Intangible objects and abstraction at work : the need for a case centric environment

Summary : If we try to understand what work is actually in the knowledge economy, it appears that it’s mainly about handling, gathering and organizing intangible objects to deliver a tangible result. Many tools are provided to give these objects a material existence on our screens to make their manipulation easier. At the end, a dual conclusion emerges : not only the skills that are necessary to this kind of work are seldom acquired or even taught but tools, as they exist today, make the situation getting even worse by splitting the matter between tools and dividing employees’ attention. Employees spend more attention connecting pieces of information together than solving problems. The shift from a tool centric to a case centric environment is necessary.

We all know that everything that has to do with work models transformation, collaborative practices, new value creation creations is a matter of anything but technology. Solution is to be found in HR, management, sense making rather than in lines of code. But, by endlessly repeating that technology comes second (or even third), we may miss some essential points.

The nature of work is evolving and requires new skills. In other words, it’s getting more and more about gathering resources together, put them in context and leverage them than than about delivering preset processes with predefined resources. To do so, employees need to handle “objects”. This is a vague word chosen in purpose : it refers to more or less entities like pieces of knowledge, information, data from a customer case or elements of context of a given case, people who own other relevant objects. In fact, rather than “while working”.

All these operations, this conceptual gathering of abstract entities is sometimes done by a single person but, most of times, in a collaborative or participative way.

An objective analysis of the situation as it can be observed in any organization any day makes us learn two lessons :

[Read more...]

Network or proximity ? Where’s the value for businesses ?

Web 2.0 Expo Europe 2008Social networks seem to be used to fit nearly any case, regardless to the fact their value come from the context. As an example, my newtorks on facebook and linkedin have nothing in common, links are built upon different criterias, in different contexts. Knowing than Mr. so-and-so is one of my contacts on one or the oher may help to understand the nature of our relationships. But in each case there’s a commonb point : one asked the other to validate we were contacts and the other agreed according to his own criterias. Materializing this relation built a link.

But the link can be created differently. Not only according to relations but objects.  Dopplr uses travels as objects. Lastfm songs. FlickR pictures as I mentioned here. What creates the link is not the fact people know each others but an object

Not let’s imagine we’re in an enterprise context.

What’s the personal link related network within an enterprise ? People start by adding the ones they work with every day. Then they accept their superiors because refusing would be diplomatically hard. Then, followin the same logic, they link their subordinates. Then across the organization because we use to have coffee breaks together or use the same bus lie. Whatever : the only fact we have the same employer is enough to link one another. So we may have two kinds of result : either people reproduce the organization chart or eveyone is linked to every other. I do not use the “friend” or “relationship” in purpose.

What the interest for the employees ? None : the corporate directory would give him the same result. For the company ? None too : organizations know their orghanization chart and their employees directory (although….). Whatever. The general public web model does not operate in a corporate context.

So, what’s the solution ?

[Read more...]