Being done with the enterprise 2.0 value discussion

Summary : many still wonder what new tools will bring to their organization and still have trouble visualizing the benefits. The reason is simple ; they imagine these tools in their current organization while it’s difficult to see their contribution out of a new way of working. Organizations built rules to accomodate to the constraints of existing tools. If these constraints are removed by new tools, organizations have to built new rules that will replace the current ones.

I recently found this post on the value (or lack of) of a new technology. It applies to new technologies in a general way, applying it to social software is very instructive.

First, let’s try to answer a few simple questions.

1°) What’s the main power of this technology

It makes information sharing easier and more efficient as well as enterprise-wide discussions related to business issues, the whole taking place out of organization and application silos. It allows anybody to identify, mobilize, put together all the information, data, expertises and people on a scale that was impossible before because of the above mentioned silos. So it allows, in fine, to provide employees with what they need to be efficient in what is called the “knowledge economy”.

2°) What are the limitations this technology is removing

The difficulty sharing unstructured data, identify information and people out of a silo.

3°) What rules were built to accomodate these limitations ?

In the context of a given business process, organizations started with the assumption the information needed for delivery and decision making was not findable. So they built operation models that rely on preset rules aiming at minimizing exceptions even it it meant to deliver an acceptable result in any situation but never something adapted to a very specific need. Assuming this, knowing that people will never have to look out of the process, the time allocated to informal-out-of-process-and-silos-collaboration was considered as wasted time…what impacted the way people were measured.

List to be continued…

4°) What rules should be implemented now  ?

I won’t elaborate that much on this point because it’s specific to any situation and many contextual elements are needed to give an answer that applies to a specific business, industry, business process. But it may look like “service oriented organizations“, social routines,articulating structured and unstructured work activities, rethinking quality

Taht’s only the starting point of a deeper investigation that has to be conducted within a given organization. Anyway, conclusions are the same than those I made about the ROI of enterprise 2.0.

- technology has no value by itslelf

- technology should allow to to things that couldn’t be done before

- rules were set to accomote the limits of previous technogies. The new technology has no value is old rules are not replaced with new ones adapted to the new potential that can now be harnessed.

In one sentence : rules have been set to accomodate constraints. If any technology removes constraints, rules have to be changed or the technology will be useless.

To end, when organization wonder “how to think” their social network or any social media project, they should wonder what rules have to be removed and what should replace them. Designing such projects without thinking a new way of working is removing all the value of the project from its beginning. It’s also the evidence that, to convince an IT dept,  a value co-construction process has to be implemented with business people because it’s simply not their role to care about how business is done.

Are you “on demand” or “when we can” ? Enterprise 2.0 and the customer perspective

What does social software bring ? Nothing by itself (contrary to many others, a social app doesn’t process or treat anything but allow people to do things…) but since it makes some things more easy to do it should, in principle, help to improve performance and productivity for many kind of tasks provided people understand they have to slightly change the way they work (what does not means changing work fundamentals but only adjust a few things).

Most often, operations managers can’t see the concrete benefits. To do so they would need to take hindsight but they don’t have time and are too involved to. Consequence : top executives often have the vision while people who have their hands in everyday operations still wonder what problem this new things actually solve, why they’d need to socialize their work, share part of the information. Everyone know what a solution that solves no problem (or no problem people are aware of) is worth.

An approach that sometimes work is to ask managers to imagine themselves at the client’s place. Note that a client could either be an external client or an internal client. Their staff’s job is to meet the client’s need and their role, as managers, is to make sure they will, in the assigned time limit, without being directly in touch with the client. Furthermore, in many cases, managers have to get in thouch with clients only when things go wrong. It’s all the more easy to imagine oneself at the client’s place since everyone know how being a client is, either from internal or external providers. Sometimes, realizing that you do exactly what you don’t like your providers to do is a big step to progress.

[Read more...]

The three dimensions of enterprise 2.0

There are many discussions on what enterprise 2.0 is, what it implies. There are many different visions, depending on each one’s interests. From one extreme to the other we start from an utilitarian vision (providing with new tools)  to end with a cultural big bang (new philosophy of organization and economics, new human-centric values). One reassures people even if it’s efficiency is still to be demonstrated and the other scares businesses. None of them is particularly relevant or irrelevant : there’s a piece of truth everywhere and each one builds his own vision finding the balance that meet his values.

This is not very helpful for businesses that are looking for guarantees and certainties. What about facts ? What should they believe in in order to figure things out ?

According to me there are three dimensions that structures the whole discourse on this topic. Everyone is free to mix them together…or not : they can apply either jointly or autonomously.

[Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0 as a part of the Global Enterprise

Many questioning about enterprise 2.0 these last weeks. How to make it work, how help companies to understand it, how to calculate the ROI ? So many questions that, at the end, can be summed up in only one : undestranding how these new logics can integrate into the existing and add to it. Without that, it’s obvious that either companies don’t dare either they will dare with overcautiousness and won’tbe able to get the most from their initiative, either will dare in a bad way and things will be counter-productives.

One consequence of this misunderstanding is that “2.0 projects” are isolated from the “real enterprise” in order to preven itself from any side effect of something that’s still not well understood (what proves once again how important it is to find answers to all these questions). So, what’s needed is to help companies to visualize things according to what they are today and according to their very nature.

First, the primary goal of any enterprise has to be identified. Easy : make money. Period. Of course we can discuss what can be done with that money and what can and cannot be done to make it, but it is the only undisputable goal.

What leads to an undisputable consequence : companies spend their time trying to organize themselves in order to produce as efficiently as possible. Becoming an enterprise 2.0 is not a goal for any enterprise and should not be. The only one is : improving the way things are done everyday, the way it produces.

But what does “production” really mean ?

[Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0 (finally) moves toward Enterprise

An interesting and  salutary move is being iniated in the small world of both web and enterprise 2.0. It’s about what I would call a “de-technologization” of the concept and, according to me, will take back enterprise 2.0 to a ground it should not have left : the enterprise as a productive organization that must deal with internal rules and constraints.

It slightly appeared in my old definition of enterprise 2.0 in 2007 and, particularly in my predictions for 2009. Now it seems that the time is coming. It’s the beginning of a major turn from the vision that considered that making web 2.0 tools used within companies was a goal by itself to the vision according to which they are only parts of a system.

This is confirmed by two posts I read these last days.

In this post, eminent Robert Scobble is realizing that,  even if many brilliant people comment and analyze the tech side of web 2.0, they still miss the business side of things. According to me, the reality of business and its context are seldom taken into acocunt. If the goals and the needs are clear, a deep analysis of the context which is the only way to explain how to make things work for current businesses is still lacking. This was for the web 2.0 side.

On the enterprise 2.0 side, I noticed this post from Martin Koser about the the next Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Frankfurt, which brings many sensible things forward.

[Read more...]

Measuring a system is more relevant than Enterprise 2.0 tools ROI

Before, everything was simple. When people were asking “what’s the ROI”, the answer was “today you are processing this kind of operations with 100 people working with a calculator and a clipboard, it takes one week and the risk of making errors is obvious. With our solution, it takes only one person to enter the datas and calculations are operated in less than a second”. Unanswerable, even if promesses were seldom kept.

Today, in the context of social tools, even if a consensus exists on the principle, finding the formula that turns what a tool can bring into a mathematical model is far from being obvious. The issue is easy to understand : we’re not talking about tool that do a defined set of tasks but about tools that make people more efficient when their job requires them to act out of a model of defined and repeatable actions in a defined human scope.

In brief we can define the ROI of an application that does defined and foreseeable things, not of those who make people more efficient in undefined and unprectable situations. We have to make our thinking model evolve from a “doer application” to an “enabler application”.

Before going further, watch this video. The ROI of the machine and the individual performance are easily calculable. And ask yourself if you day to job still looks like this.

Once done, we have to think about measuring what matters.

[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...]

The organizational double flip

If we try to summarize in two points the challenges businesses will have to face very soon, I’d say “from push to pull” and “from local to global”. It looks like a double flip for companies but it’s not that far from reality.

• From push to pull : employees have to make more and more “unique” things, would it be for his own purposes or according to what clients ask them. Anyone who’s facing a need has to determine what he needs to achieve is mission because no other person know the situation better. In the worst case he crowdsources within his colleagues or outside the organization the best way to achieve it. Upper levels define the framework of what’s possible or not and provide lower levels with what they need. It’s not level n that decides what n-1 has to do but n+1 that supports level n. It’s an application of the principles of empowerment and subsidiarity I’ve already writen about here.

Generally speaking, it also shows that enterprises are deeply impacted by their environment that defines businesses more than being defined by them. Societal and economic phenomenon, even if they don’t drive businesses, give a framework and a line no CxO can ignore. Not to mention social responsibility or even social busness, we are forced to admit that the way things have to be done is seldom an enterprise decision but the understanding of a problematic raised by a non decision-making plauer (employee, client, supplier, society…).

• From local to global : we produce less and less by following a producting line or its immaterial reincarnation, but rather user an adhox ecosystem of value creators that may be me internal or internal people The expression “constellation of value” that is more and more used describes very well a company that instead of driving people connects stakeholders. Whatever, it’s complex because a large part of the activity and of the results depends on what other people are doing. Knowing that what we do impacts the work of many people, often unknown and that our day to day work is also impacted by these people, having a global or systemic view is essentiel. Systemic seems to be a more appropriate word.

Everybody can unsdestrand that in this kind of situation, bending one’s head and looking at one’s show prevent people from doing anything good since they are affected by things without any hope of anticipating and mastering them. I would loke to know if those who don’t agree to that drive their car keeping their eyes on the number plate of the car they follow. Most of all when the weather is bad.

Having a systemic view makes it possible for people to ancitipate. Anticipate is the right word, better than foresee because complexity is unforseeable by nature. On the other hand complexity is understandable and it consequences car be anticipated provided people are autonomous enough. I won’t explain once more time how focusing on local maximums instead of global optimums badly impacts the overall performance and what are the consequences of a change of scole on management, evaluation etc… but it’s an issue that explain, more than the fear of change, many barriers to change and organizational transformation. These are logical barriers : people are blocked by the consequences of what companies want them to get rid of.

By the way, thinking systemic is also admitting the validity of the previous point.

Many things are said and writen about business issues, what companies should do or not. Whatever how you will call what will be done, what’s sure it that it will have to empower this double flip.

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...]

Can enterprises organize themselves as markets

What’s a market ? It’s a place when offer meets demand.

Companies love markets because it’s the more efficient way to find outlets for their products and identify suppliers. It’s a competitiveness factor because of the outlets it provides and the optimization of costs that competition makes possible.

The “social” web is a market somehow. Contents can find an audience, ideas outlets, projects people who’ll make them become real, people partners, question answers. It’s because of this market that events as trivial as flashmobs happened, that some people had great carriers evolutions, that some companies where born. This huge self-organized space made possible things that would not have been in a classical, organized, regulated market, operation costs making it irrational the organization of niche micro-markets. It’s because it has no physical nor economic barriers that the web made all this possible : intermediation and transaction costs are near to zero.

There is another place that is full of ideas, projects, needs, competences, longings, question, which would gain a lot if the ones were able to meet the others within its walls : the enterprise.

Experience showed me this is definitively the place where exist the more questions and answers, and the place where we can be sure there are very few chances that the ones meet the others. Companies are traditionnally, on this point of view, the place for misses opportunities. It may sound surprising according to all the things companies do, to all their obvious successes, but when looking at what they don’t  or painfully do and would make sense, it may makes us feel dizzy. A kind of vertigo that is proportional with the size of the enterprise. Are there any reason to that ? Of course : high transaction and intermediation costs and the fact companies don’t want to give intermediation up.

[Read more...]