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...]

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

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...]

Considering the gap between management 2.0 and enterprise 2.0

I’ve been neglecting the management 2.0 topic for a long time although it was what this blog was about since 2005. Last years I slowely slipped from management 2.0 to enterprise 2.0, even if I find it sad that there were so many people to discuss about of make companies use 2.0 tools than people wanting to focus on building a new management framework in which these tools would make sense. But this question is coming back like a boomerang while companies are slowly realizing that small side adjustments won’t be enough to make tools useful and that a systemic overhaul is needed to make tools serve as catalyssts in a new organization model.

In february’s issue of the Harvard Business Review, Gary Hamel put this issue back to the headlines with an article called “Moon shots for management” which clearly defines management issues for the upcoming years.

Namely :

[Read more...]

What management has to learn from the Airbus vs. Boeing competition

Remember, it was a long long time ago, that, in the times we are living, means something like ten years. At this time Airbus was wondering how to compete with Boeing on the big carriersmarket and was working on what would become the A380. On its side, Boeing was not thinking about replacing its mythic 747 and was working on a smaller carrier, which would become the 787.

Why these two so opposite approaches ? In fact, they were the embodiment of two radically different visions.

According to Airbus, airlines companies and were should be on a trend of rationalizing costs and most globally transportation organization. So their conclusions were that passengers would have to be taken to Hubs from where they would fly to their final destination, possibly another Hub. That meant that, for example, to go from Marseille to Miami, you should go from Marseille to Paris where you would be gathered with a lot of people going to the USA, then fly to New York and, then onlyn take a plane from NYC to Miami. It would allow to rationalize the use of airports infrastructures (for which companies has to pay), take off slots, ensure a maximum planes occupancy in order to lower the cost per passenger.

In the other hand, Boeing was convinced the future was in peer to peer travels (ie direct flight from Marseille to Miami). That implies smaller planes that can be more easily filled filled.

Who was finally rigth ?

[Read more...]

Organizing for value

One more interesting report at McKinsey’s : this one is titled : “Organizing for value“. You will learn that

- the traditional divisional structure is not relevant to create value

- companies will have to fav our long term value creation instead of focusing on achieving short terms objectives.

- in order to  do that they’ll have to identify “future” value

- this implies a thiner granulity in organization and decision making

- where companies used to have 4 or 5 divisions, 50 “value cells” would to a better job.

Quite interesting because this new awareness of the “short-term mitake” will help justifying, financially, adequate organizational answers. The fact decision making is moving closer to the ground, in smaller structures which are now considered as value creator, that they were not in a wider structure in which their purpose may not be profitable, is also the proof things are (slowly) going the right way.