Liens de la semaine (weekly)

  • « Fathoming a new product from IBM via a launch event is like trying to understand the ocean by watching a wave. Nonetheless that was my task, swimming through the presentations and ultimately landing an interview with Jeffrey Schick, IBM’s VP of Social Software. Drenched in the vision Schick shared for the IBM Customer Experience Suite, it occurred to me that IBM could end up being more important to the business use and monetization of social media than Facebook. »

    tags: ibm customerexperience socialmedia facebook monetization organization competitiveadvantage

    • By taking the capabilities they’ve created for big
      companies and putting them on the cloud, smaller businesses may indeed
      be able to leverage these services and according to Schick, « easily
      create a community that would allow them to invite their clients and
      engage them. »
    • Schick expects that « people can get genuine business value [from it]. »
      While dialog is important, all of this, according to Schick, « is done to
      drive revenue, to create better customer satisfaction and gain some
      competitive advantage. »
    • Businesses of all sizes need to think social across their intranets,
      extranets, the internet itself and the emerging mobile marketplace
    • Regardless of your business size, IBM’s big move into
      social software should be a clear indication that every business needs a
      broad-reaching social strategy not just a Facebook fan page!
  • « The traditional methods for driving operational excellence in global organizations are not enough. The most effective organizations make smart use of employee networks to reduce costs, improve efficiency and spur innovation. « 

    tags: networks socialnetworks costs costreduction efficiency innovation operations collaboration connectivity performance engagement report stakeholders alignment networkanalysis socialnetworkanalysis

    • CIOs often try to address these challenges by relying on the same managerial tools they use to pursue operational excellence: establishing well-defined roles, best practice processes and formal accountability structures.
    • The key to delivering both operational excellence and innovation is having networks of informal collaboration. Within IT organizations in large global companies, we have seen that innovative solutions often emerge unexpectedly through informal and unplanned interactions between individuals who see problems from different perspectives.
      • Executives should analyze employee collaboration networks to discover how high-performing individuals and teams connect.
      • Networks should be designed to optimize the flow of good ideas across function, distance and technical specialty.
      • Network analysis can show where too much connectivity slows decision making.
    • Attain benefits of scale through effective global collaboration: Organizations can construct teams to leverage diverse expertise and drive adoption of new ideas across geographies. By carefully studying collaboration challenges across functions and geographies, they can identify gaps and enhance connectivity and best practice transfer in targeted ways.

    • Drive work force engagement and performance: Uncovering the network characteristics of high performers can show employees who play similar roles how to improve their own performance. It can help leaders identify the individuals who energize the organization and how to leverage their contributions.

    • Align collaborative with business partners and external stakeholders: CIOs need to know how effectively their units serve the needs of business stakeholders. By creating a detailed map of the existing cross-departmental relationships, they can see where innovations are occurring, where sufficient support is being provided and where investments should be made.
    • Minimize network inefficiencies and costs: Although collaboration is often seen as a virtue, too much collaboration at too many organizational levels can be a negative. It is important to reduce network connectivity at points where collaboration fails to produce sufficient value.
  • « Finding structural efficiencies by expanding spans of control has become a necessity in the current economic climate. However, the i4cp study shows that flattening organizational structure doesn’t necessarily result in a competitive advantage. While there are advantages, organizational restructuring may lead to greater stress, disengagement and burnout among middle managers. »

    tags: management organization middlemanagement flatorganization control hierarchy reporting

    • Over 35% of managers in large companies already have 11 to 25 employees reporting to them, and 75% of companies expect those numbers to rise or remain the same in the future.
    • Middle managers are often the hardest hit since expanding spans of control at multiple levels of the organization exponentially enlarges the number of people they are both directly and indirectly accountable for managing. Middle managers, the key players for successful strategy execution, « report dramatically lower levels of contentment than their more senior colleagues do, as well as less of a desire to stay with their current employers, » according to a 2009 McKinsey report.
  • « In Three Enterprise 2.0 Themes You Should Be Watching in 2010, I argued that the world of social software would bifurcate into:

    1. General collaboration suites that replace intranets and portals
    2. Specialized applications that deliver tangible value around a specific activity »

    tags: enterprise2.0 value innovation crowdsourcing collaboration emergence emergentcollaboration structuredcollaboration

    • In the second item, it’s a case of clear intent. Applying social principles to solve tangible issues for organizations. The applications are designed with deeper domain features to deliver results.

      But in some cases, you’re seeing vendors pursuing a « we-can-do-everything » approach, loading up their application with features addressing disparate business needs. A case of being betwixt and between.

      • Going back to the characteristic of « specific social intent ». The corollary to that is that if you’re a product firm delivering around a specific intent, it becomes quite clear:

      • What « job » organizations and people are hiring you for
      • What practical issues people are running into
      • What your company’s development path should be
  • « en voulant intégrer toutes les fonctionnalités 2.0 dont les blogues, les wikis, les réseaux ¨sociaux¨ internes, le tagging, les mashups ou les idéagoras, on pose pour les entreprises les problèmes du contrôle de l’information, de la liberté d’expression, de la protection des données stratégiques et par le fait même, de la sécurité. On ne s’adresse pas seulement à  un enjeu technologique mais bien un enjeu¨systémique¨, car quand on planifie des modifications 2.0, on vient toucher l’ensemble de l’écosystème intranet d’entreprise, tel qu’illustré dans ce diagramme publié récemment par l€˜Observatoire de l’intranet en France »

    tags: intranet intranet2.0 systemic technology management processes customization collaboration operation

    • Donc, trois niveaux personnalisés de communautés: 1- de pratique 2- d’intérêt et 3- de projet. Ces trois niveaux sont eux-mêmes intégrés dans les quatre niveaux supérieurs de personnalisation que sont: 1- mes infos. 2- mon profil 3- mon groupe et 4- mes outils et qui eux, répondent à  trois autres niveaux ultimes de personnalisation et qui servent à  définir tout individu au sein d’une organisation: moi en tant qu’employé, moi dans mon groupe et moi dans mon entreprise.
  • tags: enterprise2.0 report collaboration adoption performance businessperformance whitepaper socialmedia socialnetworks

  • « 1. Companies that widely harnessed social software (best-in-class) took on average 11 hours to bring a response team together for a key business threat, while industry average companies took 113 hours and laggards 105.
    2. Best in class companies took five months to complete key strategic projects, while industry average companies took 8 months and laggards a staggering 14 months.
    3. Best-in-class companies saw a 36 percent decrease in time to enact key business changes based on customer feedback, while laggards experienced a 17 percent increase. »

    tags: socialsoftware enterprise2.0 organization productivity benefits performance businessperformance

  • Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

    Derniers articles

    Vous avez aimé ce billet ? Suivez moi sur les réseaux sociaux :