A socialnomics Manifesto

I rencently mentioned the word “socialnomics“. Whatt’s the interest ? In an interconnected world (not only by the net…a world were everything can impact everything, it’s essential to understand the context to define the systems (enterprise, project, organization, management) we have to implement. So let’s try to summarize things.

- the world is full of stakeholders. You already knew for your shareholders, your employees. For your partners and clients too. Now even your non-clients are a part of the game, they all have expectations, they all thave things to say about your products, why they trust your or not, they can all be the cause of a mass reaction that may impact your business, either positively or negatively.

- stakeholders matter as much as shareholders : it becomes harder everyday to satisfy the ones while neglecting the others. Worse, sometimes you have to listen to the first to satisfy the second.

- value is a flow. It does not self generate in the till or when a contract is signed but though a flow (many people already got that) that has its source outside the company, go through it and ends outside.

- localization is obsolete. People recently start to understand that interactions between the enterprise and its stakeholders did not depend anymore on where each was physically located but have moved online.  But “online” does not mean the corporate website anymore, it could be anywhere, depending on the blogs or social networks people use to read/use. Businesses can’t afford to wait for customers to join them, they have to join them where they are.

- the way business is done is at least as important for performance than operations. It’s a matter of values, of culture (what a company like Danone has identified and turned into a key asset years ago) but also (for how long ?) of ethics.

- The famous “to” in B2C, B2B…. and its “one way” connotationis being replaced by a bijective “with”.

- vertical hierarchy won’t disappear but articulates with an horizontal one. As a matter of fact the above mentioned flow does not advance by itself. It is fed by noise that has to be turned into information, then in decisions, then in actions that have to be monitored. It implies an horizontal decision making model in organizations that are structured for vertical decisions making only. So the organization has to be rethought in order not only to obey to “people from above” but also to “next door colleagues”.

- the value chain becomes social. Processes too.

- la chaine de valeur devient “sociale”, les processus également.

- in an information econmy, the only things that businesses can value is what the public can’t create alone, without them.

- what matters in communication (both internal or external is not how much information is pushed but the level of gained attention.

That won’t go without some challenges such as :

- implementboth the process and the “human factors” that will help to embed stakeholder’s creativity and knowledge into products, services, operations.

- manage employee’s schizophrenia. They are a part of the ecosystem, of the stakeholders, but often have radically opposite behaviors depending on whether they wear their corporate or their customer suit.

- rethink the enterprise, still as a production driven organization, but not as a push engine anymore, rather as the industrial element of the market to market loop.

- offer only products, information, services that mass collaboration between internauts can not produce.

- separate the wheat from the chaff in all the social noise and not go to the opposite extreme what would be like a “social submission” with inconsistent actions and unreadable

chaine de valeur, création de valeur, Innovation, Management, marketing, parties prenantes, social crm, socialisation, socialnomics, valeur, .

External social networks are not only for marketing purposes

Generally, when I talk about social networks for other people than employees, I’m answered “ah ? I thought you were not interested in all these marketing things”. This is the obvious proof that, for many people and many companies, when you aim at an external audiance it’s for communication and sale purpose, following a one way flow. Said differently : “outside we talk, inside we work and both have nothing in common”. Seen with a little distance it embodies the idea according to which it’s the company that condition its environment and not the opposite.

Preconceived ideas that were true at a given moment but shows we are now entering a new era.

[Read more...]

Enterprises far beyond enterprise 2.0

A few weeks ago I amused myself proposing a few tracks on what enterprise 2.0 may be in 2009. But I think pushing the reflection beyond would be worth : enterprise 2.0 is only a side of a much complex reality that is enterprise and will be of any use only in a global framework. Since enterprise, and economy in general, can be defined as the place where more and more numerous interactions melts, believing it can be improved by only cosmetic improvements. Evry initiative that’s not aligned with a macro vision that will take all these considerations into account won’t bring anything worthy.

So, let’s put ourselves in the main player’s place.

• The top management

The less we can say is that top management is very worried. Because of the downturn, CEOs are trying to protect the organization. It’s hard to find more revenue so, in order to preserve the result they want costs to be cut. Or spendings, which is not the same thing. In the other hand they know that if they keep on cutting costs, they will soon be unable to make any cent go in the bank so they try to find how to make work more efficient, to work on costs instead of expenses. And, finally, the idea of business networks comes to the surface. But how to make it happen ?

On the other hand, this crises is about something deeper that worries them a lot. Always promising more has its limits and now it seems that these limits have been reached.  Do they have to stop promising the moon since they know organization’s performance have its limit and trying to balance it with financial performance leads to the situation we now know ? Do we have reached the limits of a system and is this crisis the consequence of a management model failure. Do we have to reinvent the way we do business ?

In brief, an increasing demand for more responsability and sustainability in management, that is not so far from a tendency that brings many companies to think their development together with their human ecosystem’s in order not to ruin their tomorrow’s markets.

Many issues that have a lot in common and that, without forseeing the answers that will be given, will have to be taken into account this year.

[Read more...]

Web 2.0 tools to improve information readiness

Today, many opinions converge to admit two things :

• companies need to be more and and more reactive in order to run their traditionnal activities in a more and more complexe context, where foreseeability is very uncertain and where sharp competences and complex competences assembling are needed in a short range of time. Something like “special forces forces for special taks”, running in parallel with traditionnal activities which are companies common background operations.

• in order to match this need, adequate expertises and competences are needed.

We have no choice but to admit that high levels of performance are reached in legay and “institutionnalized” activities and the money that has been invested to improve many business processes often provided a ROI. Competencewise, we also have to admit they are really present within organizations. But, for what’s about building efficient adhoc self-organized teams, even if the need is identified it gets harder and harder to be successfull since more and more situations requires this way of doing things.

One reason is that what we call intellectual capital, if present, is not easily accessible and its owners can barely be identified. To improve things, experience and knowledge should be “findable” and “findability” can only come from putting it all in words because it’s (and will remain for years) the more efficient way of indexing and finding datas in an online network, the so-called online network being the only commons space shared by all employees in scattered companies. So people would be able to search the experience and, if they can’t find what they’re looking for, identify referent people they could contact and ask.

All this is nothing more than a matter of information and readiness.

[Read more...]

CIOs don’t care about web 2.0 ? Neither illogical nor grave

A recent Robert Helf survey tells us CTOs seem not to consider web 2.0 as a priority in their projects. I don’t find this worrying because it’s logical due to the very nature of those tools.

It’s now an established fact that the “web 2.0 question” is very present at companies’ heads. In terms of tools but also in terms of organization. Il aslo remind you the McKinsey-Cigref survey about IT depts role in value creation which have been also available in english for a few weeks. What conclusion can we draw from all that ?

• IT depts role is to keep the existing systems running, make the too, maintain a high level of availability and security, so its logical they focus on thses points.

• The use of web 2.0 tools is the consequence of the will of working differently and develop new practices and behaviors. This choice and the success of such projets is linked up to the existence of a project in terms of working mode. So it’s rather up to operative people to identify their own issues, build the adequate working mode and then look for the suitable tools.

• So that’s not IT depts but operative people, managers, who have to have projects in this aerea. Once this done, IT depts role will be to check if the tools meet their requirements in terms of security / reliablity etc. Because what the survey sais (sorry for the enticing title of this post) is that CTOs don’t have projects, which is not about value, relevance or tool’s ability to do what they’re make for.

Web 2.0 tools’ characeristics being not to do things by themselves but make it easy for people to do things together, their human and social dimension make them closer to management and HR projects than infrastructure projects.

• Que si le rôle d’une DSI est de maintenir l’existant, garantir une disponibilité optimale des outils et de l’infrastructure et que logiquement toute son attention est focalisée sur ces points.

• Que l’utilisation d’outils de type web 2.0 est la conséquence de la volonté de travailler quelque peu différemment, de développer de nouvelles pratiques. Ce choix, ainsi que la réussite de tels projets est intimement liée à l’existence d’un besoin et d’un projet en termes de mode de travail. C’est davantage le rôle des opérationnels que d’identifier leurs propres enjeux, construire le monde de fonctionnement qui permet d’y répondre et ensuite se mettre en quête des outils adéquats.

• Dès lors c’est à ces derniers que revient d’avoir des projets en la matière. A la DSI ensuite de valider si l’outil correspond à leurs critères en termes de sécurité / robustesse etc… Car ce que dit l’étude (désolé pour mon titre un peu aguicheur) c’est que les DSI n’ont pas de projets, ce qui n’est en aucun cas un jugement de valeur ou opinion sur la capacité des outils en question de faire ce pour quoi ils sont faits.

La caractéristique des outils en question n’étant pas de “faire” mais de permettre aux individus de faire, leur dimension sociale et humaine les rapprochent davantage des projets managériaux que des projets d’infrastructure.

Organizing for value

One more interesting report at McKinsey’s : this one is titled : “Organizing for value“. You will learn that

- the traditional divisional structure is not relevant to create value

- companies will have to fav our long term value creation instead of focusing on achieving short terms objectives.

- in order to  do that they’ll have to identify “future” value

- this implies a thiner granulity in organization and decision making

- where companies used to have 4 or 5 divisions, 50 “value cells” would to a better job.

Quite interesting because this new awareness of the “short-term mitake” will help justifying, financially, adequate organizational answers. The fact decision making is moving closer to the ground, in smaller structures which are now considered as value creator, that they were not in a wider structure in which their purpose may not be profitable, is also the proof things are (slowly) going the right way.

Interesting Report on IT depts role in value creation

The CIGREF (french big companies CIO club) issued and interesting report co-writen with McKinsey. Although it’s writen in French, [ now availabe in english] I would like to share some points with you. And, if ever you know someone who can make a quick translation for you I think it’s really worht.

- IT doesn’t impact directly value creation

- value doesn’t reside in tools but in their use

- as a result, IT depts don’t have to provide people with tools, hoping it will meet their needs and they’ll manage to do something efficient with it, but have to fulfill people’s needs.

- IT depts can’t create value by themselves and on their own, they have to co-create it with business managers.

- by the way, IT’s impact on value creation has to be measured by business indicators and not by IT ones.

That reminds me of the debate on enteprise 2.0 ROI which, according to me, in neither soft nor qualitative but can be well and truly measured through the performance of the business processes it supports. For example, the report quotes a case study from AXA ( a big insurance company) where results are measured through Balanced Scorecard indicators which reminds me of my series about strategy maps.

If this reflection can apply to all IT issues, it’s obviously relevant when discussing social sofware issues.

Whatever, the end of the “one size fits all” logic is coming closer et the time when IT depts role will be to provide people with the tools that match their needs instead of providing a standardized offer which makes IT people feel comfortable but doesn’t help people to be efficient in their day to day job. No more “try to do what you can with what we give you” but “Why can I do for you ? What are your needs ? Fopr what purpose ? ” instead !

It inspires me another reflextion on the very notion of goal. If we consider the IT activity is a goal in itself, the current way of doing things is logical : rationalize costs, tools, providing one unified offer. But if we consider it has to serve corporate performance as a whole, measuring its efficiency according to its own results is contrary to any business efficiency approach. By the way, it takes us back again to the discussion on “local optima vs. global maximum” that companies will soon have to deal with. But we’ll be discussin that further in a few weeks…

However that may be, the report can be downloaded here.