Network or proximity ? Where’s the value for businesses ?

Web 2.0 Expo Europe 2008Social networks seem to be used to fit nearly any case, regardless to the fact their value come from the context. As an example, my newtorks on facebook and linkedin have nothing in common, links are built upon different criterias, in different contexts. Knowing than Mr. so-and-so is one of my contacts on one or the oher may help to understand the nature of our relationships. But in each case there’s a commonb point : one asked the other to validate we were contacts and the other agreed according to his own criterias. Materializing this relation built a link.

But the link can be created differently. Not only according to relations but objects.  Dopplr uses travels as objects. Lastfm songs. FlickR pictures as I mentioned here. What creates the link is not the fact people know each others but an object

Not let’s imagine we’re in an enterprise context.

What’s the personal link related network within an enterprise ? People start by adding the ones they work with every day. Then they accept their superiors because refusing would be diplomatically hard. Then, followin the same logic, they link their subordinates. Then across the organization because we use to have coffee breaks together or use the same bus lie. Whatever : the only fact we have the same employer is enough to link one another. So we may have two kinds of result : either people reproduce the organization chart or eveyone is linked to every other. I do not use the “friend” or “relationship” in purpose.

What the interest for the employees ? None : the corporate directory would give him the same result. For the company ? None too : organizations know their orghanization chart and their employees directory (although….). Whatever. The general public web model does not operate in a corporate context.

So, what’s the solution ?

[Read more...]

The power of decentralized crisis management : the Gustav case

Crisis is charaterized by its suddenty, its unpredictability and the gravity of its possible consequences. It forces organization to react quickly in order to protect itself as well at its components and agents.

That implies many things. Decide on the way to react, which suppose to have reliable and exhaustive information. Then manage to deliver orders, which means to be sure everybody will be able to receive an accurate top down information flow. And, as we can expect either the ascending or descending flow won’t work, making it impossible to make the right decisions or to enforce them, cross flows are needed in order to help people to coordinate themselves on their own.

All of that is about twho phenomenons I wrote about earlier : the fact a networked organization is less fragile than a centralized one (read here for the Toyota and al Qaida cases) and the need for an increased visibility on everyone’s activities and informations in order everyone can adapt its own strategy to the other’s without any central coordination.

I’m sure than everybody, by observation or experience,  has the remembering of a crisis situation where no one knew what to to, everybody lacked informations about what what was happening and this lack prevented people from making the right decisions, either at the top or at the bottom of the organization.

By the way…do you know Gustav?

[Read more...]

Toyota : a good example of SOO that reduces business risk

First a quick summary of the Service Oriented Organization concept (SOO) : it’s about giving employees the ability (ie tools and organization model) that allows them to bridge the gap between task they have been assignedJ and thoses that are actually required by their day to day job, assuming that organization reached such an optimum in verticality that deviations, that are more and more frequents) can’t be solved verticaly but by adhoc.

A good example comes from Toyota and its integrated suppliers system. This ecosystem is so optimized that expertises, skills, are often unique. What would happen if a factory, manufacturing a piece used on every vehicle, burn ?

[Read more...]

Hierarchy vs Wirearchy ? Or only complementarity ?

Wirearchy is a very interesting concept I discovered weeks ago from a post from John Husband. Not that new (he’s been talking about that for a long time) but interesting enough to dig further.

Facts are obvious : new tools allow a new kind of information flows, because they’ree generated by peope. Those flows allow new kind of interactions, outside what’s been built by the organization, what creates an informal organisation. Not a counter organisation, but an actual and informal one which permanency only depends on people’s needs.

[Read more...]

Archimedes theorem applied to Enterprise 2.0..with trust instead of liquid

I often say that even when change seems promising, it’s important to keep our feets on the ground and to go step by step. Excess often lead to another excess in the opposite direction and organizations rarely benefit from what seemed to be so promising.

If we consider companies will have to change, two solutions are possible :

- going quietly, in order to be ready when the “old” model will be out of date. It supposes to start early in order to have time to find one’s own way, since “magical recipes” don’t exist.

- jaming on the brakes and accepting the risk of facing violents changes later. Some, like Gary Hamel, think since change isn’t in corporate DNAs, this is what will happen.

But when it’s time to migrate to management 2.0, enteprise 2.0 or to adopt social computing tools, more than the fear of change, trust is essential.  [Read more...]

Serendipity doesn’t preclude control : a few rules to manage fate within informal networks

Everyone is conscious of informals networks’ power within an organization. But their informal nature causes of lot of (sometimes) legitimate fears because seen uncontrolable. We never know what they will bring. The concept of serendipity is perfect to illustrate this. We all dream of driving a Ferrari, provided we can control accelerator, wheel and brakes. If not, a smaller but more controlable car is a better solution. That’s the same for managers : they are looking or performance but don’t feel like pushing their company off the road..

This squaring of the circle was highlighted by one reader on my french blog on a note about innovation portfolio. I think the equation can be solved provided we forget the “let them do and wait to see what happens” rule. By the way, it’s one of the reason why entreprise 2.0 isn’t like web 2.0. It’s supposed to have the same consequences, with the same tools, the same dynamics, but with different lever and rules : same starting and ending point but different processes.

Some rules that have to be followed….

[Read more...]

Harnessing the power of informal networks

In the neverending debate about knowing if a “soft ROI” is a real ROI or not, it seems that we can now rely on McKinsey. In fact a lot of people know that a soft ROI is a real ROI…but since their hierarchy doesn’t tell them so they refuse to take it into account in their decisions. And since everybody is waiting for his manager to shift the paradigm, the message has to come from the very top of the company.

And since the very top of the company nearly often trust McKinsey, I’m glad they published  a study called “Harnessing the Power of your informal employees nertwork” .

If McKinsey says that informal / tacit interactions has a real business value it will help a lot of people to be confortable with the notion of soft ROI, won’t it ?