Organizations don’t (only) need builders

Summary : it’s a shared assumption that enterprises need doers. But, pushed to its limit, these logics do not always mean improvement but, paradoxically, stagnation if not regression. As a matter of fact, “doing” and “building” often means adding things to what exists without taking time to unravel it even when it goes against what has to be implemented. It has a well known consequence : a pile of orders, rules and contradictory processes that cause the opposite of what’s expected : lost, employees do anything but what they’re expected to, don’t take initiatives because they always go against an existing rule or, on the contrary, make failure to respect the rules the new rule. Before building, instead of adding, organizations need people who clean things up. Tomorrow’s organizations are organizations that remove things more than they add.

I recently wrote a post on the myth of “superman manager” that was a barrier to any significant evolution of this role. My intent, in this post, is to go further in the reflection. Behind all that, there’s the idea according to which the only people that matter are the “doers”. At first sight that seems obvious. But it highly depends on what we mean by “doing”.

I won’t elaborate once more on the fact that, for many, “doing” means acting in a visible way and micro-managing.

“Doing” also means leaving one’s trace, one’s mark. And that’s not only an individual issue but also a collective one because the whole organization is acting the same may. Managers’ job being to make things work, they try to take the necessary steps. At the organization level, all the managing body is heading in the same direction : taking steps to solve problems and move forward.

That’s where things often go wrong.

Is something doing wrong ? No problem, a new layer of tools, procedures and rules is implemented. Should things dysfunction a little time later ? The same method will be applied. Organizations have been piling layers of tools and rules supposed to make the organization more efficient for decades. Each time with the satisfaction of having done things well for those who have “built” the solution. In fact they often added their own repair patch to the patches others added before them.

At the moment enterprises are making a move toward enterprise 2.0 or social business there’s no doubt they’ll use the same old good methods. New tools and rules that will make sure that the right usage (because it’s all about usage) will be adopted.

So employees will have to sort tools and arbitrate between 15 layers of procedures that prescribe them 15 different behaviors in a given context. The result is often farcical situations where, having to comply with many conflicting obligations, employees do not respect any of them.

For example, I’m often asked “how to be sure this community will work”. My answer is often miles away from the expected one that establishes community managers as the saviours as dying community systems. Sticking to a very strict definition of what a community is, I’m convinced that a facilitation system may help when things makes sense but can’t make miracles. In other words :

• If the community really exists, it will work by its own. A little facilitation can improve things to some extent.

• If the community exists but is not alive, there’s no reason to add systems that will make people go against the systemic and corporate rules, even against their own interest. In this case, the solution is not to add anything new but remove the barriers tha prevent people to make a move from intention to action.

• If the community does not exist there’s no reason to set up a system that will create it. What has to be created is the interest toward a topic, the “community feeling” will follow and we’ll end in one of the two above mentioned cases.

To state things in a more simple way : what prevents new models from working and from solving today’s problems is what has been implemented to solve yesterday’s problems and seldom makes sense today. Examples are more than numerous.

So, lets have a quick tour :

[Read more...]

What is a social intranet or an intranet 2.0 ?

Summary : Everybody’s talking about social intranets or intranet 2.0 but none have a clear idea of what it can look like. Between the myth of intranets being replaced by social networks and traditional owners of the intranet fearing the end of the top-down model, ideological and functional debates may last for long. A social intranet does not mean that social networks will assume the whole power but that the elements of a traditional intranet, information, people and business applications, will be socialized. It’s not about adding new tools but generalizing new services and functionalities across all the components of the intranet. And, at last and even before all, it’s a work tool that’s here to serve a corporate vision. Changing the intranet is useless unless work, internal and external relationships as well as the related behaviors and positions are revisited.

Many organizations are rethinking (or thinking or rethinking) their good old intranet that is obviously affected by the weight of years and wonder how to integrate the famous “2.0 layer” in what is supposed to be a social intranet (or intranet 2.0). But, even if the word are in every mouth it does not mean that the idea of what it exactly mean is clear. There are many options depending on the maturity of the owner of the project, the realistic nature of the roadmap he’s assigned, and the change tolerance of the organization. Depending on the context, some of these options will be more or less relevant.

In the previous paragraph I mentioned the “social layer”, what states that the 2.0 side is a new dimension of the intranet and not an isolated bubble. So, it’s not about building an intranet on the one side and a social network on the other side. Why ? For 90% of employees, using a social network at work is not a reflex and it the network is not close to the center of gravity of their work environment, there are lots of chances no one will use it. Moreover, social activities need stimulation and stimulation often comes from a corporate information, a business related data…in fact from sources that are usually on the traditional intranet.

I suggest that such an intranet relies on some pillars that are. :

Socializing information

What I mean by socializing information can  take one many forms :

- allowing users to choose the sections of the intranet he wants to read in particular and display them on his home page or a dedicated page.

- allowing users to share any content of the intranet with colleagues (via their internal “twitter”, in a community etc…) with respect of rights and authorizations. (But let’s be honnest = today, even without such tools, secret information circulates by email).

- allowing users to share external content and bring them in the internal flow, and let rating and curation mechanisms make it climb to the head of the organization or spread horizontally.

- allwing users to react to any content either where it’s published or by pushing it to a blog or a community to start a conversation.

- allowing users to promote any content by rating it, approving it (“like”) to make it more visible on the homepage or share it through one’s activity stream.

- allowing any corporate department to deploy on-demand microsites (with predefined templates) what makes corporate communication more granular and close to employees.

It’s the least any enterprise can do, most of all because it’s in the scope of the traditional top-down communication that will not disappear but needs serious improvements to become more user-centric and interactive.

Socializing people

Sharing, reacting, discussing and collaborating are good things…but knowing with whom is even more important. Of course, there are people we know and who’ll quickly join our “network”, but there are also all those we don’t know today but we will need one day. So, before telling users to connect and do things together we should make it easier for them to find and identify one another.

Everything starts with a rich profile like those we can find on any social network. It will made of official information from the traditional IT systems (position, hierarchical belonging, competencies…), employees being free not to display all of it, but also of information provided by its owner (past experiences, topics of interest) and even bu his colleagues (endorsements, tags…). Of course, the owner validates anything others want to put on his profile. Last, the profile also includes employee’s social activities : communities, blogs, wikis updates, shared bookmarks…

This information constitute a stream other users can subscribe to to follow the activities of one person in the same way they can follow a specific section of the intranet or the corporate communication. Anyone can choose what appears in his one’s own stream.

This rich profile should not compete with the official directory : it’s the directory. To be more precise, it’s were the directory is accessible to users. (Note to IT people : don’t forget to choose solutions that can sync with several directories at the same time : it’s very useful when there’s not a single directory and it shows a unified view of all your directories even if your standardization project is late…)

[Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0 : who spends one’s time reading a dictionnary forgets his bank statement

Summary : the Enterprise 2.0 Conference that took place last week in Santa Clara leaves those who followed it from a distance with a strange impression. While we could expect, with the increasing maturity, a real breakthrough on value creation models, we end with a petty squabbling about enterprise 2.0 and social business. What brings, one more time, the focus on what enterprise 2.0 is, is not, its limits…at the risk of desperating enterprises that don’t see any change in the problem they’re facing meanwhile and would like to be told how to improve things instead of being offerd to join the dreams of the ones or the others. In the end, the debate is meaningful not because of its content…but because of what’s not in : value creation and ROI are still missing.

I followed the last Enterprise 2.0 conference from a distance, mostly on twitter. In general I’m often good at feeling what the hot topics will be but this time I have to admit I did not see what was coming at all. I would have bet that things woul dhave followed the same path as in Franckfurt but the debate focused on two points (at least according to what I read…assuming there may be a difference between what happened and what attendees wanted to highlight) :

• still a strong focus on communities (to such an extent I thought it was the Community Management Conference). I’ll share my views about this in a next post but, in my opinion, even if that’s a key element of the system, it’s not the only one and seems to be over-dealt with regarding to the rest. It’s impossible to claim addressing organization challenges on a global scale while focusing on dynamics that, by definintion, rely on employees willingness, out of work flows and which final impact on performance, even if potentially impressive, is still unpredictable.

• a new “enterprise 2.0 vs social business” debate. Is the first dead and being replaced by the second ? Is an heretic group trying to grab the power at St McAfee’s church ?

I was really surprised by the extent this second point reached, seeming to be the biggest point of concern. I first thought I had nothing to say about it but, finally, I realized that it was important not because of the arguments used…but because of what was not mentioned. By the way, a good occasion for those who still wonder what enterprise 2.0 is to make their own opinion.

[Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0′s weakness ? Decision

Let’s assume that, through a mix a community management and socio-collaborative management, businesses manage to make information and people for identifiable and accessible in order to facilitate and accelerate workaday execution, solve problems and invent tomorow’s products and operating models. Even if that sounds seducing, there’s something wrong in the reasonning.

All these dynamics and informations don’t create any value by themselves. That’s one of the reasons why, even if the value of such things is admitted by nearly everybody, there’s still something in decision-maker’s heads that prevent them from seing the tangible value behind.

All these things, this informal, organizational, human capital etc.. create nothing but a potential. A hudge potential though, but only a potential. This brings us back to what I wrote about strategy maps. All this things does not bring anything if not reused in structured and formalized operations. There are some ways to do so :

Social routine that brings information reuse on the flow.

• Decision : that makes possible that something new is used or started.

I’d like to focus on this last point. [Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0 : adoption through social routine

Nearly everydody now admits that the only way to make a social software project succeed (and make people adopt the new tools) and be a source of value is to link it to the core of employee’s day to day job and life. What implies some attention as to be paid to a few trivial things as BPM, worflows, processes…

This does not mean that what exists has to thrown away. There are things that has to be made such a way, tasks that have to be made in a certain order, steps that has to be followed in order to make operations under control, for quality reasons, in order to avoid leaving in a world of approximation. Changing how things are done does not mean changing what is done.

The challenge of any enterprise 2.0 project is not to get rid of all these things but, on the contrary, to find its place inside. Studying the way everyone’s job is done does not mean it has be changed but facilitated. How ? By allowing people to rely on collective, social logics when it’s getting hard, if not impossible, to achieve a good work on their own? (Have a look here too).

So things are not (and above all in the begining) to rethink processes (most of all when they’re mission critical) but to widen their bandwith and increase the knowledge capital they use. That’s what enterprise 2.0 is all about.

[Read more...]

Enteprise 2.0 : real benefits for whom makes efforts

McKinsey recently issued a new report in the line of what they already published these last months. It’s about the benefits enterprises can take from enterprise 2.0. After having focused on what makes successs possible, McKinsey is now starting to evaluate concrete beenetids. As often, I’d say that those who are closely following the “E2.0 state of the art” won’t learn anyting new here but will the the confirmatin of what manyt experts already wrote on this subject. The main interest, once again, is the McKinsey label that will help internal evangelists to convince skeptical managers.

I let you read the report, there is nothing to add to it. Just let me bring a few insights.

- some enterprises see significant benefits. That’s an essential point without which all our arguments are pointless.

- enteprises that see the more tangible benefits are located…in India, then in North América, Europe and Asia being left behind. I don’t know India at all but this ranking is the evidence that culture really matters in adoption and change processes.

- the most obvious benefits are about access to knowledge and experts. This seems to be consistent with process socialization and problem solving as a routine

- benefits are more easy to emerge in companies that generate more $ 1 billion revenue. Certainly because large businesses are those that developed the more structural inertial throughout decades, so the place where there are the most wasted or unemployed resources. Another explaination coild be that large businesses often explore new things long before small and medium ones, so they begin to see benefits first.

- in order to see benefits, social media have to be fully integrated into worklows and people’s daily activities. I would not like to be seen as endlessly repeating the same things, but I’m convincend that this point is largely neglected. Enterprise 2.0 is not about bringing conversations into the digital workplace without any link with daily tasks and activities but to focus on these activities. Implementing such a project without asking the question of rethinking what people are doing in their daily routine, to bring some existing information flows to new medias is a guarantee of failure (or of no success). Neglecting this point causes situations when community managers push information, hoping someone will read it, waiting for (rare) reactions to come, wondering why conversations don’t start. This is very far away employees’ actual situation, who have nothing to do with conversational communities that don’t help them in their day to day job. 75% companies who see tangible benefits integrated social medias in people’s “day to day work”. Don’t try to find anywhere else what is the difference between success and failure (or maybe we don’t have the same defintion for success).

- making executive use social media tools is essential. Logical since we’re talkong about daily business tools. There are fields where community managers can’t replace those who have an operational legitimacy. If have more insights on this subject, which I’ll share in a future post.

- 2.0 projects go beyond the enterprise’s walls. There is no internal or external logic anymore but a an “extended company” scope from the start : employees, partners, clients are concerned. That confirms the social CRM trend and a new scope for stakeholders.

- to my surprise, innovation is not one the domains where significant benefits were seen, even if it has been one the enterprise 2.0 discourse’s cornerstone from the start. Do we have to make the conclusion that the 2.0 approach is not relevant to innovation, that open innovation logics are very hard to implement because of their internal impact ? Maybe non-specialized approaches, tools and adoption methodologies are not enough ?

- this report left me unsatisfied. Ok there are tangible benefits, but we may expect to know more, how do they materialize, how they are measured…

To  be continued…

How to link formal and informal within the enterprise : the “still” company

Since intangible assets only create value when they support formal business process, enterprises don’t have to create an enterprise 2.0 organization relying on informal but a system allowing formal and structured activities to take advantage from what isn’t.

If we want to visualize that, the “still” metaphor seems very relevant to me.

[Read more...]