Enterprise 2.0 adoption : it’s about comfort

Times are changing. After having spend years discussing the “what and why”, the enterprise 2.0 world is now focusing on the “how” what is quite a good thing. So we discuss a lot adoption strategies, a wording I’m not comfortable with but that will be used in this blog because I have nothing better to suggest.

The challenge is both simple and complex at the same time. It’s about bringing new ways to collaborate in the workplace, positionning and articulating them with what’s existing, while taking the software side into consideration. Generally, we know where we start from (even if I often recommend a deep audit to avoid the biases caused by the misrepresentation people may have of the way their own business is doing) and with a good methodology and good advisors it’s not hard to know where to do. But finding the right way to get there is not the easiest part of the work.

One may be tempted to directly bring employees from the point A to the point B by selling him the approach in a nice-looking gift box. We now know that it seldom works and employee are blamed for refusing change. In my opinion it’s a too easy shortcut because it relies on the assumption that people go from A to B simply by pressing a on-off switch whereas it’s about travelling through a road. And when it comes to make a long trip in a foreign and unknown land, we’re not all created equal.

When we talk about a starting point, we don’t only mean the current practices in the workplace (that are not even unform but are often aligned by dumbing down) but also personal practices.That’s an important point because a part of the issue is related to social media which is the first significant example of adoption of general public tools in the enterprise world. But we also know that people won’t adopt at work at work behaviors they don’t have in their own private life. So it’s important to know what is their actual state of adoption before going further. Do they use such or such tool ? Are they passive ? Active ? Connectors ? Only readers ? It really matter even if these practices will have to be professionalized. This has to be assessed at both individual and collective levels because we’re talking about collective practices. If 2% employees are heavy users and 98% refuse to have a Facebook account, even if the 2% are a real opportunity, the 90% are the limitating factor. Encouraging the firsts won’t be of any use if the others don’t make any progress.

In order to make the 98% make some progress we can wait for the “practice leaders” to help them. It may take some time, leaders can discourage. That’s a good idea but maybe some facilitation is needed. And to go further we need to go beyond the way they master tools and their capacity to adopt new behaviors. We need to care about their comfort !

[Read more...]

33 things to know about those who make your online social spaces live

I wrote a lot about community management these last month for a simple reason: there’s so much confusion about a topic that’s said being strategic that heading for disaster and throwing the baby with the bathwater is a really actual risk. But by dint of thinking about it again and again, it seems to me that some guidelines are slowly emerging.

• That’s not because there are social medias in the workplace and that employees use them to do their work that the person in charge of managing their use is a community manager.

• A group of people doing things and interacting through social is not necessarily a community or a social network.

• A corporate social media strategy has to be driven at several levels which are often embodied by different people who have specific roles, responsabilities and objectives. These individual works has to be coordinated and articulated.

• Ca n’est pas parce qu’il y a échange entre des individus en utilisant les médias sociaux qu’on à affaire à des communautés. Ni à des réseaux sociaux d’ailleurs.

So, here’s a few things to know about all these players…

[Read more...]

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...]

Does driving adoption mean being off the point ?

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

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

Let’s start with the meaning of words.

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

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

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

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

[Read more...]

With Social CRM, enterprise 2.0 goes out of the black box and marketing gains importance

Many things have been told and invented in the 2.0 field since the word was coined in the internet world and become trendy in the business world. With more or less success. Sometimes it was great step in conceiving new models for operations, sometimes if was only a smoke cloud aiming at making people forget that the previous smoke cloud failed.

Internally (enterprise 2.0), we suffered a lot from the black box syndrome. First becaue projects were mainly internal while enterprise 2.0 is about ecosystems and both external and external stakeholders. Second because social activities were cut off from the operational reality, from the real business, preventing it from demontrating any business value.

Externally (web 2.0), we have to admit that things quickly turned into noise and smoke through clumsy use of social media by marketing departments that did not get what the chage was about and were trying to do business as usual. Of course, there were valuable things, mainly in the crowdsourcing field, with tangible benefits, but too few compared to all the mistakes that were made in the marketing field.

Sometimes, we can see the emergence of really sensible things. That’s the case with  “social CRM“, which is, according to me, the best thing that happened in the 2.0 world these last months.

Why ?

[Read more...]

How long does enterprise 2.0 adoption take ?

Interesting conversation last week last week on twitter with Hutch Carpenter and Gil Yehuda about how long Enterprise 2.0 adoption takes. This question is a real concern for many enterprises and, even if there’s no mathematical formula to help them to find an answer, maybe we can gather a few elements that may explain the mechanisms that make things happen more or less quickly.

First, I think it’s important to make things clear about what we mean by “enterprise 2.0 adoption” and go into what may accelerate or inhibit adoption.

What does “enterprise” mean ?

Are you a 50 000 employees company or a 50 people business ? It changes many things. Not because it’s more easy or difficult in any case but because the time things take to spread will not be the same. As the time needed for “preparation” because such projects need to be prepared beforehand. Saying “tools are there, enjoy !” is not enough.

In the case of a large business, are we talking about global adoption or adoption within a department. Which also leads to strategic issues : global mutation or small project proliferation, hoping the dynamics will spread.

What “adoption” mean

Here again, it’s important to know what we mean. Having tools at people’s disposal takes little time once the decision is made. Having these tools used on a wide scale takes more time. Creating value using these tools takes a little more time if things were well conceived, much more if not.

According to me, what must be aimed at is tangible value creation even if activity is a good indicator. The second will never come without the first, but we have to be conscious that if activity is the goal, things may quickly fade away to nothing when investments will be reassessed according to their ROI. Value needs activity but continuity needs value demonstration.

Depending on what adoption mean for you, you may say that it tool 3 years or 3 months. 3 months to launch the first pilots, 6 to get the first business successes, 1 year for a global deployment, 3 years for a global mutation.  These numbers are only examples but they are coherent with the reality of many companies.

[Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0 : the CISCO case

You must have noticed how many posts have been published about Cisco these late days. The US giant seems to be the first example of global enterprise 2.0 or, at least, to be the first to meet such a recognition for its success. Many things have been writen about that and it will be easy for you to find informations.

In order to understand more globally what happended at Cisco I found an interesting speech Cisco’s CEO, John Chambers, made on the 15th of october at the MIT.

What can we draw from thay ?

[Read more...]

Can indicators take us in the wrong direction ?

Whatever some may think and even if the small enterprise 2.0 world have been overcatious with this notion, measurements are essentials because they help to validate, undersand and manage what’s done.

Except for experimentations (though come to think of it …) and matters of urgency, nothing is done holding one’s  wet finger in the wind.

Everyone who tried at least once to make things change in any organization certainly suffered from indicators’ dictaortship. As a metter of fact it happens that new things sometimes makes indicators turn to red. But could we (heretically) wonder if, sometimes, indicators takes us in wrong direction ?

<!–more–>

Normally, indicators are set in order to evaluate a defined operational model. But, since we are in a context of change, it’s obvious that new ways of doing things won’t match the existing ones, so that they need their own new indicators. In this kind of situation, the biggest barrier to change is that new things differ from existing ones. Scary. Envisage a future because present has to be improved and then refuse it because it’s different from present is quite an interesting mindgame.

Example : in a factory productivity may be a good indicator. When the market gets weaker, refusing to have stocks may also be a great idea. But trying to keep the “stock light” green supposes the productivity light to be red.

It appears that indicators don’t have to be rigidly set but have to evolve according to the objecftve/constraints couple.

That’s not because something is measurable that it has to be measures, it’s not because an indicator exists that it is relevant : indicators have to follow organizations but don’t have to determine it. It’s another clear example of confusion between means and goals.

Can we think we are in a situation of dramatic context change that can makes us revisit some classical indicators ? Some already began with financial ones.

Enteprise 2.0 : stop self-medication

As the “enterprise 2.0″ phenomenon is more and more mature, reflections about “what it it” are being slowly replaced by thought about organization, the financial side, feedbacks and “how can we do it” ?

Even if there are few directrix, there are as many way to succeed than there are many companies, the organizational and management side of enterprise 2.0 making many things depend on the company, its culture, its people. On the other hand, many feedbacks tell us what not to do. [Read more...]