Making the most of key resources in collaboration

Summary : tomorrow’s organization will be connected and communicative. This is the only way to success in the knowledge economy. But communication and exchange, which are essential foundations for collaboration, need a sender and a receiver who mobilize their attention. But attention, more than time, is the scarce productive ressource which use has to be optimized. In the end, if everyone makes the most of the system in one’s own interest, the whole organization may become paralyzed. Solutions exist and suppose more accessible business tools, information filtering based on context and better education and training.

Whatever the organizational structure is, top-down, networked, push, pull etc… there’s always a constant concern : optimizing the use of resources. Said in other words : “get the maximum by spending the minimum”, “prevent productive potential wasting”.

In this productivity driven view, people see time as being the limiting factor. That’s, right…at least in a system based on repetitive tasks and involving few knowledge if any. But this assumption becomes wrong in a knowledge economy where time is not a relevant productivity indicator at all because individual production is not linear or constant anymore. And not individual either by the way. In this context, the limiting factor is attention, which could be defined as qualified time, a subdivision of time. That’s the time dedicated to do/deal with/process something, being focused on it (by the way it would be interesting to start a discussion on what attention at work is….to find a less shoddy definition than this one).

So attention is the scarce resource which use has to be optimized.

But we know than nobody can be focused, attentive, 8 hours a day. A least not 8 hours in a row. That’s, in fact, a reason why the barrier between personal and professional time is blurring.

One of the best way to avoid productive time wasting is not to make sure everyone is checking in the office at the right time but to make work tools available when and where attention is maximal. Note that attention is not always the result of a voluntary action. Who did never have a brilliant idea about a business concerns at night, on vacation or during a week end…and lost it because he was not empowered to work or share it at the very moment when it came ? Moment when one’s mind shifted to a business focus unpurposely on a non dedicated time ?

Another way is to avoid disruptive elements that come and interrupt employees in an “attention phase”. These elements are well known : untimely email reception as well as any incoming signal that grab attention and force to refocus after : instant messaging, phone calls or social media. There’s an easy solution being used by many people : disconnecting from everything. But disconnection has risks : not being able to communicate with people who can help, not receiving the information that would help to solve a problem. The notion of context that helps filtering the available information and, most of all, the information being pushed at a given moment is essential and will play a key role in tomorrow’s business applications.

Then after, there’s the need to master the human factor. As a matter of fact, these signals don’t fall from the sky : they’re sent by people. That’s the paradox of the new coming forms of organizations. If each person makes the most of his ability to share, alert and mobilize others, the situation will look like a tragedy of the commons applied to attention. If each person makes the most of other’s attention in his own interest, the collective result will be horrendous because no one will have enough attention left to do his own work. This issue is fare from being the easier to solve.

Of course, specific education and training will be needed to make people aware of the attention paradigm and what a wise use of people’s attention means (using any communication channel is using others’ attention by the way). But is this a risk for weak signals and serendipity which are essential in agile, networked and “pull” organization ?

The result will surely be a mix of all these solutions…but is still unclear…and far.

Anyway, if organizations need to become (over ?) connected and communicative, they’ll need mechanisms that will prevent these skills from backfiring and avoid the paradoxical trap according to which when everyone makes the most of the system, the organization as a whole will suffer from it.

 

 

The death of serendipity ?

Summary : Serendipity is  finding things without knowing they exist and without looking for them. On the web this phenomenon is embodies by the multiple links that makes us browse from an idea to another until we find something we would never have look for. However, the recent evolution of search engines and social networking sites can be seen as a real threat : by proposing results filtered according to people’s social profile, they segment the web and may threaten idea spreading and discovery. By relying on proximity and popularity, these tools are bringing us away from relevance. The problem will even be more critical in an enterprise context. To limit the amount of information on a relevance bases without building invisible social filters and barriers, efforts have to be made on context and correlation.

Serendipity is the ability to find something while ignoring its existence, without looking for it. We all experienced it at least once on the web : searching for something, finding a resultt and then, from one link to another, finding something which existence was unexpected until then. Serendipity relies on both the human factor and trust.

Human factor because these links that make us discover new things are made by people. Trust because depending on what we know of a person we’ll give more or less credit to what he/she says and the sources being suggested. Of course, it’s a long term mechanisms because reputation needs time to form, so does trust. This as also some things in common with curation.

Today,, the way we’re looking for information on the web is evolving. To be more precise, that’s the way information is proposed to us that’s changing. With the masses of information that search engines or social networking platforms like Facebook have about us, our contacts,habits, the results that are pushed to us are filtered to correspond to what we are. Among the masses or information that will match my search, those that come from people that are similar to me, those that will please me will be prioritized. If you wonder why, for the same search, Google gives different results to you and your friends, now you know why. The same logic applies to what appears on your Facebook homepage and what does not.

The more this logic is becoming mainstream, the less one will have any chance to discover things that come from people who don’t think the same way or think of different things. What raises two problems to me

• First one if about being locked up into a trend, ignoring what’s being said elsewhere

• The second is to be unable to access to a wide part of the information available on a given topic.

Google (and the other of its kind), desiring to please me despite of me, are ignoring the difference between what would please me and what I would need to know;

This issue is not neutral at all for internal business purposes too.e.

[Read more...]

Sometimes you don’t have an intranet problem but a search problem

Summary : there’s a common belief according to which the raise of user generated content will improve information sharing in the workplace. It’s obviously a part of the solution but not the whole one. In many cases, organizations are not able to find anything on their existing intranet and the expected multiplication of content will even make things worse. A shared information that can’t be found is not better that no shared information at all. Thinking the social layer of the intranet also means thinking about search that is a strategic tool to browse and is also key to bring content and people closer in a relevant and contextual way.

Most of today’s intranets, those that are beginning to look really outdated, are often being criticized by users because they don’t help them to access relevant information and resources. Hence the wish to move to a social intranet (or intranet 2.0), thinking that allowing more user generated content will fill the gap by a better sharing of “field” information.

If this value proposition of the next generation of intranets makes sense, the keen interest for “social things” may turn heads away from core issues. Anyone who observed intranets in “transition phase” these last months must have noticed one thing :  increasing information sharing from field people solves part of the problem but intranets don’t make things findable today with the current amount of content, there are few chances things will improve in the future.

Bottom line : before thinking of socializing intranets (or at the same time), it’s essential to think about search engines. Specialists will find I’m laboring the point but the fact is this point is often underestimated.

A good search engine, when used smartly, helps to do many things :

- first, it helps to find contents. Not necessarily because people know the exact title of what they’re looking for but because the engine can understand the meaning of things.

- then, it finds things inside documents. When an intranet is made of thousands of things to .doc or pdfs people needs to download it’s vital. Building the intranet of the future does not mean neglecting documents of the past : they have to be, finally, made findable.

- we can also rely on the engine to link different kind of contents. It can be used to suggest relevant communities, documents and people within any other tool (CRM, BI….). Vital when it comes to linking social and business.

- building an unified search. It’s not acceptable, today, to have as many search engines as there are tools. Is it a user-centric attitude ? Search may be global and users may be able to get, with a single request, “official” content, user generated content, user profiles etc… Legacy existing content should also be indexed (Notes bases, ECM, shared directories etc…) because life was existing before the new intranet.

Thinking the social part of the intranet means thinking the whole intranet. Thinking that tags and tool-specific search engines, as powerful as they can be, will solve all the problems is a mistake. Intranets need a global search strategy that is at least is important as the question of content organization that will never be perfect and is destined for failure as the mass of available data will be skyrocketing in a near future.

 

Enterprise social networking : the difference between voluntary participation and optional membership

Summary : If participation in social networks can only be voluntary, only voluntary people should access the network. Is this assumption, on which many adoption programs are based on, relevant ? It’s the result of a mix-up between the network and its community part, between membership and participation. It creates a frontier between those who want to try and others, a frontier that limits the spreading of the “social phenomenon” and the related benefits. If, for most workers, the network is not something obvious, it may come to them instead of waiting for people to come to the network. Interest comes from passive exposure and not from concealing to non-members. A real enterprise 2.0 or social intranet implies that everybody is a member, can browse and read, that the network is a part of the IS, that profiles have a pivotal role. What does not prevent participation from relying on people’s goodwill.

Most of times, when an assessment is made on an internal social network project, we can hear “xxxx employees decided to join”. As a matter of fact, since participation can’t be mandatory, volunteers are asked to register. So it’s logical that only a part of them can be found on the network. So, for instance, we can have 80 000 employees who can access the intranet and 6,7,8 000 that decided to also access the social network. Is that an impressive victory ? If we consider that it’s only a first step on a global roll-out program it may be, but if we consider that’s the way things should work I don’t believe in such approaches (except for very specific cases.

Of course, participation in a social network can’t be made mandatory. But this assumption deserves further explanation. Social networks are often mixed-up with communities. Participation in communities can’t be mandatory and depend on people’s goodwill. But sometimes work groups are turned into communities and, in this case, the answer is different. But things are different for the network as such, what is nothing but having a profile (they can fill in or not) and be able to connect to others, follow them, get in touch with them, follow the activity of blogs, communities, wikis etc…

The truth is critical mass is key to a successful project.

The network will spontaneously attract those who are born networkers. Some bystanders will also follow them. At then end it’s about 10% of employees. Bystanders will slowly move away (except the few that will “get” the social thing). So the network will live on volunteers, some will give up because the system will bring them back to the party line but, at the end, this small group of people will be the center of gravity of the social platform. Provided they don’t get out of breath.

This way of doing things has nothing to do with transforming work or the organization. Those who want will do things differently…and that’s all. It will only happen among them because they won’t be numerous enough to make the whole organization move with them. That’s another example of the “social bubble” syndrome that can even be painful for participants that work in a way with some people and in another way with the rest of the organization.

We can bet that some will want to join them over time. But it won’t happen if they have to reason to try, to find a personal benefit and feel like keeping the “social way”. What can bring them there ? They may think they’ll be able to find, at a given moment, the answer to a problem or the person that will be able to help. If only 10% are on the network there are many chances the others will think that it’s not worth, that there are few chances what they need will be there.

Confusing mandatory participation with mandatory membership has obviously a negative impact. That’s not because no one can be forced to participate that not everybody could access the network. There are many reasons to that :

[Read more...]

Toward smarter information systems

Summary : When we talk about working on information, we usually distinguish the work that’s been progressively dedicated to machines (mass processing of data according to pre-determined plans) and what remains the field for humans, a sharper and more qualitative approach to scattered and unstructured data. This second point lead organizations to organize accordingly, distinguishing between those who search, prepare and use these data. A dichotomy that has many chances to be questioned in a near futur as machines are getting able not only to explore unstructured data but also to understand questions and give answers.

When we have a look a the main components of any information system, we can see two poles coexisting :

• the “mechanical” one. It’s made of applications that replaced humans over time because they’re more efficient and reliable for some tasks, providing a substantial advantage both in termes of speed and quality, what means in terms of costs. They allow the mechanization of repetitive mass processing that need more calculations and processing power than intelligence and ability to react in front of unpredictable things.

• the “intelligence and knowledge” one. It’s made of applications that don’t replace humans but are supposed to multiply their intrinsic abilities that a machine does not have. Its about communication and collaboration technologies.

If we focus on the second point, it’s obvious that no machine can understand and treat unstructured data with the needed fineness. Should the need be about searching, using and make a decision relying on a huge mass of unstructured information without the existence of an history demonstrating what “a good decision is”.

On this part, the superiority of human versus the machines is about decision making. As for what’s about information search, it’s rather a burden but a necessary burden because even if the machine is powerful enough it’s unable to process a qualitative and contextual search on information.

But how long will that last ? [Read more...]

And the best enterprise social network platform on the market is…

Summary : at a given moment in any enterprise 2.0 project, a choice has to be made about the tools that will be used. And,, the “specialist” is often asked the same question : “Tell me what’s the best tool on the market”. That’s a tough question regarding to the number of parameters to take into account and, in fact, there’s no “best tool on the market” but rather “tools that fit the most a given context. However, with hindsight and as organization’s maturity is increasing, the criterias that are used to define such a tool are evolving. For a perenial, scalable and coherent project that will avoid the “social bubble syndrome, I came to the conclusion that businesses should  qualify an environment and application services rather than an application as such.

I can’t remember how many times I was asked what social platform to chose, what was the “best one” in my opinion. That’s a question I’ve never been able to answer.

First, because it’s impossible to suggest a tool regardless to its purpose. Do you want a tool to screw or hammer ? Both a hammer and a screwdriver are excellent tools to do DIY but if the objective is not known there’s a real risk of suggesting to buy a hammer while there’s a screw issue.

Then, because many factors hav to be taken into account. Its functional richness, its ergonomy (very subjective), how easy it is to implement it quickly, the need or aversion for Saas, its ability to integrate with existing tools, its coherence with the prevailing technologies in the organization…not mentionning a lot of factors that may sound surprising but may be essential in a given context. Depending on the need, each of these points will weight differently what will lead the organization to make a choice that will be theirs.

Last, because it will always be a matter of compromise rather than a matter of choice. Anyone who have ever tried to conduct an exhaustive researche on social tools or, like me, has to know and work with a lot of platforms will tell you the same thing : there’s no perfect tool on the market and even if some are marking themselves out, a given need will make us chose a tool that we would never have considered as a possible first choice before. Even worse : by dint of trying more and more platforms, we are often disappointed with the one that’s chosen, whatever its name is. Everyting being a matter of compromise, we chose the one that is 70%, 80%, 90% like the “ideal tool” as we could dream it but does not exist. And we spend our time saying “xxx software does it better”…knowing that if we have chosen xxx software we would have regreted something from yyyy soft that was the other option.

What’s wrong with compromises is that, by chosing something that averagely meets all the needs, you can end with something that specifically meet no need at all and see all business departments launch pirate projects and go to find an alternative platform for their own needs.

So my answer used to be “try to fing the tools that fits your needs the best and avoid tools that are so neutral that despite they won’t raise any issue they won’t solve anything either”. And once done “learn to love what you have since you can’t have what you love”. Far from being satisfying.

I don’t even mention the cases when businesses have to chose two tools because any couldn’t do the job alone.

Now I’ve refined my criterias. [Read more...]

The death of oral exchanges in the workplace ?

Résumé :some people are more comfortable with oral exchanges, some others with written ones. Similarly, some companies have a culture that’s more “latin” than others. Before even thinking of changing the way people work we have to admit that some of the tools that have to support these new ways of working do not fit a part of the workforce and even many companys for which switching from oral to written  is vert hard. Does it mean that enterprise 2.0 is doomed to failure ? Will the upcoming evolution happen to detriment of oral culture cimpanies ? No, because tools are getting more oral themselves. But a question remains : will tools evolve before many people give up ?

Do you prefer oral or written communication ? And your enterprise ? We all have our own preferences, each company has its culture and an efficient work requires to find the right balance between staff preferences and the corporate culture.

This is not trivial at all. Imagine two people having to work together, who have a very good relationship together, if one is more “oral” and the other more “written’ it may cause many issues and misunderstandings in their everyday work. Imagine a high level executive who joins a new company, if he’s “oral” in a very formal organization or very formal in an oral culture company, things will be very difficult.

That clearly impacts the capacity any organization has to change the way it works, to embark on social media. What, seen from a different standpoint, could be turned into : “will enterprise 2.0 kill oral cultures ?”.

Traditionnally, organizations favor written things. More reliable, more “engaging” while words only engage those who hear them, easier to track and to be used as an evidence the day someone has to find what has gone wrong and why. But there are also organizations where people prefer to talk together rather than write, where the direct human contact is prefered. The Chief HR Officer of a company of this kind once used the word “latin” to describe their culture when we were discussing this kind of issue together. That’s the same for people, each have their prefered way of communicating.

The fact is that writing is the enteprise 2.0 tool’s favorite way of communicating. It’s easy to understand why. [Read more...]

Social Media needs a better signal to noise ratio : discovering Microplaza

Information is key for efficient business operations. The way it circulates must be facilitated and fluidified? Everything may be very valuable at a given moment for a given person while being useless for anybody else. Identifying week signals is critical but it implies to increase the amount of information that circulates through the enterprise. People can’t manage more than a given quantity of information but we know that if we want everyone to find what’s needed, more and more information will have to circulate.

Companies are not comfortable with this paradox : the need for making more and more information coming from many people accessible while protecting people from information overload and delivering a clear signal about “what matters”. Knowing that “what matters” depends on the people. So it’s not a surprise that for many businesses, even if they understand there’s a real potential, social media is seen as a source of confusion and information overload.

I often say that, in order to improve things, two main lines have to be explored at the same time

• a human line : trust your environment to filter. Knowing that people you are professionally close to share your concerns, the information filtered by your network is often relevant.

• a software line : tools have to identify “strong weak signals” from the informational hubbub.

Of course, we’re only at the beginning but we can see emerging initiatives that prefigure what things may look like tomorrow. To illustrate my words, let’s have a look at Microplaza.

[Read more...]

Connecting formal and informal knowlegde to create business value.

If enterprise 2.0 is to develop informal networks and tacit knowledge formalization within the enterprise, there’s still one question to be answered : how does all the spent energy contributes to create business value ?

Actually, I consider it as a keypoint in every project I manage : the use of all this intangible patrimony for formal business needs has to be organized. Because value creation will always be something structured.

Saying that, I don’t think that the “spent energy” words are quite relevant. I think “recycled energy” would be better. In fact, social networks already exist but are not used except in a very small perimeter, tacit knowledge exists too but only at an individual scale, but there are not valuable at the organization scale.

Let go back to our purpose : using informal and tacit assets in a formal business context, whitout which everything that has to do with enterprise 2.0 is useless.

[Read more...]

The best search engine is you

Access to qualified information is a double challenge : first because information is the new economic oil, second because we’re snowed under information.

Google showed the way : information relevance comes from users. The more you quote, the more you link, the more you read the more you give pertinance. Solutions that aim at analyzing user’s behaviors to prune the informational forest now arouse and added interest.

Saying that we admit the best search engine is nothing else that the individual, the most efficient engines trying to capitalize on human users behaviors. I wrote about it a year ago : the future is information social processing.

I experienced it yesterday afternoon : despite my employer provides us with a very efficent search engine, my first reflex was to ask a colleague “Do you know if we have something about that….where is it ?”. Immediate answer, more pertinent and quicker that the list the engine would have found.

So the best way to find the right information is to find the person who know it or know where it is. I talked about it yester with Alexis Mons who had this kind of discussion with an organization working in a very specifi context (can’t say more…). When teraoctet is the minimal information unit, the organization realized that the simplest query brought thousand pages of results and concluded that only the individual was able to make a really qualified search and that information qualification was, finally, highly related to its publisher.

The Aspen Insititute report concluded that the most accessible form of knowledge is conversation. So we just have to make the informal discussions become effective and capitalize on it.

Anne-Marie ducroux, president of the French Sustainable Development Council published a very interesting reflection about that. “Benchmarking experiencences often allows to enrich people and even innovation“she said. She continued “convergence between everyone’s actions has to be reinforced, new relationships between players have to be built, outdates distinctions have to be abolished and new collaborations have to be encouraged. This begins inevitably by discussions. Hence the need of building their crucible : tools, moments, places and mediations“. She finally concluded : “New alchimists, in the 21th century, won’t try to make gold but conversations…that are worth gold for society“.

Nothing more than the way our organizations have to follow in the upcomming years.