If it matters measure it. If it’s new build a new frame of reference.

Summary : When the world and the economy are transforming, the existing frames of references on which be base our thinking and decision making become obsolete. To adapat to their current and future context, organizations not only should have the vision of what they want to become but also implement it in their employees’ day do day work. Not superposing two opposite models in order to let change happen without daring changing the existing but replacing the one with the other. It only makes sense when employees are provided with tools and indicators that favor and reward actions that are aligned with the new model and not with the old one anymore. It also helps to measure the impact of change and measure how far they’ve been. That seldom happens in enterprise 2.0 projects because of a lack of reflexion on new frames of references. Fortunately, examples coming from other fields shows that when one really want to do things well and deep, change is possible and measurable.

A couple of weeks ago I was invited by Danone to talk about their social responsibility program, what made me learn a lot, believe it nor not, in terms of organizational transformation and had many things in common with enterprises 2.0 approaches. How possible is that ? Read what’s coming in the following lines.

Like many enterprises, Danone has understood that the environmental question will be key in its business. It’s already a cultural fact that is not new at all (remember that Antoine Riboud, Danone’s former CEO, used to say that the responsibility of the enterprise did not end at the facilities’ doors…30 years ago) and new an economic fact. There are many chances that, in a near future, carbon will be monetized, so managing it efficiently leads to a competitive advantage.

How did danone do ? First by stating it in its corporate values and project, long before it becomes a trendy topic. Anyone who has a few contacts with Danone knows that concepts such as double project ou triple bottom line are known by everyone and are a share concern. Such an approach need to be embodied and the discourse has to be turned into action. So Danone established a “Nature VP” so the environmental concern has currency at the very top of the organization. But, since Danone is a business and that there is an economic reality behind all that, that people need to change the way they understand and feel what added value means in such a context, they even established a Nature CFO. The logic is obvious : we’re entering a world when things that used to be secondary are becomming essential. So they need  to be integrated into the value calculation system so what was a cost in the previous vision becomes an investment and an opportunity in 2012.

So they invented “green Capex”, some very concretes things to implement to translate this vision and awareness into business. Looking for ROI on a 3 or 5 years scale to take time to learn and not give up too early. But there were no relevant indicators to do that. So they could have come to the conclusion that it was not measurable, what could have lead to the consequence we all know : the project would have become a dead body because no one would have been able to see its impact or one’s personal contribution through one’s decisions, not even the interest of changing one’s thinking and decision making model.

So Danone worked on designing new models allowing to measure the impact of their business in terms of carbon and its short and long term financial consequences. They experimented it on the field, tried to make the most of new data, made an empirical job then tried to model. The organization tried to measure what matters, since it matters. That’s as simple as that.

It also helped to make something else possible : reducing the carbon footprint is now a part of executive’s evaluation and reward system. So everyone, at his own level, in his business unit, in his field is concerned.

But they still were trying to make sense of it for more and more employees. It means that anyone should understand his own role, impact, contribution to the project. It also means that, when facing two possible choices, one making sense in the old paradigm and the other making sense in the new one, they people should make the right one without fearing to put their performance at risk and sacrifice their bonuses.

So Danone co-innovated with SAP to integrate this new model in their business tools, in their production management system. It was all about putting the new model at work in employees’ day to day lives, in the flow of work and avoid schizophrenia. No contradiction here anymore : there’s a single model, a single vision and not an ideal one set on the top of an old operation model that has nothing in common. All indicators, measurement tools, tools supporting processes takes it into account. SAP brought the technology and Danone its knowledge and IP.

Anything in common with enterprise 2.0 projects ?

[Read more...]

Lessons on the hard job of designing communities in the organization

Summary : If communities have a real value for organizations, there are still few certainties about their positioning and management. Out of the work flow by definition, communities only create an indirect value for organizations, hence the fact there’s been a lot of efforts to bring them as close to the flow as possible in order to make them a produce a concrete and tangible value. Whether it lead to turn work groups into communities or give communities so much structure that they lose their agility and become a burden for the organization, many tactics reached their limits as it happened recently at CISCO that dismantled a system that what considered exemplary until then. The key question is to ascertain the maximum organizational acceptable effort to make the community work and setting up mechanisms that make the reuse of the intangible capital almost automatic into dy to day business activities.

 

Most people now consider as an established fact that communities fill a gap in terms of knowledge exchange and capitalization and collaboration. On the other hand, things as still very unclear when it comes to determine their positioning.

If we rely on the most basic and shared definition of a community, it’s a group of people willing to share and discuss a topic outside of any hierarchical or structured process. A community may have, of course, a global and permanent objective (ex : capitalizing and sharing best practices on a given topic) but no specific deadline (ex : deliver such or such thing, solve such problem before a given date). Even if the community may be encouraged to behave this way, members won’t have to comply with what can’t be more than a suggestion that has nothing to do with their job definition and appointments.

A fundamentalist approach to communities inside the organization would be to say “let those who make sense and really exist live, remove what prevent them from being active” and, most of all, “don’t think you’ll generate on-demand communities even if the topic looks legitimate to you”. The topic of a community can only be suggested and, in the end, it belongs to employees. communities can be facilitated, lightly managed but never imposed.

Most organizations are not comfortable with this approach. If followed, it will concern at best 10% of employees who want to participate and contribute in addition to their assigned work. As a matter of fact, since participation can’t be imposed, organization can’t rely on the community as they use to do with formal teams that must deliver what’s requested on time. They will produce, at their own pace, ideas, knowledge the organization will be able to use once available. The community has the control of its agenda or, rather, the organization can’t impose any agenda. There’s nothing bad here if we rely on the “fundamentalist” definition : the community creates intangible assets that have to be reused in day to day activities to create value, at its own pace. (Remember  strategy maps…)

[Read more...]

With recruitement tests 1.0 you get (outdated) managers 1.0

Summary : Tomorrow’s managers will need to master a bunch of new know-hows and behiavors that fit into a digital workplace, where information comes in flow through several channels. The rarity of such skills is, in a fact, one the the things that prevent organizations to transform work models today. But, while organizations are struggling to deal with this issue and undertake the right actions in terms of training, the deep cause of the problem is often overlook. As a matter of fact, in the meanwhile, many recruitment tests, most of all for managements, are still aiming at validating skills in contexts that don’t apply anymore to today’s workplace.

 

A few days ago, I was chatting about recruitment tests with a couple of friend, one of them being about to go through an assessment center process to be hired by a large organization. It reminded me of lots of memories from the time when I was an HR consultant and had to conduct similar things.

So we talked about the kind of tests applicants have to take in such situations and discussed the fact that, if the scenario and methodologies did not perfectly match the requirements for a given position in a given enterprise and the process not conducted with rigor, the whole process may fail.

Among these tests, one is very usual : the “in-basket test”. It’s a simulation where people are briefed about a “virtual” company, its context and are provided with memos, mails etc…. They have a couple of hours to decide what to deal with first, set up action plans, prioritize or delegate things… The purpose is to assess if one has the competences to understand one environment, prioritize, make decisions in a limited amount of time. I have to admit that the test is often very demanding for energy and nerves and I’ve used to be surprised by the number of people I saw ‘blowing up’ while taking it.

Then my friend told me : “So you really believe that the person who will successfully pass the test will be the right one for such positions ?”. Me “yes…if the whole assessment program is well designed …”. Him : “According to what I know, I seems to be the best way to assess competencies that are not enough and will cause inaction whereas organizations need to reinvent themselves”.

He was right.

[Read more...]

Toward smarter information systems

Summary : When we talk about working on information, we usually distinguish the work that’s been progressively dedicated to machines (mass processing of data according to pre-determined plans) and what remains the field for humans, a sharper and more qualitative approach to scattered and unstructured data. This second point lead organizations to organize accordingly, distinguishing between those who search, prepare and use these data. A dichotomy that has many chances to be questioned in a near futur as machines are getting able not only to explore unstructured data but also to understand questions and give answers.

When we have a look a the main components of any information system, we can see two poles coexisting :

• the “mechanical” one. It’s made of applications that replaced humans over time because they’re more efficient and reliable for some tasks, providing a substantial advantage both in termes of speed and quality, what means in terms of costs. They allow the mechanization of repetitive mass processing that need more calculations and processing power than intelligence and ability to react in front of unpredictable things.

• the “intelligence and knowledge” one. It’s made of applications that don’t replace humans but are supposed to multiply their intrinsic abilities that a machine does not have. Its about communication and collaboration technologies.

If we focus on the second point, it’s obvious that no machine can understand and treat unstructured data with the needed fineness. Should the need be about searching, using and make a decision relying on a huge mass of unstructured information without the existence of an history demonstrating what “a good decision is”.

On this part, the superiority of human versus the machines is about decision making. As for what’s about information search, it’s rather a burden but a necessary burden because even if the machine is powerful enough it’s unable to process a qualitative and contextual search on information.

But how long will that last ? [Read more...]

Social media and ricocheting benefits difficulties

To convince peope to start using social media in the workplace it’s important to demonstrate quick personal benefits. And that’s not alsways that easy

Let’s consider profiles for instance. What’s my interest in filling in a rich profile where I’ll share many informations about me and know that the more socially active I’ll be the more this profile will refine according to my readings, my activities, the tags I use etc ? I’ll help who needs someone like me to find me, of course, but that’s not what we can call a direct personal benefit. Of course, if others do the same, I’ll be able to find my “saviors” and that’s an actual beneif. But the lofgic that will make make me fill in my profile hoping that it will gave others the idea to do the same is so nebulous that the average user may not understand the direct benefit. More, since as anyone I’m more than very busy, I don’t have time for such a thing. So I’ll update my profile later…maybe…

Since microblogging is becoming a trendy tropic, its “quick and direct” benefit is also being questioned. One may be “give others visibility on what I’m doing to avoid answering endlessly to the same questions”. Ok…the benefit seems more direct…but we can go one step further.

In a team, other often makes decision that have consequences for us. They overestimate our availability, decide to take an action without knowing if it’s coherent with what we’re doing etc… and, at the end, we have to explain, do things we didn’t plan or want,  keep up appearnaces. Well used with scenarios that fit the needs of teamwork, microblogging help others to make better decisions and, most of all, avoid us suffering from the impact of decisions made regardless of the context.

Does the fact that information sharing through social media produces a benefit that’s not direct but ricocheting inspire you anything special regarding to social media adoption ? Is it something that’s been neglected or underestimated ?

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...]

What makes the value of shared information ?

As I often say, we often complain about software while the problem is the way we use it. It’s the reason why many people consider that the largest part of spam they receive at word comes from their colleagues, their hierarchy.

That’s why I liked this Dilbert strip about information sharing. We can also conclude that a link is nothing without the added value brought by its analysis. We may wonder, in our networked world, what makes the value of all the links we create between people and information or between people and informations.

Dilbert.com

These tools that can harm organizations : Powerpoint

Many people blame email and its bad uses to be the cause of many problems. But there are many tools which use may cause unexpected insidious damages. Powerpoint is one of them. I ‘m talking about Powerpoint beaucause it’s the market leader but all its competitors are in the same situation because, once again, the tool itself is not responsible by itslef but the way it’s used is.

My purpose is not to say that such presentations favors the form to the detriment of the content, there’s already been many things writen about that. These tools are very good at delivering a message. The success of presentations shared on sites like slideshare un reused through the web is the best evidence. The problem comes from the fact presentations tools are often mistaken for decision making tools.

In Powerpoint there is “power”. In keynote (for mac addicts) there is “key”. So their purpose is clear : right to the point, highlight main ideas.

So, what are these tools used for ? Make a sales or maerketing presentation, support a speaker’s speach. All right, that what they are designed for. But danger comes when they are used as reporting tools, being used, in the end, for decision making.

These tools are not made for reporting

Did you already notice the number of people who take notes on powerpoint during a meeting ? Worse, did anyone already send you 10 slides while you were expecting a memo about a given issue ?

You get either ununderstanble slides, filled with lots of sentences, or slides going straight to the point and hidding a large part of the reality.

When someone is asked to make a memo, a report, there is a perfect tool for that. It’s called Word. It allow to write sentences in plain english, to insert spreadsheets, charts, pictures. It’s even possible to generate an index, to make up pages in order to build structured and nice looking documents. If you’ve never tried this software before, I think you should. When such a document is asked for, it means that a clear and exhaustive vision of the situation is needed.

These tools are not decision making tools

When people use slides, they point at the main issues, tends and informations, what they want to highlight. No place for weak signals here. But how many decisions makers use powerpoints made by their staff to make a decision ?

Let me explain. Who wants to know more about a situation in order to make a decision asks his subordinate who asks his own suborndinate…. and the request often ends at the end of the hierarchical chain. Then the person in charges makes an exhaustive job then applies two rules.

- only the main trends have to be mentioned. So, weak signales are banned.

- when you give such a document to your superior, you emphasis what is going right and smooth what your superior would not be happy to read.

Then the superior reads the slides and, before transmitting it to his own superior, cleans it, following these rules

- the two above mentioned rules apply

- many things your subordinate found important have not to be mentioned to your superior, whom have other concerns.

When the powerpoint reaches its final destination, 2/3 of the informations have been removed, everything that would be useful to understand what are the coming trends beyond the actual situation.

Example : the captain of a boat receives a report saying : “the sun is high, let’s speed up. The original report from a ship boy was saying “very small leaks, no life jacket, iceberg ahead”.

We have good tools to make many things. But if we don’t use them wisely, they may cause more harm than good.

powerpoint,slides,prise de décision,reporting,rapport,signaux faibles

Socializing your decision making process

A good example of process socialization is about decision making. A few weeks ago I read this interesting paper from Olivier Sibony (Associate Director at McKinsey). Since the article is in French I hope Google Translator will provide you with a good english translation.

What is it about ?

Making the right decisions is key to be a successful business. Nothing new here. But Olivier Sibony provides us with interesting numbers.

. Between those who have used the analysis tools the most advanced and recognize those who were far away, the performance gap is important: 2.7 points in return on investment between them. But those who have followed a process of rigorous and objective decision showed a much higher performance: the gain is 7.3 points ROI ! In other words, there are three times more to gain by using a method of decision-making!

The impact of a good decision is obvious and its ROI clear enough to justify enteprises invest in what makes it possible. It would seem obvious that the solution is to be brought by analysis tools and the definition of relevant indicators. Nothings social here. At first sight…

[Read more...]

My Webcom 2009 in a few words

You may have a few ideas of what I liked at webcom if you followed my twitts yesterday, but before going deeper into each topic into future posts, here’s what I found really interesting. Some thoughts, ideas, favorites in a jumble

• Don’t refuse abnormality because it’s tomorrow’s normality. Cycles from the one to the other are getting shorter and shorter. Companies have to understand what something that is abnormal today means. It’s, once again, a matter of culture and its impact on decision making and organizational performance.

• “Open is the future”. Open stack, open mesh, open social.. But there are cases when, according to me, it can be counter productive. Anyway it’s the best (and only ?) mean to fight against personal fragmentation on many social platforms, private or corporate, and to turn into a platform centric world into a people centric one. Everything can be portable, not everything must be. Toward an “open governance” ?

• Turning the pyramid model into a network. Nice, I wrote about that this morning. But this just don’t happen by luck and a preliminary analysis is desirable. I was really impressed by Jessica Lipnack (Netage) presentations and the use of the l’Orgscope. According to me it’s an essential approach to design an enterprise 2.0 project, knowing that it as to articulate with the actual corporate structure and its purpose which is to produce, deliver processes. But it implies a deep understanding of how things are actually getting done today.

• Then came the “usual suspect”. Companies are facing challenges that will force them to adopt new tools. Even if there’s nothing new for those who know him, Claude’s approach, relying on demographic, sociological elements and cross-generation dynamics is still relevant. More than the “2.0″ dream that relies on unexpected serendipity miracles. Another traditional issue is open innovation about which Innocentive is still relevant according to its deep experience and their record of achievements.

• And a little “family touch to end. The very refreshing presentation made by Cyrille de Lasteyrie (CEO  Hellotipi) had two interests. The first was to show how a strong message could be delivered through storytelling without mentionning a product or service. The second is that he made us think about the sociological dimension of social media, about people’s concerns about privacy an about cross-generations dynamics that are made possible by massive social media adoption within the society. I have no doubt that businesses will have a lot to learn  to what will happen in these family networks because the person that walks though his office’s door is the same than the one who shares pictures of his baby with his family. Beyond constrained behavioral changes, his expectations and fears remain the same in his mind.

A last word about the conference itself. Wifi worked perfectly well what does not happen so often in such events. But it was a pity for all those who couldn’t attend that the streaming didn’t work (but all the videos will be put online soon).

It was my second time at webcom (always in may…I’m affraid of the weather at the november session ;-) ). I attend very few conferences to protect myself from the “bowl” effect : always being with people who think like you often makes you forget the “real enterprise”. Here, a lot of “real” people, looking for answers to their concerns, I really had the impression that something is transmitted instead of self-contragulating among “experts”. Of course, there were the speeches (interesting, no bla-bla that only highlight the speaker without any value for the audience), the business contacts…but also a human contact with the people, the city, I hardly find elswhere. A business event that makes you feel well is so rare…

It’s really worth crossing the ocean. Anyway, we don’t have such a “web, business and enterprise” conference in France. A real pity.

Entreprise 2.0, hiérarchie, innovation participative, montreal, netAge, open innovation, organigrammes, organisation, orgscope, réseaux-sociaux, web-2.0, webcom, webcom2009,décision,performance organisationnelle,