Enterprise 2.0 and quality

I’ve always been convinced that enterprise 2.0 had a hudge potential but that it was often wasted because of 2.0 experts’ navel-gazing and a kind of will to marginalize those they consider as backward-looking people. In short, enterprise 2.0 often failed to speak a language that could be understood by the enterprise. It’s in no way a matter of capacity but a matter of languange, a disinterest toward “old things” that were ignored to the extent it was useless to say a word about them, that their very existence was neglected or denied. What a pity, since these things are enterprises’ spine column.

I broached this issue earlier this year and I’m glad to see this was one of the lessons of the ast Enterprise 2.0 conference. It’s encouraging for meany reasons.

In my “let’s talk about old things” series, I’d like to say a few things about quality. For many people, quality is as subjective and…qualitative concept. For other people, quality is about providing customers with what they expect to get. This logic was carried on to its deeper ends by Deming who expressed it this way : quality = (results of work efforts) / (total costs). The consequence is that when quality increases  costs decrease, and when any organization focuses on costs, quality decreases automatically. I won’t go further but if you want to know more about this, I advise you  to read “Out of the Crisis” which is still very relevant 20 years later and may make us think not all the consequences where drawn from Deming’s teaching. In short, Deming went beyond compliance control and turned quality into a real theory of management. That’s the point that may interest many enterprise 2.0 practitioners.

[Read more...]

Out of the crisis ! How ? Why ?

Rehearsal of some of the problems.We live in a society dedicated to dividends, organization, decision, orders from top to bottom, confrontation (every idea put forth must win or lose) and all-out war to destroy a competitor be he at home or abroad. Take no prisonner, there ust be winners and there must be losers. This may not be the way to better material living.

We live in an era in which everyone expects to see an everyrising standard of living. A little arthmetics sometimes helps to clarify thinking. When cometh the ever-increasing supply of worldly goods that build up an ever-increasing supply of food, clothing, housing, transportation and other serices ? It is gard to understand of a significant economic development could happen in the United States as long as our products are not competitive in our country and in the rest of the world.

How can anyone buy products from others if he can’t manage to sell them his own ones ? The only possible answer is a better conception, higher quality, higher productivity.

Only a better management can bring the necessery improvement. The question is to know how long it will take for managament to assume at last its responsabilities and for a new attitude to bear fruits. The american industry doesn’t have to prepare for restauration but for transformation. Solving problems from day to day and installing gadgets won’t put an end to our difficulties.

[...]

An article in Business Week [...] cited the paradoxal case of an executive who was laid off from his company, even though he had been hired to manage long term planification. The only reason was that the last quarter’s dividends [...] felt off.

CxOs managed to make shareholders believe that dividends were a measurement of management performance. Some business schools teach their students how to maximize short term profits. [...] When will industry leaders learn that they have a moral obligation to protect the capital.

[Read more...]

Is there a 2.0 way to draw an org-chart ?

When talking about enterprise 2.0, something we offer hear is “sounds interesting but our company is not designed to work this way”. Understand : we decide to do something and we “push” it, don’t even think of allowing a bottom-up flow to exist in this context. Of course, that causes gaps, the company isn’t able to meet clients and employee’s needs right away, many realignments being necessary while the exchanges that would makes it easier are not facilitated at all. In  a colorful language, companies use the existing pipes, hoping all pieces will fit together at the end.

That’s why I suggested to think about a Service Oriented Organization, which starting point is not the top of of the pyramid but the goals the organization has to achieve. Don’t forget that the purpose of any company is not to keep people busy or give to what already exist a reason to live but to meet the market’s expectations, even if it means to change what already exist.

Now let’s play a little game.

[Read more...]