to enter a loose loose game where enterprises struggle to make profess and people lose their added value and their ability to find a job. Enterprises operate in a global context in which they don’t own all the levers and it’s getting essential to build educational systems that favor the learning of collaboration, creativity, mastering a knowledge intensive environment…as well as a proactive attitude toward the emergence of new jobs for people who’ll need to be “oneself entrepreneurs”. Both society and enterprises need new behaviors relying on new values. What means an education system that promotes and teaches them…

Note : This post is mainly bases on my knowledge of the french system but there’s no doubt part of it also applies in many other countries. Those who’d like to know more, laugh or be scares may enjoy this article and all the links it provides.


Despite the fact a wide consensus exists on the need to reinvent the operation and management model, everybody knows it’s far from being easy. In such approaches, people are the slow factor. Their reluctance to change is often mentioned as the main cause but that’s only the visible part of the iceberg. Most of the change process is about unlearning, forgetting wrong reflexes and habits. That’s true for people who’ve been in the workforce for decades but also for the younger. The reason is well known : the “human software” is being programmed from the early years and habits learned young get so deeply rooted that it’s hard to change them afterwards. Contrary, with time, it’s getting harder to acquire new behaviors, most of all when they are the opposite of what has become a part of our unconscious.

In 2006 I wrote on the bad habits we were taught at school, explaining why the damage was already done before people enter the workfoce. Unfortunately, I have not seen any kind of improvement coming and the few smart initiatives are too isolated while we need a critical mass of people sharing the same mindset.

Let’s review some key points.

• Collaboration

I won’t repeat what I wrote in the above mentioned post. But if people are taught young that “one only learns alone”, “knowledge and ideas have to be kept for oneself”, “others should not know what one thinks or does”, it’s easy to understand how they’ll behave once adult. Ok, when we become older, group work is sometimes required by professors. But it’s too late. Rather than thinking together, share and elaborate a common vision, we only divide tasks up according to what each one is better at and the result of the all the individual work is gathered and stacked up instead of being melt. The final result is the sum of all individual skills, never more, what is not what collaboration is about. Of, course, groups form depending on people’s level…a group of good pupils or students will never allow a less talented one to be burden.

• Learning and understanding

In a knwoledge economy, learning, knowing for the sake of knowing is not enough. We need to understand things, make knowledge ours, be able to understand the context to reuse things later, adapt them. That needs exchanges, explainations, discussions, what are the opposite of our model. Of course, writing pages and pages during classes (most of time, nothing more that what’s in the books) may help to learn. But not to understand. Conversations ? Professors know, pupils listen. And the first is infallible so the second should not ask any question implying a answer like “I’m not sure” or “I need to check”.

In the same way, people able to understand the complexity of our world should not be focused on one only discipline, they need of broader understanding of things and their context. Understanding the world, finding relevant models by learning from the past without making the same mistakes needs some historical, economic, geopolitics backgroup…even for future scientists or people willing to spend their lives working with numbers. Our model makes the young starts specializing too young and overlook lots of matters that would help them understand the context around their major.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Knowledge & Information management, Management & HR, Society Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

About the young and their so-called connectiveness

July 22, 2010 By Leave a Comment

While attending the last  Enterprise 2.0 Forum in Milan, I had the pleasure to see Mark Masterson again and have an interesting talk during a cofee break

He was telling me he heard something very challenging at a panel. Here’s what it was about :

“Are we sure that Yers are connected and networkers to this extent (and it also applies to the following generations) become they grew up in a digital world when internet was a common thing that determined thir behaviors ? Or is it a pernicious effect of a society that is risk averse ? When we were 8, 10, 15, we were able to meet our friends outside, go out for an afternoon or after the school without hearing anything from our parents except “be careful and don’t be late for diner”. Today, with all these kidnapping or paedophilia things, the young are confined at home par parents that are more anxious than ours were and see in Facebook, MSN etc.. the only means to escape from this lock up. They are not connected or networkers by nature but because it’s the only answer they find to face their lack of freedom of move and a world that is overcontrolled by their parents. So it’s the consequence of the reaction to an unfortunate external constraint due to safety reasons”.

Mark told me “I don’t know if this guy is right or wrong but it must make us wonder about some of our assumptions. When I look around me and compare with when I was young, it seems that he’s right”.

And the conversation went on…

- we are both interested in these media and use them a lot so it’s an evidence it’s possible to come to it in a “natural” way, regardless of any generation factor.

- if we have had internet, Facebook, MSN… when we were young and, at the same time, the opportunity to join our friends outside, what would have our choice been ? Obviously, we were quite sure than we would have prefered one hour “outside” with friends rather than one our in front of our computer.

So, even if now that we are 30 and something we use social networks a lot, even if we were interested a lot in computers when we were young, its not sure that we would have used the net as a socializing space if we had the opportunity to do so.

So let’s try to push the reasonning a little bit further. Many “over connected” people seldom have the same behaviros at work, that personal usages seldom bring professional ones and that people even don’t want it to happen.

One explaination could be that as social networking is seen as a way out to lack of freedom embodies by parental authority, it may be logical that it can’t happen under another kind of authority, the corporate one. In short, social networking would be a discharging practice that has to take place out of any kind of regulation or authority, should it be parental or coporate.

At the end it’s another side of the cultural side of social networking. Corporate culture, of course, but local culture too. Generally speaking, it makes us question the relationship between people and the enterprise in a given local and social context. Is the workplace a place for self development or a place for constraints and slavery ? Depending on the answer, could we deduct people appetition for enterprise social networking ?

Phew…. And you ? What do you think about it ?

Filed Under: Management & HR, Society Tagged With: , , ,

Enterprise 2.0 and ROI : beyond numbers it’s about meaningful arbitrations

April 7, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The debate on the ROI of Enterprise 2.0 is far from its end even if I often have the impression that avoiding the question is a common easy answer. Either the “we don’t care” or the ‘it’s different, you can’t understand” answers don’t satisfy me.

When an enterprise is asked to invest energy, time, money, it’s legitimate to want to know what it will get in return. More precisely :

- if their will be any return

The answer is obvious : yes

- if this return will be a vague “better something”, nebulous and unseizable or if it will be measurable in a way or another, in a un unit that would not be too eccentric (money for instance…)

Here, my answer would be double. There are things that have a direct impact on opeations and thant can be measured and quantified. For instance the lenght of the innovation or sales cycle, the time saved by avoiding micro-coordination…

There are things that are not measurable by themselves but impact things that are. This is clearly demonstrated by Strategy Maps.The idea is to implement the mechanisms that will ensure that what’s invested to improve intangible will actually impact value creation. In brief, make sure that everything is conherent with the investments and that the way work is done is aligned with that in order investments are made profitable (it’s seldom said but businesses usually don’t suffer from a lack of talent or innovation…only a lack of coherence that impacts the whole value creation process, preventing processes to harness talents and innovation potential).

3°) If this return can be foreseeable in a mechanical and linear way.

Here, the answer is : no. In the other hand, between the exact prediction and the “we can’t predict so let’s five give up” I think there’s a long work to be done by searchers and specialists to be done. Without this work that will help to implement relevant measurement and predicition means, the risk is high to see managers piloting businesses with indicators that have nothing to do with the current reality, the way operations are done and the matter that is processed.

That said, there’s another side of the issue that should also be tackled. Basically, being sure that the investment will bring some benefits should be enough to start a project, regardless of the quantifiable predictability of the benefit. The latter matter when the point is not to choose between doing and not doing but arbitrate the choice between two possible investments. In this case it’s obvious that the chosen one will be the one with the highest return so both possibilities have to be comparable what implies being predictable.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Society Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

This is the world we live in

September 6, 2009 By Leave a Comment

This is the nth update of a famous series I’ve already blogged the previous pieces before. No need to add anything. (Found thanks to Luis Suarez).

I’m still curious to know how “common people” react to this video.

One last thing. Luis draws the word “socialnomics” out the video. This words seems very relevant to describe the ecomic and societal context that is ours today. A meaningful replacement for the faded and meaningless “2.0″  ?

Filed Under: Management & HR, Society, Web & Usages Tagged With: , , , , , ,

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

July 23, 2009 By 1 Comment
The case made much noise last week. A  15 years old consultant at Morgan Stanley produced a white paper on how young people of his generation uses medias. And all the world to swoon over the document, to such an extent it was propelled on the front page of the Financial Times website. I hastened to read this report that was supposed to change the face of the world.

I let you read them before we dig a little.

Media&Internet How Teenagers Consume Media

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Management & HR, Society, Web & Usages Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Web 2.0 turned the digital divide into a social divide

June 21, 2009 By 6 Comments

Digital divide used to be and still is a real concern in our industrialized countries. Maybe we should end talking about industrialized countries to say “computerized countries” what seems to be more relevant with today’s world. Maybe some would say that it’s because we neglected this shift that we were stuck with old industrial models applied to a “soft” economy and that what happened last fall happened. We could talk about the destiny of both Google and GM, what is the embodiment of the changes our word is experiencing but that’s not my point here.

At the beginning, digital divide was defined as inequality of access to digital tools. There were those who could access them and the others. It’s easy to understand the amount of opportunties for the early users who were able to gain abilities while the computer and, after, the web industry was growing up, while, on the other hand, the other had to catch up with these technologies years later. And some are still running to jump into the train.

Considering my generation for instance, I can see the difference bewteen those who had their first computer in 1985 when aged 10, discovered the web with a 56 ko modem in 1995 and followed this trend and those who had their first computer in 1997 and their first internet experience in 2000. The gap still remain today.

Anyway, at this time things were clear : there were those who could affort a computer (or those whom parents could) and the others. Among them, some see the interest, some didn’t. Then there were those who had cable or ADSL very early and those for whom this technology was not available in their city. Hence this divide.

Today, web 2.0 shows us the divide has a new nature. What means different means will be needed to fix it.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Management & HR, Society, Web & Usages Tagged With: , , , ,

Moving toward business models of a new kind : the example of “Danone Supporting Life”

May 7, 2009 By Leave a Comment

One thing is sure : the “after the crisis world” will be very different from what it was before. It may seem obvious, but if we have a closer look at what happened in the past, we have to admit many upturns consisted of the rebuilding of what used to exist as it was. This time it seems that both economy and society learned things.

• growth is not and endless spiral. Especially if you want it to be strong.

• whoever creates value for onself while destroying value for the others will be impacted by the economical consequences of his behaviors one day or the orther.

• Companies are parts of an ecosystem (customers, suppliers, employess…). If a part of this ecosystem collapses, the company will soon follow because when value is destroyed at its periphery, it destroyes its own potential markets.

• Growing by developping new markets is healthier than using financial lever to balance the fact its current markets are finite.

• People, at the same time employees, clients, and member of the society, now want to fully play their part and judge corporate behaviors according to these lessons.

All this things are worth because management and work models will be impacted by these societal facts and, in the same way, being successful in this new context will imply new internal practices. This teaches us, once again, that the current crisis is not as economic as it may seem.

This can lead to predict the advent of business models of a new kind, close to Umair Haque’s smart Growth Manifesto d’Umair Haque. But many people wonder when it will happen and how it may look like. A first example is coming from France with “Danone Supporting Life”.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Management & HR, Society Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Personal Branding won’t go without Corporate Branding

May 4, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Personal Branding is a very fashionable topic today. More than that, it’s a deep trend that is overdiscussed because of its yougness. A day will come that it will be so obvious that no-one will feel like arguing anymore. The purpose is to manage one’s reputation and professional brand in order to :

- those who are looking for informations about someone find what’s needed to assess his skills, his ability to do hold a defined job.

- this person appears as the “right person” when recruiters are looking for a defined profile without having any name in mind.

This may also help freelances to find missions but let’s admit it’s more about an applicant to recruiter relationship.

Being one of those who think that a good recruitement is more about bringing together people and companies who really fit the one with the other instead of making a selection, I think that the other side of the relation has to be improved too : the one that helps applicants to have a better undertanding of the company. Recruitment is like waltz or rock n’roll : you’ll never dance very long if you don’t get the right partner.

The current crisis that makes  so many people look for any kind of job musn’t make us forget major issues that will happen in the future.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Management & HR, Society Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts