Enterprise 2.0 and ROI : beyond numbers it’s about meaningful arbitrations

The debate on the ROI of Enterprise 2.0 is far from its end even if I often have the impression that avoiding the question is a common easy answer. Either the “we don’t care” or the ‘it’s different, you can’t understand” answers don’t satisfy me.

When an enterprise is asked to invest energy, time, money, it’s legitimate to want to know what it will get in return. More precisely :

- if their will be any return

The answer is obvious : yes

- if this return will be a vague “better something”, nebulous and unseizable or if it will be measurable in a way or another, in a un unit that would not be too eccentric (money for instance…)

Here, my answer would be double. There are things that have a direct impact on opeations and thant can be measured and quantified. For instance the lenght of the innovation or sales cycle, the time saved by avoiding micro-coordination…

There are things that are not measurable by themselves but impact things that are. This is clearly demonstrated by Strategy Maps.The idea is to implement the mechanisms that will ensure that what’s invested to improve intangible will actually impact value creation. In brief, make sure that everything is conherent with the investments and that the way work is done is aligned with that in order investments are made profitable (it’s seldom said but businesses usually don’t suffer from a lack of talent or innovation…only a lack of coherence that impacts the whole value creation process, preventing processes to harness talents and innovation potential).

3°) If this return can be foreseeable in a mechanical and linear way.

Here, the answer is : no. In the other hand, between the exact prediction and the “we can’t predict so let’s five give up” I think there’s a long work to be done by searchers and specialists to be done. Without this work that will help to implement relevant measurement and predicition means, the risk is high to see managers piloting businesses with indicators that have nothing to do with the current reality, the way operations are done and the matter that is processed.

That said, there’s another side of the issue that should also be tackled. Basically, being sure that the investment will bring some benefits should be enough to start a project, regardless of the quantifiable predictability of the benefit. The latter matter when the point is not to choose between doing and not doing but arbitrate the choice between two possible investments. In this case it’s obvious that the chosen one will be the one with the highest return so both possibilities have to be comparable what implies being predictable.

[Read more...]

Some advice not to fear internet in the workplace

You are scared that your employees stop working and spend their days surfing on the net ? A too easy shortcut based on the assumption that people inevitably lose their time when they are on the net. An assumption that may also be true. In fact, the issue is about two questions :

The first is to know if your staff need internet or not, what amounts to wonder if it can be a business tool or if it’s only a leisure tool.

In the case the answer to the first question is positive, the second question will be about usages. Nearly everybody agree that net surfing is like cholesterol : there is the “good surf” ” and the “bad surf”, the one who serves the company and the one that makes you waste your time.

Here again, there’s no “magic formula” but we can figure a few things out with a few common sense.

[Read more...]

Trust doesn’t preclude control…but which control ?

That’s a key point in enterprise 2.0 discussion : build a base called trust, which has effects on transparency, loosen grip and the command and control world that’s ours. Hence the announced end of “command and control”.

Why the end of command and control ? Regarding “command”, can you imagine an organization where nobody commands ? That’s not because we need more place for serendipity that we have to let luck rule our companies. Command must stay, but people may be allowed to also do what’s not asked. Most of all, command can be about goals definition, not about the means you’ll use to reach it.

And what about control ? According to Maddie Grant, companies can’t adapt to the present context because they can’t live without control. I fully agree with that opinion but I’d like to add something. [Read more...]

Organizational learning (2) and KM lawyers

intelligenceThis is the second part of my post about organizational learning. It will end with a little case study about KM in law companies.

In the second part of the process (double loop learning), the company is able to change its routines, process, strategy according to what is learned from experience. It made me think about a few things.

What about the learning process?

Organization will learn from experience…and so what? How can we say some experience is more important, more valuable than another? Who will decide of the changes that have to be made consequently.

All feed back comes from operational people. All decision come from managers. What’s important is to know how information goes from operationals to the management. If there are too many filters the process may be unusefull for the only reason that one never dares talking his superior about things that go wrong. Censorship and autocensorship are learning process’ most important enemies.

In the same way, considering decisions are to be made taking in account collective experience and feedback, how are people associated in decision making?

A double loop learning process supposes that, according to me, experience is collected, people share it and discuss in ordre to know what’s important, management aknowledge something may change and all concerned people help management to make the better decision because they are closer to the market, they are those who know the best the impact of decisions.

Which tools can help to make such a process easy and valuable.

I’m convinced that what the report on intranet’s best practices calls collaborative driven intranet would be an efficient support. A real Intranet 2.0 based on sharing and discussion. Something like blueKiwi for example as it’s the first real integrated  intranet 2.0 I’ve ever seen.
About KM Lawyers

I found a very interesting article in a french economic newspaper called “la tribune”. It was about KM in law companies where top level lawyers are monitoring law actuality to build company’s doctrine.

I didn’t knew about this special kind of lawyers and it seems to me it’s a perfect example of collaborative process in the way of managing collective intelligence.

I’m sure that such people would like to use an intranet that not only allow them to share but also to discuss, comment and co-build their doctrine. This should be a typical case of a relevant use of an intranet 2.0, considering the context, the needs and the writing culture of the occupation.

Organizational learning (1): concept and questionning

intelligenceOrganization learning (OL) was defined in 1978 by Argyris and Schon as the “correction and detection of errors”. So a learning organization is a company that take benefit of its experience to improve its practices.Argyris and Schon identified three kinds of organization learning:

- Single loop learning: based on errors’ detection and correction in order to fulfill the same purposes as before. The firm keeps the sames goals and strategy

- Double loop learning: single loop learning + modification of process, routines, strategy and objectives.

- Deutero learning: the firm is learning how to deal with single and double loop learning: necessity of learning and adapted processes are in the center of this phase.

Single loop is only concerned by change, Double loop and Deutero are concerned by “why and how” and questions about core beliefs, strategy, and the company’s fundamentals.

So, let have a few questios about that:(we’ll talk about that in a next post…)
- in wich measures OL is a step to intelligent firms, which other steps are necessary to go from one to the other?

- as feedback is essential in OL, how is it collected, managed, treated (individually, collectively, at which level of the company?)

- which factors are key in such a process…and what were the braking factors.

- did this theory have a real impact, or was it only partially adopted?