Links for this week (weekly)

Sharing is caring!

  • “My research shows that this principle of coordination is more important today than it has ever been. Dissect how the CEOs of winning companies speak today and compare them with their less successful peers, and you can actually measure the difference. Winners speak more of coordinating things while losers focus more on controlling them.”

    tags: coordination

    • The trick is that people underestimate the effort and value of coordinating things because we think that to coordinate in a way that creates defensible advantage, we need to buy and own things

    • But the winners today are reconnecting with that old Taoist saying that we see the spokes in the wheel but it is the empty center that lets the wheel move. It’s the empty center that matters, not the spokes.
    • Power comes from coordination. You no longer have to own things to coordinate them. Do it before your competition does
  • “To that end, now for the new information security study results. The new IBM study reveals a clear evolution in information security organizations and their leaders, with 25 percent of security chiefs surveyed shifting from a tech focus to one of a more strategic business leadership role.

    In this first study of senior security executives, the IBM Center For Applied Insights interviewed more than 130 security leaders globally and discovered three types of leaders based on breach preparedness and overall security maturity.”

    tags: securit it chiefsecurityofficer CIO

    • Security seen as a business (versus technology) imperative: One of the chief attributes of a leading organization is having the attention of business leaders and their boards. Security is not an ad hoc topic, but rather a regular part of business discussions and, increasingly, the culture.
    • Use of data-driven decision making and measurement: Leading organizations are twice as likely to use metrics to monitor progress, the assessment showed
    • Shared budgetary responsibility with the C-suite: The assessment showed that within most organizations, CIOs typically have control over the information security budget
    • To create a more confident and capable security organization, IBM recognizes that security leaders must construct an action plan based on their current capabilities and most pressing needs
  • “This corporate immune system, as you might have guessed, is known as company culture. It’s a shared set of norms, practices, customs, expectations, and habits that have formed around and perpetuate how a company works and operates. While company culture is great at making the business function as expected and helps foster continuity and order, it’s also astonishingly good at killing off attempted changes to the system; undesirable and desirable both. It’s one reason why the entire industry of change management has emerged, so that companies can keep up with the our era’s ever increasing rate of change, of which technology itself is the most disruptive and high-velocity example.”

    tags: socvialbusiness enterprise2.0 culture change transformation changemanagemen education businessprocess businessprocessdesign leadership

    • In reality, the technology of social business isn’t much of an obstacle, at least once you get beyond the internecine platform battles that are common in many large organizations.
      • In the first visualization above, I’ve depict the general stages of culture change across the major areas of an organization: supply chain, customer experience, and workforce experience. The stages themselves are:

         

           

        1. Augmentation. Partial and non-strategic addition of social to non-critical business functions.
        2. Adaptation. More effective use of social in the business. Movement of social business to core functions.
        3. Transformation. Remaking in place of business functions using social business concepts.
        4. Reinvention. Complete renewal of how the business operates around social business.
        5. Singularity. The core operation of the business as a fundamentally social set of constituents with little discernible boundary between them.
    • This shows the key activities that drive culture change including executive and community leadership, strategic goals, business process redesign, education and training, risk management, and governance.
  • Over the years, we’ve succeeded in getting even some of the most skeptical middle managers on board the work flexibility train. But it requires a larger upfront commitment of resources (e.g. time, money, and people) than it takes to write a policy or rely on attrition. However, the return on that investment is a group of middle managers who not only accept work flexibility but understand how to use it as a powerful tool to run their business.”

    tags: management middlemanagement flexibilty

    • Ask middle managers to help articulate the “why” or business case for work flexibility in your organization, and then let them participate in determining what that flexibility will look like.
    • Allow middle managers to freely express the “prices” they fear they will pay, while also helping them to focus on the payoffs of work flexibility.
    • Make sure that work flexibility in the organization is built on a partnership model where employees have as much responsibility for the success of it as the managers do.
    • Acknowledge that middle managers are people, too, who are increasingly under pressure to deliver more with less. 
    • Establish the expectation, at the beginning, that any issues related to work flexibility that cause the group not to meet its goals will be resolved by everyone, not just the manager. 
  • “Summary: Concepts from the gaming industry have become increasingly useful as a way of improving and optimizing how we get work accomplished for our businesses. While many in the enterprise world may not be ready to adopt these ideas yet, gamification increasingly looks to be an effective set of techniques that now has an entire cottage industry forming to make it easier to achieve results.”

    tags: gamification crowdsourcing rewards

    • In fact, as enterprise platforms — particularly internal social networks — open up to embedded third party applications (such as OpenSocial) and business applications themselves add gaming features, the decision point on whether to apply gamification strategically is approaching for many organizations.
    • Namely, if properly situated in business processes, the incorporation of game features in work activities can reward desired behavior, create more intensively participative processes, track group progress, establish feedback loops that reinforce and accelerate sought after business outcomes, and more.
    • The reality is that a lot of modern careers, particularly those in the service industry and knowledge work, often consist of repetitive drudgery — filled with seemingly endless routine tasks and rote processes — that can sap the motivation of even the most well-intentioned employee.
    • The Wall Street Journal recently explored how a call center was able to reduce wait times up to 15% and increase sales by up to 12% using gamification
    • By cost-effectively enlisting peer production and mass collaboration to rapidly creating a large group of players, who are then driven towards the desired objective through an architecture of participation that has gaming features used to improve the rate and length of engagement.
    • gamification won’t be high on the adoption list, at least strategically, for a while. However, I do expect plenty of tactical experiments this year at the business function and departmental levels.
  • “Innovation may be an organization’s life blood, but still its success rate in most companies hovers at just 17%. Even innovation leader P&G succeeds less than 50% of the time.

    What prevents companies from innovating better? One possibility is that managers don’t really want their people to innovate, no matter what they say otherwise.”

    tags: innovation management timemanagement

    • Companies like 3M and Google that allow employees to carve off a certain percentage of their paid time for innovation are rare
    • Most other firms want their people to stay focused on today’s business — and only work on innovation in their spare time. So in the end, it’s a mixed message: “We want you to innovate, but only after you’ve done your real job.”
    • First, managers need immediate results, often reinforced by short-term incentive plans or the regular expectation of earnings improvements
    • Managers may also fear that innovation will cannibalize current business.
    • Approaches like Six Sigma have helped companies squeeze out inefficiencies, but also tend to reinforce existing processes with an eye towards doing them better. On the other hand, innovation requires messy experiments instead of methodical analysis.
    • Additionally, managers are often schooled in slow, continuous improvement.
    • Talk about how innovation is avoided. Politely and respectfully ask your manager or senior team about their commitment to innovation
    • Work on innovation with colleagues. Instead of working alone, partner with co-workers to achieve an explicit innovation go

  • En veille sur les tendances et les besoins émergents des entreprises, la société Aastra a lancé une enquête en partenariat avec NotezIT, demandant aux cadres dirigeants des entreprises françaises de tous secteurs et toutes tailles confondus «Êtes-vous un collaborateur 2.0 ?». Cette enquête, publiée le 26 avril 2012, montre que si les dirigeants sont séduits, ils sont encore réticents au changement entrainés par ces outils 2.0. “

    tags: enterprise2.0 socialbusiness culture competencies skills ROI management

    • Ainsi l’étude d’Aastra montre que les entreprises privilégient l’intégration d’outils 2.0 orientés vers la productivité et la collaboration. En revanche, la notion d’e-réputation, pourtant vitale pour les entreprises, ne semble pas être entrée dans les mÅ“urs ni dans les priorités stratégiques des sociétés.
    • En effet l’étude montre une fréquence d’utilisation quotidienne assez élevée pour les services 2.0 tels que les mails personnels (83 %), les services Wikis / blogs (34 %), LinkedIn / Viadeo (31 %) puis Facebook (26 %), MSN, Skype, Gtalk, (23 %), Twitter (21 %), YouTube (20 %).
    • on constate une faible implication de la DRH sur ces projets (15 %) ainsi qu’un taux de formation des managers – sur les nouveaux modes de management induits par les services 2.0 – inférieur à 30 %.
    • 38 % des sondés évoquent ainsi la difficulté pour l’entreprise de faire évoluer ses habitudes et ses process.
    • Le manque de visibilité en termes d’utilité et de RoI sont également pointés du doigt pour 32 % des répondants.
  • “Today we manage workers by headcount, jobs, roles, processes, and infrastructure. By viewing all work as a service we can define the service needs, match the service talent, and confirm the value exchange. The process empowers the worker to get the work done the way they want to work.”

    tags: work service workasaservice serviceeconomy humanresources management

    • Jobs, headcount, and roles do not reflect the real person, their talent, and the actual work and yet this is way people are managed. The result is a costly ineffective model that will become increasingly suboptimal as work itself evolves into cloud-like services. The root cause is the traditional organization model of authority, roles, and headcount resource/financial management.
    •  We can observe that the service economy has evolved dramatically in the past three years to the point where nearly any company function or project can be executed by a hired service, many of which are on demand

    • Augment existing entities with the ability to internally create a marketplace for services that emulate the external marketplace for services without disrupting existing resource and governance management processes. 
    • The services model opens up a new layer of management where all workers manage the experience of their customers. The services model does not replace top down decision making. Instead, it improves the decision quality by reducing the number of top down decisions and replacing them with many smaller but important decisions right at the customer level
  • “Profitons de la fête du travail pour parler de sa division.

    Jusqu’à très récemment j’étais persuadé que la division du travail datait de Frederick Winslow Taylor. Je me trompais. Officiellement, cette division du travail provient d’une étude de Adam Smith, l’auteur de Recherche sur la nature et les causes de la richesse des nations et inventeur du fameux concept de “la main invisible du marché”.

    Ou tout au moins c’est ce que l’on croyait car la vérité est toute autre. Grâce soit rendue à Vincent Lextrait (Directeur du développement à Amadeus) qui rend à César ce qui lui appartient, ceci dans une remarquable présentation à l’Université du SI en 2011.”

    tags: work workdivision adamsmith descartes knowledgeeconomy

    • Adam Smith “observe” que la division du travail permet une productivité 500 fois plus élevée. Cette productivité accrue est dûe essentiellement au fait qu’avec la division du travail, l’ouvrier n’a plus besoin de changer d’outil, opération particulièrement coûteuse en terme de temps dans la chaine de production. L’idée est donc “d’attacher” l’ouvrier à son outil pour optimiser la performance de la chaine de production.
    • Notre esprit analytique et rationaliste fait de nous les rois des systèmes complexes. En conséquence de quoi, la division du travail en général et le Taylorisme en particulier résonnent d’un écho particulier chez nous.
    • l’économie de la connaissance, grâce à informatique, le changement d’outil prend une fraction de seconde : c’est un CTL-ALT sur le clavier.

       

      Attention, il ne s’agit pas là d’un changement de contexte, d’une interruption d’un fil de pensée nécessitant une vingtaine de minutes pour être à nouveau “in the zone” comme le dit Jason Fried. Non, nous parlons là d’un changement d’outil pour assurer la continuité dans la procédure de réalisation d’une tâche donnée sur laquelle nous sommes concentrés.

    • En limitant à un périmètre très restreint le champ d’intervention du travailleur spécialisé, la division du travail en supprime non seulement les éléments cognitifs mais aussi la perspective générale.  
  • “En général, quand je parle dans mon entourage professionnel de méthodes agiles et de dépasser la notion de satisfaction du client pour l’enchanter (“delight”), cela ne déclenche pas immédiatement un enthousiasme délirant. Pourtant, si l’on est actif dans un métier où le marché est très concurrentiel et l’innovation permanente essentielle pour la survie, alors il est intéressant de se pencher sur ces nouvelles manières de voir le métier du management, et en particulier le Management radical de Stephen Denning, que j’aimerais présenter en quelques lignes ici, en complément d’un billet de François Beauregard.”

    tags: customersatisfaction customerenchantment enchantment agilemethods agility radicalmanagement management selforganization

      • Le nouveau but de l’organisation est de générer une expérience (enthousiasmer le client) – plutôt que de produire des biens ou faire de l’argent pour les actionnaires
      • Le nouveau but du management est de faciliter et soutenir l’auto-organisation des équipes – plutôt que de contrôler
      • La coordination se fait de manière dynamique, par des itérations gérées par le client – plutôt que de la bureaucratie hiérarchique
      • La communication est interactive: des conversations entre adultes – plutôt que commander et contrôler.
    • A l’évidence, cela nécessite une remise en question du rôle du management qui se verra nouvellement dans un rôle de soutien et support – plutôt que de contrôle et de pouvoir, et s’orientera vers les gens – plutôt que sur les processus et les chiffres.
  • “Social task management is getting a lot of press lately, and a number of vendors are adding the capability to their products. Unfortunately, there is some confusion about the difference between social task management and social project management. Hopefully this short post can help to clarify the differences.”

    tags: socialprojectmanagement socialtaskmanagement project tasks process

    • In short, social task management provides users to define a “to do list on steroids”, share/assign the list with others, and some provide the ability to define an ad hoc “workflow” to the tasks.
    • In contrast, social project management is the leveraging of the social network of an organization to deliver rigorous project more effectively and efficiently. (See here, and this series)
    • Project management has never been about task management. Tasks are usually far more granular than the items that would appear as activities and deliverables on a work breakdown structure
    • The second “problem” with the embedding of “social” task management into every silo software solution is that the social component becomes restricted to those who have access to the software, and who participate in the work process into which it is embedded
    • However, social project management and social task management serve complementary purposes, and can be used together when task management is enabled at the social platform level (rather than in siloed applications
  • “As the marketing power of social media grows, it no longer makes sense to treat it as an experiment. Here’s how senior leaders can harness social media to shape consumer decision making in predictable ways.”

    tags: socialmedia marketing sales customerrelationship crisis crisismanagement brand brandawareness

    • In short, today’s chief executive can no longer treat social media as a side activity run solely by managers in marketing or public relations. It’s much more than simply another form of paid marketing, and it demands more too: a clear framework to help CEOs and other top executives evaluate investments in it, a plan for building support infrastructure, and performance-management systems to help leaders smartly scale their social presence
    • The fact that social media can influence customers at every stage of the journey doesn’t mean that it should. Depending on the company and industry, some touch points are more important to competitive advantage than others.
  • “PepsiCo vient tout juste de recevoir le titre de la meilleure entreprise où il fait bon vivre en France. L’occasion de faire un zoom sur une initiative très 2.0 de ce grand groupe.
    PepsiCo permet à ses employés depuis peu de diffuser de l’information interne de l’entreprise sur les réseaux sociaux publics.
    Ce type d’initiative, qui vise à faire des employés, des ambassadeurs de la marque, devrait être placé dans un contexte plus large de relations publiques …”

    tags: casestudies pepsico communication ambassadors employees

    •  

      L’entreprise à donc dans un premier temps, réalisée un programme éducatif sur les bonnes manières d’utiliser les réseaux sociaux. PepsiCo a par la suite mis en place un dispositif indiquant par un icône si le contenu peut être partagé avec le grand public.

    • A l’heure où l’on assiste à une démultiplication des réseaux sociaux interne, cette initiative peut faire réfléchir les marques à une utilisation mixte « réseaux sociaux internes-externes » de leurs salariés.
  • “New technological eras invariably create new managerial eras. Enterprise 2.0 is no different. In this three-part series, I will argue that E 2.0 organizational technology leads to a management model I will call “Management For Opportunity,” a model that exposes managers to market risks in unprecedented ways. This model is contrary to the popular emerging idea that managers (especially the much hated middle managers) will become entirely obsolete.

    But to get to this vision, we need to situate E 2.0 management and technology ideas within the evolutionary history of corporations. “

    tags: management management2.0

    • Let’s start by trying to characterize the job of the manager in the E 2.0 world. I assert that this job is to manage for opportunity (MFO), which is fundamentally a risk management role that requires E 2.0 tools to fulfill. It’s the newest layer of the functional organization of the evolving managerial mind
  • “The biggest problem with the term BPM is that so many people saw it as meaning so many different things. This causes unnecessary arguments between experts, like the blind men arguing over the shape of an elephant. We can clarify this debate by naming the subcategories of BPM.”

    tags: bpm acm processes workflow

    • 1. Management of Business Processes (MoBP)
    • 2. Business Process Analysis (BPA)
    • 3. Process Driven Server Integration (PDSI)
    • 4. Social Content Management Systems (SCM)
    • 5. Human Process Management Systems (HPM)
    • 6. Production Case Management Systems (PCM)
    • 7. Adaptive Case Management Systems (ACM)
    • (8) Page Flow
    • (9) Workflow
    • While the term “BPM” will certainly enjoy another decade of life in casual use, I think it is time for the leaders in the field to start being a little more specific about what they really mean.
  • “Rather than going to professional portals, people were increasingly relying on their social networks to deliver relevant and highly personalized information.

    So why do you still have a home page at work? And what should you have instead?”

    tags: internalcommunication communication socialnetworks virality

    • A student put it even more simply: “If the news is that important, it will find me.”
    • Traditionally, the internal communications staff would write up an article after the event, post it on their intranet portal, and send an email to employees with a summary and a link.
    • This time, though, those same communications people selected more junior staff (outside of communications) to attend the conference and serve as roaming reporters
    •  

      Now, without email and without searching, people at all levels from around the world were following the conference by following real people

    • The graduates were particularly active, asking questions and contributing content. But senior people at the event also used the social platform, soliciting ideas and feedback, adding comments to other conversations.
    • Far from being dead, the internal communications function at that conference became much more valuable. They went from producing impersonal content with few readers and zero feedback to using social tools and practices to engage a larger audience in more meaningful ways.
  • “An idea that is pervasive in corporations in both America and Europe and prevalent in business schools, management journals and textbooks is that the goal of a firm is to maximize shareholder value. It’s prevalent even though leads to unsound management practices. Jack Welch, considered by many to be a leading practitioner of the idea, recognized in 2009 that shareholder value is a result, not a strategy. Worst of all, maximizing shareholder value creates the risk of disruptive innovation.”

    tags: value shareholders shareholdervalue profit innovation continuousinnovation management organization changemanagement casestudies salesforce

    • They [Apple] can do it because Apple hasn’t optimized its organization to maximize profit. Instead, it has made the creation of value for customers its priority.
    • As a result, the transition from shareholder value to customer delight, as well as to the radical management principles needed to support the transition, is now inevitable.
    • Some of the company principles currently being written (including shareholder profit and customer delight) that I advocate, is very management 2.0. But the executive team say “I hear what you say – and in principle, I agree, but…”. This is perceived to be way too risky to communicate to the investor.”
    • With energetic implementation, with very strong support from the top, as at Salesforce, it would take a medium-sized firm at least a year to get through the transition. With less energetic implementation, the transition might take a number of years.
    • This open communication feedback loop allowed a large number of people to participate in the design of the new process and engage actively in the solution.
    • The management instead opted for a “big-bang” rollout, moving all teams to the new process at the same time. It was a difficult decision. The key factor driving it was a wish to avoid organizational dissonance and a desire for decisive action.
    • The cross-functional team did its work in an iterative fashion and focused daily on whatever was needed to make the implementation successful. It created a global schedule for the entire process, provided coaching and guidance, identified and removed systemic impediments to change, monitored success, and evangelized the new way of working throughout the organization.
  • “Green SI a rencontré la fameuse génération Y et s’est intéressé à ses usages de l’informatique et de la téléphonie.
    Oh, il ne s’agit pas d’une étude complète sur un échantillon représentatif, mais juste de l’interview d’un seul jeune. Mais un jeune qui a inséré seul le numérique en classe quand l’Education Nationale cherche toujours par quel bout prendre le sujet. Il nous livre en miroir une foule de questions sur notre approche du numérique et nos propres usages. “

    tags: generationy millenials digitalnatives education

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

Sharing is caring!

172FansJ'aime
12,576SuiveursSuivre

Articles récents