Enterprise 2.0 and the measurement hypocrisy

December 8, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Managers use to say that one can’t manage what is not measurable. We can also add that businesses don’t undertake things they can’t drive. So the conclusion is that businesses don’t unertake anything if they can’t measure the result. It may be a statement of the obvioux but it’s always worth reminding it. Talking about social media, how many projects were left in the waiting room due to the lack of measurable impact. “You know…connect people, share information etc… is very nice, but it’s hard to demonstrate the impact”.

Then let me add a third adage of my own invention : there is not a thing that is harder to measure than those one dont’ want to measure.

Please remind that a social software projet has to be measured at three levels : activity, alignement of contents and business purposes and use of the contents and new “connection practices” to improve organizational performance.

I won’t write again what I wrote in the above-mentioned post, but if a social software project, whatever its nature is, does not bring any change to a few and clear business metrics, that means that either the tools are used on a wrong way or that is was implemented regardless to sense and alignement.

Let’s state it once and for all : everything can be measured. Sometimes in a simple and easily identifiable fashion, sometimes with more complex tools when it comes to back by figures intangible things. All the same, many tools exist to measure how people feel about such or such things, sometimes by conducting surveys, and it’s up to project managers to decide to use them. That’s the way to know if people find things are going better, if knowledge is more accessible, if they feel more engaged, if they find that a better access to their colleagues helps them doing things better and faster, il they think discussions makes the corporate message easier to understand…. For all the rest, direct and quantitative indicators exist.

Knowing that, we may be able to say that, depending on the project, we can measure the impact of social software through business indicators or (sometimes with…) surveys (for what is about subjective feelings…especially in the communication and HR field) and that the issue is closed. Unfortunately it’s not. Not because things are not measurable but because people don’t want to measure them.

[Read more...]

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

Your knowledge helps you more than your productivity

September 9, 2009 By 3 Comments

I’ve always had an ambiguous feeling about productivity. In the one hand, doing more or faster with the same amount of resources is a significant improvement. In the other hand, with hindsight, we have to admit that productivity continuously increased these last decades, that whenever a hard time everything is done to increase it even more, but despite of that, companies don’t seem to have improved their overhall financial performance. We also have to add to this the fact that, a time when enterprises rely not on machines or peopeale repeating endlessly the same tasks but on people managing information and solving problems, thinking that any business can run a 100m run in zero seconds is hare-brained.

Months ago, the idea came to me that productivity has to be rethought in order to shift from a mechanical concept to a human one, an from something that could be improved at the individual scale to something that has to be improved at a collective, systemic scale.

I’ve been neglecting this issue untill I came across this article that remembered me of it. Please have a look at this meaninful chart stolen from it :

Image 2

Despite an ongoing improvement in productivity, ROA collapsed on the same period. Why dit it happen ?

According to the article, it’s due to a total disconnect between enterprises et their current environment. Till now, businesses used to increase their size to create more value. Today, in an interconnected economy, value is not created anymore by increasing size but by multiplying information flows. The difference between the most and the less performant companies can be found in their participation to knowledge flows, both internally and externally, dynamics relying on social software. Focusing on “traditional” productivity only benefits to clients, not to the enterprise that doesn’t create more value.

In brief, the good old scalable efficiency is not enough anymore and companies should now focus on scalable learning.

The gap between the potential of any company and the benefit drawn from it is doomed to increase unless companies decide to take the most of their digital infrastructure supporting  knowledge flows and actively participate to these flows, both internally and externally with other businesses, and implement a voluntarist innovation policy.

Performance improvement will require the adoption of a logic of exchanges and innovation within ecosystems which is the only way to significantly improve things. It will make possible for anyone to improve one’s own performance through a creative problem solving process which implies the ability to connect among peers inside and outisde the organization. Contrary to the previous century when things used to come from the top, these new dynamics will be driven by people.

All that takes us back to a well known topic. The only way to bring a real and perenial improvement is to take the most of both knowledge capital and digital infrastructure. If not, the gap between investment and results will become wider every day.

Filed Under: Economy & New Models, Knowledge & Information management, strategy, Web & Usages Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

When does the value of a “social object” have to be measured ?

June 2, 2009 By 1 Comment

Let’s be clear, I’m talking about value, not about ROI (although the one is a part of the other) and about “social objects” in the large sense of the word : everything that can exist on a social platform, when using social software. It may be a content, an information specially generated, an information shared from elsewhere, a mark given to any contribution, the contribution to a collaborative work…but also the time taken to do so, the attention mobilized while the person may have had something else to do at this time etc…

Behind the everlasting discussions about ROI stands, before all, the question of the value. Does what is done have value, and what value ? In which ways an information and the time needed to publish it can have any value ? You’ll notice that it turns the ROI question not into something about tools and contents but into something wider made of tools, contents, resources and …the context in which the information is used.

That is a point that is often forgotten : it’s the context that determines values, it’s its limiting factor, more than the intrinsic value of the information itself. An insignificant information may be very valuable at a given moment for a given person even though thousands people will have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, a capital information have no value if nobody uses it. It takes us back to a reflection I’ve had a long time ago about strategy maps : intangibles have no intrinsic value but their value depends on how it’s used.

Talking about an enterprise context, let’s make it clear that “value” means the ability to turn information into money.

So the point, not that trivial, is to know when value has to be measured.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Knowledge & Information management, Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Productivity : this elusive graal

January 15, 2009 By Leave a Comment

A few weeks ago  I threw a bottle in the sea on the productivity question, a graal everyone’s looking for without really getting it. I had a lot of answers on my french blog which inspires me to write this synthesis.

I was sure there will be a lot of discussions but I didn’t think there was such a gap between what productivity is supposed to be (a ratio) and how people consider and apply in their everyday job, with a wide variety of senses.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Economy & New Models, Management & HR Tagged With: , , ,

What we should know as a new year begins

January 1, 2009 By Leave a Comment

I alreaday published this video last year. It comes back with a new look and soundtrack (even if I liked the previous one too). Nothing new but things to keep in mind while a new year begins. Now we know, let’s act.

Happy New Year everybody !

Filed Under: Economy & New Models, Software & Tools Tagged With: ,

Linkedin : from social networking to business intelligence for people

December 5, 2008 By Leave a Comment

Last week I had the pleasure to be invited to have a chat with Reid Hoffman (Founder and Chairman), Jean-Luc Vaillant (CTO) and Kevin Eyres (Director for Europe) of linkedin who invited a few blogers in a nice Parisian Restaurant in order to talk about their service, its current affairs and its future.

I’d like to point three main things out : LinekIn is now available in French which has much more consequences than the sole translation, their vision of enterprise social networks and the way they position Linkedin about that, and to end, what is according to me this kind of service’s very nature and that Reid Hoffman perfectly understood, coining a new concept called BIP.

Linkedin now in French

At first sight I’m not sure this information may interest you. But the fact a social network platform supports many languages is not only about translation. It means that many contents in different langagues will coexist on the platform. Even if one choose to complete his profile in several languages, that will change nothing to the fact discussions, “answers” will still be available in only one. The language you’ll choose for your interface will impact the language of the information that will be brought to me on my home page and search results. Globally speaking, the question of multiple languages is not trival at all, even (most of all ?), on corporate platforms, within companies.

LinkedIn and enterprise social networks

Users exchange many informations on linkedIn, share their thoughts, give tips and tricks one to the other. Some companies would prefer such things to happen on a private space, with their employees only. Reid told me that was already possible with “company group” and that they were trying to improve that, while knowing the frontier between public and company-restricted spaces and informations is very sensible.

What lead me to my next question : what if tomorrow a company asks to link linkedIn profiles to existing employee’s profiles on their intranet, indeed have their own LinkedIn inside their firewall ?

To the first question Reid answered that was something that made sense and was sometimes asked for. On the other hand, it’s importanto to know which informations can pass in each direction. Filling a profile on the intranet starting from a linkedin profile doesn’t make many problems in terms of governance. Update a linkedin profile is much more tricky because some informations are confidential and can’t be posted on a public profile. This functionnalities will soon be available but the reflexion on whether it would be an import or a synchronization (full or partial) is still on its way.

On the second point the answer came from Kevin. The enterprise social network market is real but making things por employees inside the firewall is not the same job as providing a service to individuals for their own purposes. Different levers to make it adopted, different business models… That’s not that simple. We agreed on the fact that a “personal network” relies on links people create an validate together whereas internal social networks can’t work this way except if companies want to duplicate their org-chart. So, enterprise social networks have to make real interactions and “intelectual proximity” emerge, what’s quite something different. Kevin concluded : “we’re rather in a logic of building partnerships with those who have a true expertise on internal networks”. To be followed.

But one thing is sure : one major issues for services like linkedIn will be to bridge the gap from the “personal side of my business network” and my extended network, mixing my “personal professional network” and my internal professional network according to criterias, rules and a gouvernance that have still to be defined.

In my opinion it’s this ability to build partnerships with major players on the field of enterprise social software that will be decisive at the time when the market will be mature and there will be enough room for two or three players.

And tomorrow. Business Intelligence for People ?

What’s interesting for me in a profesional network ? Linking one to another and building this incredible spider’s web that makes I’m closer to many people than I thought and I’m able to do incredible and valuable things with them ? Yes…but that’s not enough. What’s really valuable for me ?

• Knowing who met who

• Knowing what’s happening to who

• Knowing who’s doing what

• Knowing which ressource, document, information, my contacts found valuable.

• Knowing who’s wondering what. And answer (if I can) in order to show I can help on such issues.

• Knowing I can ask my network a question.

• Identify who’s the person I’m looking for among my contacts and their own contacts…

• To be continued…

This goes far beyond links. Links are only channels that are followed by informations produced by my network. It’s up to me to make a good use of it. That’s the idea behind linkedIn’s new features and apps.

Reid Hoffman calls it “Business Intelligence for People” (BIP). Perhaps “Business Intelligence by People” or “Around People” or “About people” may be relevant too.

The concept is only at its early steps but I find it rich and promising in the contexte of a knowledge economy that mainly relies on people.

Wait and see…

Filed Under: Economy & New Models, Management & HR, Web & Usages Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Web 2.0 tools to improve information readiness

November 28, 2008 By Leave a Comment

Today, many opinions converge to admit two things :

• companies need to be more and and more reactive in order to run their traditionnal activities in a more and more complexe context, where foreseeability is very uncertain and where sharp competences and complex competences assembling are needed in a short range of time. Something like “special forces forces for special taks”, running in parallel with traditionnal activities which are companies common background operations.

• in order to match this need, adequate expertises and competences are needed.

We have no choice but to admit that high levels of performance are reached in legay and “institutionnalized” activities and the money that has been invested to improve many business processes often provided a ROI. Competencewise, we also have to admit they are really present within organizations. But, for what’s about building efficient adhoc self-organized teams, even if the need is identified it gets harder and harder to be successfull since more and more situations requires this way of doing things.

One reason is that what we call intellectual capital, if present, is not easily accessible and its owners can barely be identified. To improve things, experience and knowledge should be “findable” and “findability” can only come from putting it all in words because it’s (and will remain for years) the more efficient way of indexing and finding datas in an online network, the so-called online network being the only commons space shared by all employees in scattered companies. So people would be able to search the experience and, if they can’t find what they’re looking for, identify referent people they could contact and ask.

All this is nothing more than a matter of information and readiness.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Economy & New Models, Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Innovation, Knowledge & Information management, Web & Usages Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tools on the cloud for “on the ground” benefits

November 13, 2008 By Leave a Comment

Retour Mia-cdgEven if cloud computing is not the same thing as social software and enterprise 2.0 et is more about the way tools are delivered  than functionnal classication, it makes interesting shortcuts  in order to remind people of some obvious things that are too often forgotten.

I always repeat that social tools related benefits are not to be searched into the tools but in people’s work which is most of times nothing 2.0 at all, and, at the end, in production. Intangible makes sense only when used jointly with tangible and, even if some people may find it shoking or dream-breaking, when it serves to make real money.

One can do everything in a 2.0 mood, should this buzzword really mean something, but at the end benefits have to be found on the ground, and not on the clouds. In a jumble :

• Politics 2.0 but at the end still counting ballots

• Innovation 2.0 but what matters are the number of new things actually launched or the saved money.

• Training 2.0 but what is important is the way the trainee’s performance is improved

• Marketing 2.0, but even if it’s nice when thousands of people talk about you brand, what matters is to sell more or in a more cost efficient way.

• More generally “work 2.0″ but at then end people mainly care about their pay-slip.

Just the once won’t hurt, I’ll refer to the general public web to end my demontration with the clear-headed Cyrille de Lasteyrie (aka vinvin) who works for Seesmic besides Loïc Le Meur and the keynote he made during last  podcamp Montreal.

Cyrille told the audience that every online acitivities, especially in relation with video contents, are time consumer and that there’s always a point beyond which you have to monetize them, something that only very few people success to do. And he followed with the example of “Bonjour America” .

“Bonjour America” didn’t make him earn anything except people’s esteem, and we all know that’s a currency bankers rarely accept to fill one’s bank overdraft. In the other hand it served as a business card that made other things possible. No one offered him to fund “Bonjour America” on a wider scale by some opportinities were given to him to do other things, more tranditional, but fundable and funded.

It seems to me that it’s an excellent example of many things than happen online in terms of networks or contents production: very few value by themselves but an incredible value when people manage to tranform it “in real life”. They are only levers, but levers that help people making things in the concrete world.

What’s the value of the audience of a blog ? Of a network ? Of all the information that can be found on the web ? Nothing if using it in real life is impossible or has no sense. Huge in the opposite situation. But what will have value will not be the intagible but what will have been done because of it.

In my opinion a similar reflexion can be applied to enterprise 2.0, doesn’t it ?

Even if it’s not the only point he addresses, I advise you to watch the video of his speech (sorry…for once it’s in french)
Live Broadcasting by Ustream

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

Can we identify good managers by the way their team uses the net ?

October 1, 2008 By Leave a Comment

A very common discourse within companies is : “our people waste their time on social networks and, more globally, on the web. We have to restrict access to it”.

If, when talking about social networks, it depends on the way people use them, so its important to grant access to what useful for business, I find it very damageable when companies come to restrict access to the whole web.

What are the motives for that ?

First comes security. I think it’s more a convenient motive than a relevant one and is an excuse for the next point I’ll mention. Second, it’s IT depts job to ensure security without blocking everything. Did we remove doors and windows from houses and offices in order to prevent to struggle against burglars ? No, because we need to go outside, to see what’s happening by the window,
The second point is abiut productivity. It’s a waste of time and people are not here to do that during work hours. But what does companies mean by “doing that” ?

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Economy & New Models, Knowledge & Information management, Management & HR Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The day when employees will find answers instead of waiting for them to come

September 5, 2008 By Leave a Comment

I just found interesting numbers on the fact french employees don’t have an intensive use of internet at work[fr]. Although, in countries where employees use it more “it has been the source of a notable part of productivity improvements since the mid 90′s”.

I share the author’s analysis : either while our studies or at work, we’re taught to kindly way for solutions to fall from above right into our hands rather than finding it by ourselves. “High position” of the knower facing learners that are not supposed to be able to judge par themselves ? Whatever, school doesn’t teach us how to become efficient workers.

As a result, the same model is replicated within the enterprise. As  writen here, problem solving and the acknoledgment people can use judgmenent are away from management models.

The point is not school or businesses have to improve things : both have to ! If they don’t it will be harder and harder to face daily business issues.

Two solutions in order to start : teach students how to build their own information supply chain and find what’s relevant for their needs (it’s possible : some already do that). And managers, even if they have the answer, must make their teams find it by themselves, on a deductive mode. It takes some time at the beginning but helps saving more in the future.

Filed Under: Economy & New Models, Knowledge & Information management, Management & HR Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »