-
What is the Real Value of Pilots to Technology Adoption?
The majority of respondents were positive about the value of pilots because they are culturally and functionally useful. One of the most important benefits of running a pilot is that it gives you an opportunity to discover and fix any technical issues before a tool is made available to thousands or tens of thousands of people. Fixing those problems while they’re small and you’re working with a pilot group that’s empathetic makes it much easier to refine the system for a smooth rollout and adoption.
-
How Web 2.0 usage is changing over time
Across all categories, the use of Web 2.0 technologies by employees for internal purposes has increased from 53% in 2007 to 65% of respondents in 2009. The largest components of growth have come from using Web 2.0 to develop new products / services internally, to manage internal knowledge and to reinforce the company culture via tools such as internal social networking applications. The companies who have embedded these tools in their day-to-day activities and processes have seen the largest impact by improving communication across silos to reduce duplicate work and leverage experts in other areas.
-
In contrast, over the past 3 years, the adoption of Web 2.0 technologies for connecting with business partners and suppliers has stagnated at 40%.
-
The momentum we see in the growth of Web 2.0 technologies implies we will see higher penetration in 2010 for using these technologies for employees to collaborate and to facilitate interactions with customers.
-
-
To Multitask Effectively, Focus on Value, Not Volume
In organizations however, the implication is much more pernicious because individual performance, for better or worse, is multiplied and amplified many times over. If dozens of people are reducing their effectiveness by multitasking, then the organization runs the risk of being tied up in knots.
-
Despite starting the research on 100 college students with the hypothesis that multitaskers had some special abilities, the study found that multitaskers were actually quite ineffective at managing information, maintaining attention, and getting results. Compared to study participants who did things one task at a time, they were mediocre.
-
let me suggest that the alternative to multitasking is not single-tasking. In this day and age, that would be too slow. Rather the answer is to shift our mindsets from a focus on volume to a focus on value
-
-
What Enterprise Could Learn From AI Research History
The analogy itself between neural networks and a real community-based company is striking, and so are the similarities between the limitations of this approach and some Enterprise 2.0 concerns. Neural networks encountered two big problems: relevancy and convergence (they couldn’t ensure to converge onto the desired pattern, and sophisticated training techniques, such as back-propagation, were necessary to ensure convergence). Social media are facing the very same problems in the enterprise: how could we ensure that communities lead to the right consensus for applicable decisions to be taken? I evoked some possible trails in my last post, and this is a crucial point.
-
Should, and will, the Enterprise 2.0 follow the same track as AI did? If so, next move would be to get rid of the big business processes we all know, and replace them with micro-processes applicable at individual scale. For instance, the way Japanese coworkers are able to make a consensus emerge from community-based workshops, one of the pre-requisite of Kaizen, rely on their heavy sense of “doing the right thingâ€. To set up such micro-processes is a radical move from where we are and where the most daring organizations try to go,
-
-
Introducing Our Seminal Series On Social CRM
Is Social CRM a true paradigm shift or just another channel like email, chat, KB, kiosks, and the like? If it’s just another channel, we can continue business as usual by simply adopting Social CRM without any major change in our strategy for engagement. However, if it’s a paradigm shift, we need to reevaluate our overall strategy. Understanding this distinction is critical in laying our plans to deal with the new social breed of customer.
-
This is the era of the Social Web and all things 2.0. This is an era in which the very dynamics of the relationship between customers and their vendors have changed radically. Finally, the customer really is always right. Worse (from the vendor’s perspective), that customer is now equipped with a mighty megaphone with which to tell everyone who is interested in hearing what they like or dislike about their customer experience. That’s right, not just about the products, but about their whole experience:
-
Finally, as Paul Greenberg has so eloquently put it, Social CRM is “the company’s response to the customer’s control of the conversation.â€
-
The new era demands engagement. Try being silent in a social situation. Imagine being in a large auditorium filled with your customers. You are up on a stage. There are bright spotlights focused on you. Everyone in the audience has a microphone. Some of them are very unhappy. Can you be silent when they speak? Can you fob them off on someone who doesn’t have any answers while the rest watch? Of course not!
-
-
Salesforce launches a new set of social apps that make CRM connected to the social web. So what does it mean?
Salesforce’s Twitter integration and application launch helps brands monitor what’s being said. Yet despite the fanfare, the application lacks a pre-determined way to identify the profiles of Twitter profiles and primary keys within the CRM database. Secondly, the system doesn’t provide a default setting to prioritize the influence (such as more followers) vs a profile with few followers –limiting the ability for brands to prioritize their support offerings.
-
Despite Salesforce’s technical announcement, this doesn’t mean success for their customers. Technology is only 20% of any enterprise change, the other 80% is culture, process, roles, and strategy change –key requirements that Salesforce is not equipped to provide.
-
-
A Community? A Network? An Audience?
We have a lot of semantic issues in the social media/online space. The term community is particularly problematic because people tend to throw it around for any online group that interacts with content. The problem for me is that communities are not about content, they are about relationships. Relationships do need content/programs/conversations in order to develop – just like they do in the real world – but just because a large group of people come by regularly and comment on online content doesn’t mean there is a true community.
-
How do you create a culture that is not afraid to fail (or be more receptive to social media?)
So, we came up with this topic: “Creating a Culture that is not Afraid to Fail.” I thought this would be a great opportunity to reflect on some of my recent blog posts on this topic as well as gain new insights from others who work on social media in a corporate (and nonprofit) setting as well as my network.
-
Must come from the top: reward learning
-
Unpack the fear of failure through internal discussions
-
Make learning the norm
-
Emphasize what works
-
Start small, early, and reiterate
-
-
Thoughts on Socializing Change in Innovation Initiatives
The success factors of socialization are well-documented — we all know the guidelines but often treat them as just another task in a big initiative. Socialization implies a deeper commitment than most organizations acknowledge – in fact, socialization, its actions and its attitudes may be the most complex part of innovation. Here are a few throughts on socializing change.
-
Key owners and sponsors must “sign up†for change. Many teams take appropriate steps and even ask sponsors to sign an approval document. But, sign up goes beyond approval meetings and documents. The team leading the initiative must ensure that owners and sponsors know exactly what they’re signing up for –
-
, educate the business and operational leaders first. Train these leaders to a level of competency that ensures they can hold their employees accountable for rapidly adopting new processes, methods, tools, etc
-
Retire obsolete processes and products when you implement new ones. Planning for innovation must identify the processes and other assets that will be made obsolete.
-
-
Time to Put a Stake in the Ground on Social CRM
First, there seems to be a consensus on the definition already. We all agree on its general characteristics. We see it as the use of social and traditional CRM tools and processes to support a strategy of customer engagement. Or some permutation of that.
Second, there’s too much other work on Social CRM to do. Its time to start figuring out and documenting the business models, policies, practices, processes, social characteristics, applications, and the methodologies that we need to actually carry it out. There is some great work going on in those Social CRM areas already with folks like Graham Hill, Denis Pombriant, Thomas Vander Wal, Brent Leary, Prem Kumar, Chris Carfi, Bill Band, Natalie Petouhoff, Mike Fauscette, Michael Maoz and Ray Wang, among others (please forgive me if I didn’t mention you. There are many others). But we need to create a repository for all this work – and an institution that can represent it agnostically. Right now, the body of practice out there is all over the place. Even with this, the work on Social CRM’s “how” needs a dramatic escalation now.
So, I’m providing one last aggregate look at what I see Social CRM to be. When the 4th edition of CRM at the Speed of Light comes out, you’ll see a lot of the what and how in that nearly 800 pages. This is the condensed – black hole condensed – version of that.
I hope that I’m reflecting the consensus. If not, I’m sure the discussion will go on. But as far as I go, I’m interested in the more substantive discussions on what we actually have to do – not how it differs from traditional CRM nor what we’re talking about when it comes to “social” and whether or not we are going to call it CRM 2.0 or social CRM.
-
What this means is that SCRM is an extension of CRM, not a replacement for CRM.
-
SCRM differs from Enterprise 2.0 though is integrally related to it. Enterprise 2.0 is organized around increasing the productivity of the workforce in all that it does utilizing new collaborative tools to do so. It uses those tools to aggregate and organize information and systems. However, though different, Enterprise 2.0 is integrally related because part of that improvement in productivity increases the effectiveness of employee-customer interactions.
-
“CRM is a philosophy & a business strategy, supported by a technology platform, business rules, workflow, processes & social characteristics, designed to engage the customer in a collaborative conversation in order to provide mutually beneficial value in a trusted & transparent business environment. It’s the company’s response to the customer’s ownership of the conversation.”
-
-
How Procter & Gamble Got Employees to Use Social Networking at Work
The Situation: With more than 138,000 employees in 160-plus countries, there are countless opportunities—and as many hurdles—for P&G to connect ideas and expertise. Through its Global Business Services group, P&G is deploying an intranet that allows users to create value beyond their usual circles.
-
. Once their use of wikis, blogs and similar tools solidified, P&G selected Telligent’s online community application as an enterprise Web 2.0 platform.
-
Nearly 12,000 users opted in before there was any formal marketing of the platform.
-
P&G is deploying the tools with groups that demand them and integrating them with the ways people work.
-
Although P&G maintains adoption and activity metrics for PeopleConnect, these tend to underestimate its impact. For example, using PeopleConnect, a 150-person, geographically disbursed workgroup came together in two months rather than in six to
-
-
ignorer le 2.0, c’est comme ignorer l’iceberg sous la pointe… de votre entreprise | Analystik – blog
Rappelons que les données structurées ne représentent que 4 % du SAVOIR de l’entreprise et sont le fait des activités de l’entreprise elle-même. Ainsi, le SAVOIR en entreprise est difficilement localisable et identifiable sinon que dans la tête des gens et il ne se trouve surtout pas dans les entrepôts de données.
SAVOIR
4% données structurées
20% données non structurées
74% non documentées (contenues dans la « tête » des gens)
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.
