Moving toward business models of a new kind : the example of “Danone Supporting Life”

One thing is sure : the “after the crisis world” will be very different from what it was before. It may seem obvious, but if we have a closer look at what happened in the past, we have to admit many upturns consisted of the rebuilding of what used to exist as it was. This time it seems that both economy and society learned things.

• growth is not and endless spiral. Especially if you want it to be strong.

• whoever creates value for onself while destroying value for the others will be impacted by the economical consequences of his behaviors one day or the orther.

• Companies are parts of an ecosystem (customers, suppliers, employess…). If a part of this ecosystem collapses, the company will soon follow because when value is destroyed at its periphery, it destroyes its own potential markets.

• Growing by developping new markets is healthier than using financial lever to balance the fact its current markets are finite.

• People, at the same time employees, clients, and member of the society, now want to fully play their part and judge corporate behaviors according to these lessons.

All this things are worth because management and work models will be impacted by these societal facts and, in the same way, being successful in this new context will imply new internal practices. This teaches us, once again, that the current crisis is not as economic as it may seem.

This can lead to predict the advent of business models of a new kind, close to Umair Haque’s smart Growth Manifesto d’Umair Haque. But many people wonder when it will happen and how it may look like. A first example is coming from France with “Danone Supporting Life”.

[Read more...]

Efficiency, performance, constraints and things 2.0

We saw in a previous post that one of the best ways to improve performance was not to push to people to make impossible things but to get rid of the constraints that crub their performance. Once that said, if the vision is understandable by everyone (rather than trying to push something large in a blocked thin pipe, better unblock and enlarge the pipe), it’s still useful to see what can be done in the day to day work.

So let’s find out what those constraints are and how to get rid of them. This will also be a good way to understand that enteprise 2.0 is not a goal by itself but a trigger to achieve organizational goals.

[Read more...]

Think 2.0 and search for your client

In the “how to  build enterprise 2.0″ or “how to make management 2.0 happen in the workplace” series (which is not always the same thing) I think that before defining any action plan it’s important to understand the logic underneath. As a matter of fact, it’s impossible to bring anyone to do anything if he can’t understand the logic. What has to be done to make things change is known by everybody, it’s nothing but classical change management actions, but many people still refuse to consider them and keep on asking “how” because what they’re being proposed is out of their logic. And since there is no blinder person than the one who doesn’t want to see..

Many blocks are related to questions such as “who can”, “who has the right to”, “who leads”, “who commands”, “who controls”, “who validates”… The matter is not to suscribe to any theory of the organizations but to know what is effective.

Let’s consider things from the beginning.

[Read more...]

Management 2.0, SOO and productivity

I started, here and there, writing about the need for changing flows direction within organization : switching from a “pushed” to a “pull” way of producting and communicating. The purpose is to make it possible for people to determine their action according to a goal rather than to an order.

Why is that so important ?

Because it’s more consistent with the reality of people’s work today. It waid said many times, repeated, but the time when employees has to reproduce endlessly an unique task or gesture is over. Their activities, their daily tasks, are not defined in a production plan but by a request, a need that are continuously changing. Generally people don’t need to be be told what to do but need support to do things. They need more support than instructions and this support, as paradoxical as it may be, may come from above. Today, orders are coming from above and support from above is expected. What is needed to help people to do their job is the exact opposite.

[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...]

Enterprise 2.0 : my predictions for 2009

Honestly I was not sure I would conform to the annual predictions tradition. Finally, since my 2008 edition was not that bad (shift from “social tools at people’s disposal” to the acknowledgement it needed inclusion in business process) and Susan kindly asks for it, I’ll try to do something interesing this year.

That said, I will divide my note in two parts. As any good “thoughtleader” sometimes mistake predictions for his own wishes, I’ll try to be lucid enough to clearly separate both and end my note with a few pious hopes.

Let’s start !

[Read more...]

A crisis that’s not that economic

Many people agree to admit the time has come to built a kind of new economic order, the drifts of the current system having lead to the situation we all know. But, saying that, people often neglect what I consider being a management failure. As for the hen and the egg it’s hard to say who was responsible but we have to admit both successfully helped one another.

Weeks ago I wrote that logic without good sens leads to catastroph and worried about companies who only had halve strategies, that’s to say that focus on exploiting the present without thinking of allocating part of their ressources in order to prepare the future. Said differently, it’s like promising a linear performance when they only give themselves enough assets to follow a curve limited at its top.

Recently I was backed up by a note by Jon Husband who pointed at an  interview of Henry Mintzberg who was saying it was more a management crisis than an economic one. An opinion I share. A few points I bring out from this interview [Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0, Management 2.0, HR 2.0 and Culture 2.0 according to Jon Husband

As I wrote earlier, for most of Webcom audience, Jon Husband’s Keynote was the most impressive (actually it seems he enjoyed it too)

Jon had the kindness to send me his slides so I can share some of them with you.

[Read more...]

Webcom in review

Here are the key ideas I’d like to point out from the Webcom conference in Montreal.

Honor to whom honor is due, let’s start with Andrew McAfee. I’m not sure people who have been following him for years did really learn anything new. But those who just begin to try to get into the enterprise 2.0 must have had an excellent global overview of the new challenges their companies will have to face in the coming years.

Well, anyway there are some points I found interesting.

Perharps I’m being mistaken but it seems to me he improved if definition of enterprise 2.0 from “use of web 2.0 tools within the enterprise” to ” use of emergent social software within companies or between companies and their partners or customers”. I think it makles a lot of sense. First because “social” seems to be more relevant than “web 2.0 ” since they don’t define tools by their origin but by what they make possible. Second because including partners and clients is more realistic in a global context which force enterprise not to be standalone players anymore but make them a part a of global ecosystem.

[Read more...]

How to link formal and informal within the enterprise : the “still” company

Since intangible assets only create value when they support formal business process, enterprises don’t have to create an enterprise 2.0 organization relying on informal but a system allowing formal and structured activities to take advantage from what isn’t.

If we want to visualize that, the “still” metaphor seems very relevant to me.

[Read more...]