“Intranet owners and other IT product or service owners are often confused when they hear the term â€Digital Workplaceâ€. What is it? Is it the same thing as an intranet? Is it a virtual desktop? Which function owns it? Who governs it? Where does it start and where does it end? What platform does it run on? “
we need to look at information technology and tools from the point of view of the person using it instead of from an organizational or even process point of view.
“the Digital Workplace is going to solve the huge problems organizations of all sizes and industries currently have in information work.”
I would define the Digital Workplace is an approach (as apposed to a specific solution or set of features or capabilities) for solving the challenges of information work in a highly collaborative and complex digitalized work environments.
Gamification Platforms vs â€œGamifiedâ€ Applications
“When my clients ask me about gamification, one of the topics that frequently arises is whether gamification should be deployed using an application or platform model. In this post, I break down the limitations of gamified applications, and why a true gamification platform is the ideal option for a scalable and sustainable business result.”
Gamified applications are games that have a very specific purpose, collect information or present news or another simple action, but that are not connected to any other system in the organization
The lack of integration will always make the ability to track actions and behaviors irrelevant in real-time and not very useful historically.
In contrast, a Gamification Platform is all about the integration between the games, the behaviors it tries to entice or modify, and the existing enterprise systems.
A Gamification Platform is not just about the gaming mechanics,much like Gamified Applications are, but rather about generating value for the business from the games and behaviors.
Finally, a gamification platform can also leverage historical information about the user, their usage, and even their reputation over time (which has been tracked in different systems existing in the enterprise).
The true value comes from finding a solution where you can deploy an application-like experience to start, but not limit yourself in the long term should you want to grow your program and connect it across your broader experiences.
However, for long-term business value of using Gamification, the platform model is the way to go.
“Over the 4-5 years that I’ve researched social in the enterprise we’ve seen massive amounts of change in use cases, adoption, technology and attitudes toward the potential for social for business. Five years ago social was centered in marketing, where social media with it’s meteoric rise in influence and popularity was “all the rage”. In the early surveys this was reflected in many of the answers, particularly why use social for business and in the areas in the business that provided social strategy. For social business to really take off though, the use cases had to move beyond marketing and get out into many parts of the organization. I won’t rehash use cases, I’ve done that often enough here anyway, but it’s important to note that those use cases are growing and generally fit into these broad categories:
Enterprise social network Customer experience Innovation management Sales enablement Digital commerce Socialytics”
the #1 reason for using social for business last year, acquire knowledge/ask questions, is now #14, or next to last. Last year over 50% of the respondents answered acquire knowledge, yet this year, not even 10% ranked it.
It appears from the #2 answer in the survey that companies are adopting social customer service as a critical use case.
With “keeping up with the competition” as the #3 reason for adopting social tools, that’s quite a change for this year and will drive spending in a market that is already seeing near 50% year over year growth.
Perhaps the area that will surprise many is the fall of the internal communication type use cases in the overall set of responses.
“Conduct employee training” moved from next to last to #8 this year.
“A lot has been written about process maturity. The different approaches proposed have as highest rating the â€˜Optimized Stageâ€™ of maturity, where continuous process improvement is enabled by feedback and by applying innovative ideas in an agile manner. Sounds good, so what is the point of process maturity assessments? In my mind nothing else than to sell consultancy services. Assessing process maturity is a pointless exercise that only leads to adding more bureaucracy to an already lacking approach. How can one start doing process management without making goal orientation and continuous improvement their starting point?”
Process flows are an over-simplification by â€˜expertsâ€™ who do not understand the system that they are messing with.
But one canâ€™t even start observing patterns without a priori modeling. But modeling what? The illusion truly is in assuming predictability and controllability â€“ a consequence of human arrogance and pseudo-expertize!
A real-world process is defined by nothing else than some starting condition or event that causes (inter)actions that lead to some outcome (more about gauge theory later).
In the real world a process cannot be achieved by a declaration of a work sequence because the start and work conditions will be chaotic. The process must thus defined by which knowledge is required to achieve the goals
, the business has to define the capabilities in the value stream, the related targets and performance indicators and where in the organization the process owners will take responsibility.
By defining end-to-end value stream processes this way, the goals and targets of each milestone become the handover definitions between organizational disconnected capabilities.
A company has process maturity when it no longer needs a huge bureaucracy to achieve its goals.
We live now a world in which knowing the rules (i.e. lawyers) is considered an act of being intelligent! Is this really where we want to go?
if companies want to achieve process maturity, as a first step they will need to get rid of orthodox BPM software that lacks the embedded architecture capability needed for continuous improvement.
“Despite the claims of Groysberg and Slind at Harvard Business Review, leadership is not a conversation because staff do not listen. The staff do not listen because what is being presented as a â€œconversationâ€ or a â€œdialogueâ€ is instead a monologue. “
They may need conversations to work, but that does not mean that leadership is a conversation.
Instead, it is about extracting as much information as needed from the organisation to generate plans, respond to problems, and maintain the business.
Leaders have to decide. To decide they need information, analysis, and evidence for deciding between options or alternatives.
To improve their decisions, leaders need the critical information to help them see what is wrong. They can see what is right about an organisation. If what is wrong is obvious, and then the priority is immediately past the point where conversation will serve a purpose.
For leaders to work, they need decisions to be operationalized. What this means is that organisations need hierarchies.
By contrast, conversations only work if someone says something that is worth hearing
To have those conversations, you need openness and information sharing to be encouraged and rewarded. Senior managers will have to trust their staff.
To develop trust, the organizational culture needs to be changed and this is where leaders need to be saying things that will make the staff want to listen and respond.
If a leader gets involved in internal communication frameworks, it distorts the purpose.
the involvement of a leader will influence the conversation. People will have conversations, pose ideas, and suggest things to gain favour, impress, and create influence instead of creating an open communication process.
Leaders may use conversations to achieve their ends. However, leadership is not a conversation. A conversation is an unguided exchange between equals. Leaders, by their nature, are unequal within the organisation and they must not confuse their organizational or work persona with their private or informal persona.
As the world becomes more and more dependent on social media, brands are now using platforms like Facebook and Twitter to communicate with their customers. Marketing is no longer the most important way to reach customers on these networks, and social customer service is quickly becoming a useful â€“ and necessary â€“ tool to meet customer expectations.”
Be fast. A social customer service teamâ€™s performance can be measured by their response times and the number of queries answered.
Be useful. First contact resolution is the key to customer satisfaction from Customer Service. The right tools and processes help companies to get queries to the right team member, as quickly as possible so that helpful answers can be delivered straight through social media.
Be friendly. Tone of voice is the most important, and the most difficult, challenge to master for social customer service teams. Itâ€™s important to deliver genuine, professional help, but in keeping with the ways in which your customers reach out through social platforms.
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.