Do we work the same way with providers and with colleagues ?

June 18, 2009 By Leave a Comment

The answer is obviously not. And not only because this is not the same kind of contracts. It’s because businesses still act according to the model that makes them consider their employees on one side and the others on the other side. And in the middle…they build walls. They proctect from the outside although value is not created on one or the other side of the wall alone but by people, from both companies, sitting on the top of the wall. Externals can’t access the tools that are used to collaborate inside et interactions between insiders and suppliers are much harder than between colleagues (even if, even in this case, it’s often far from being easy).

A few months ago I was wondering if the future of businesses was to manage an ecosystem of partners and outsource many competences.A phenomenon that won’t be driven by circumstances but by an organizational vision (which limits can easily be found)

I’m reading here that self employement will dramatically increase in the US in the ten next years. If this prediction is true, businesses will have to learn how to work efficiently with a growing number of external people, getting rid of irrelevant barriers.

Changes have to be undertaken, both in business and management practices (consider the others as a part of ours) and tools (platforms that allow both formal and informal interactions, open to external people). How many companies do open their internal collaboration spaces to their providers ? And, even when they do, what kind of interactions do they make possible ?

Working with providers as if they were one’s own employees is not only a self-fulfilling concept. It has noticeable implications which may soon become vital.

écosystème, collaboration, entreprise, externalisation, knowledgeworkers, outils-collaboratif, prestataires, réseaux, travailleurs indépendantss, travailleurs-du-savoir,interactions

Filed Under: Management & HR 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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Enterprise 2.0 and Process Killing

March 18, 2008 By Leave a Comment

I’m convinced that enterprise 2.0 doesn’t mean processes hunt in purpose to play a pure informal game but offers new opportunities to take the most of informal and non-structured assets. Though… what I thing being a rule has its exceptions. I’m not about to join the dreamer’s clan but a discussion I had with Luis Alberola, while having a coffee, a few weeks ago. There are processes and processes. Those that exist by calling and those that exist by default.

We were sharing nearly the same vision with Luis when he asked me “in fact, the “2.0″ will cause the end of some processes”. “Hem ! Can you tell me which ones ? “. “All those which vocation was to replace people”. Bingo ! Actually, two kind of process exist : those that are to organize people’s productivity and determine everyone’s tasks and those that are to organize people’s reflections (individually or collectively).

Two reasons for that. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR Tagged With: , , ,

What is a knowledgeworker 2.0 ?

February 25, 2008 By Leave a Comment

I think there’s a kind of poeople which counts, today, much more than digital natives because they are already within the organization and sometimes are a part of top management. They are not far from knowledgeworkers 1.0 who have been there for ages, but they use the same tools as the next generation. They are the hybrids who will levergae change because they are the link between two different generations and they will not retire before two decades. Neglecting them and focusing on those who will arrive and those who are close to retirement would be a big mistake, making them a lost generation would be tragic if we want to ensure an efficient and smooth transition.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://static.slideshare.net/swf/ssplayer2.swf?doc=i-am-knowledge-worker-20786" width="425" height="355" wmode="transparent" /]

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR Tagged With: , , , ,

About knowledge worker’s productivity… or the E2.0 paradigm

June 30, 2007 By Leave a Comment

Productivity in enteprise 2.0 is a very important issus since it’s key in CxOs decision to make their company switch. We all recognize enterprise 2.0 is mainly about knowledge working so I’m convinced we have to consider what’s key in knowledge workers productivity.

On this point I found some interesting things in Challenges for the 21st Century, by Peter Drucker, where we’re given hints to settle a new paradigm where knowledge working is correctly evaluated.

Most companies still evaluate work on principles that last from Taylor ! Taylor didn’t build a theory but a method that helped him to find an accurate way to drive and evaluate production in the industrial context. The context changend but methods remain the same so it’s not a surprise it’s hard to demonstrate E2.0 value. What we need is a new Taylor to fin how to drive and evaluate production in the present economy…once that’s acknowledged, E2.0 value will be fully demonstrated.

XXth century organizations were built upon a paradigm which purpose was to maximize value around industrial production. XXIst century organization will have to build a paradigm to maximize value around knowledge production…or they will soon encounter big troubles by measuring things with wrongs indications about wrong purposes.

What does Drucker tell us :

- Determining a knowledge worker’s productivity supposes we first ask “what’s the task”.

- Production must be responsability of the knowledge workers. They need autonomy and have to manage themselves.

- Continuous innovation must be a part of their job, of their responsability.

- knowledge worker’s productivity is not only a question of quantity. Qualitity is at least as important.

- knowledge worker’s productivity supposes he’s seen and treated as an asset and not as a cost. This also supporses he wants tho work for this organization rather than any other.

Build en enterprise upon this paradigm and E2.0 value won’t have to be proven anymore. The point is companies have to be organized in order to transform knowledge into value…and draw conclusions from that in their evaluation process.

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

A new way to define a productive worker

June 5, 2007 By Leave a Comment

This is the subject of a verty interesting note by Pascal Veilleux. I think it’s very close to the way productivity will have to be measured in the enterprise 2.0. Thanks Pascal for letting me translate it here:

Before
Productivity was measured by the number of hours you spend at he office

Now
Hours don’t matter, only results count.

Before
Email was a maintream tool. Answering intantaneously to each email was essential.

Now
New communication tools in the enterprise 2.0 allow people to have the right information at the right moment and so they can focus on what’s really productive. The new productive worker knows he has to use IM for if he wants an instant answer and a wiki to archive what would be useful for the whole team and a blog to make announcements. He also uses RSS feeds to keep an eye on what’s happening. He knows the more he’ll use those tools the more is teammates will use them too.

Before
A good management was hierarchical management. One had to have good relationship with his boss, the boss of his boss…etc. And also keep an eye on his subordinates to make sure they quickly answer their emails.

Now
Lateral connexions inside and even outside the enterprise are mainstream. Information sharing is a real lever in the organization.

Before
Being alert during working hours was essential.

Now
The new productive worker shows is status on  Twitter. Even when he’s at the garage or at home during his “normal” working hours. In his opinion it improves team communication and work.

Before
Surfing on the web was a waste of time…he had to hide.

Now
Surfing on the web helps understanding the present and anticipate the future.

Before
Long term planification was the rule.

Now
Everything changes very quickly. One try different projets. They won’t all succeed, but some will.

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

Social computing and knowledgeworking need new metrics

April 22, 2007 By 6 Comments

People still talk a lot about about 2.0 adoption…as I always say, the point is not to have tools adopted but to build the ecosystem which makes them suitable. In other words that’s not the individuals who refuse / fear / don’t want / don’t kwow how to… it’s their ecosystem which makes very hard to develop.

Andrew McAfee published a very interesting note on that point, especially about the importance of the notion of time. In fact time is very well kwown excuse “I don’t have time”, “I want my team to work, they don’t have time for anything else”. Paradoxically, those managers often complain about lack of collaboration and innovation within their enterprises, and dramatically suffer from consequences of such lacks.

At first sight it’s about management. But it’s also a matter of metric and paradigm. [Read more...]

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

Economy changes…companies have to change too

December 13, 2006 By Leave a Comment

intranetA few days ago I wrote a note about a McKinsey report saying how success will depend on interactions for companies tomorrow. In the same tendency I have to mention the report on the immaterial economy recently published by the french minister of economy.

I think it’s a very important subject and I’m convinced enterprises will have to improve their internal models because their surrounding is moving. But it supposes to be conscious of what is the new context they have to face and everything that makes them aware of that is very welcome.

So economy is evolving, production and employee’s profiles too, and we won’t run a company in 2010 the way we did in the 90′s with a post industrial management legacy.
What does the report says ? [Read more...]

Filed Under: Enterprise 2.0 & Social Business, Management & HR Tagged With: , , , ,

Do knowledgeworkers need a new kind of management?

July 31, 2006 By 2 Comments

images-8.jpegMost companies are still managed by what I call a post-taylorism management. Taylorism method have been improved to match today’s needs with more autonomy, more room for creativity and inovation, something more participative but it seems to be like small bubbles in a top-down managed company. These are improvements made on such or such service, with such or such manager but we can’t say a new global model was born.

Knowledgeworkers that were few years ago are now an evergrowing population in most companies. Their specificities cause different needs such as: autonomy, inovation, creativity, need for improved self-esteem. The consequence is that the “exceptions” mentionned in the previous paragaph are expected to be a norm. That’s the way to make knowledgeworkers more implicated, to take more benefit of their work. The stake is to find a way to manage this kind of people without breaking company’s cohesion.

In this situation, IT will have to take its part in the change. Because knowledgeworkers allow new ways of working such as “officeless working”, teams working from a distance, the new social practices brought by an appropriate management will have to materialize themselves on the only thing who link everybody in the company, the only place for exchanges, that’s to say the intranet. Some kind of management 2.0?
As a confirmation of this new trend, a few words about Jack Welch, named “manager of the century” by “Tribune” in 1999. His theories and his management that were considered as table of law for decades are now challenged by the same “Tribune”. Welch’s theories on management are no longer adapted to this new category of workers that is growing and growing…. Neglecting individual expectations and self developpement and keeping everything under strong control on an efficiency-only based model is not appropriate anymore. You can read more about this on Fortune.

Surely knowledgeworkers wouldn’t have been very efficient and implicated working with Mr. Welch. On the other hand Welch had a management that fitted his industry and his context. Now things are changing, a kind of new era is being born and we have to found the XXIe century’s Jack Welch, a guy with a vision adapted to the new economy and the specific skills and expectations of knowledgeworkers.
Changing all of that will be a great challenge, don’t you think?

Filed Under: Management & HR Tagged With: , , , ,