Design Considerations For Enterprise Social Networks: Identity, Graphs, Streams & Social Objects
Design Considerations For Enterprise Social Networks
“While enterprise social networking has been covered extensively in the media and by IT analyst firms, one of the least discussed aspects of the topic has been the issue of design and the potential impact of design on employee adoption of such tools and applications. At the June Enterprise 2.0 Boston conference, I presented a session, â€œDesign Considerations For Enterprise Social Networks: Identity, Graphs, Streams & Social Objectsâ€, in hopes of drawing attention to the issue and to spark conversation around design practices. The session did not focus on any particular user interface (UI) technique or product implementation (e.g., e-mail, community site, social collaboration platform, etc.). Instead, the information was presented at a holistic and inter-disciplinary level, covering a collection of related issues:
Social theory and design
Work and personal value
Blended user experience
Psychology of adoption
With enterprise software, we tend to focus design practices on the â€œknown requirementsâ€ and functional aspects of how work is performed in process, project, or productivity scenarios. We rarely invest in the time, research, and resources needed to understand the organizational, community, and inter-personnel dynamics that create the cultural context for how the work is done. The result? The industry remains in its early days when it comes to designing social environments that accommodate the myriad subtleties that influence how people network with others beyond the narrow confines of a tool or application.
we need to take the next step and realize that the value employeesâ€™ gain from social networking will also be strongly affected by how well an organization:
- Leverages an inter-disciplinary research methodology to understand the cultural context of its work environment
- Applies those findings to its design practices (e.g., user experience, process, information, application, media, technology)
- Connects enterprise social networking efforts to its enterprise architecture (EA) program
- Creates feedback loops between related design, HR, employee engagement, governance, and change management activities
Research and design practitioners likely need to investigate a range of people and media issues (e.g., identity, networked publics, social capital, media literacies, social network analysis (SNA), participatory cultures), but need to synthesize and express such findings in business terms.
While design efforts need to support business objectives, leadership teams need to also invest in practices that improve culture and employee engagement
We also need to think â€œbeyond the screenâ€ regarding how design practices help mediate online and offline social networking that may have little cause-effect association to a specific business task or process.
The first wave of social collaboration solutions implemented a destination site for networking and community building (sometimes referred to as a â€œcorporate Facebookâ€). Today, the focus has shifted towards adding social capabilities to applications and productivity tools, including mobile scenarios. Itâ€™s important for strategists to realize that peopleâ€™s social networks span any single tool, application, or device. Focusing on a single use case scenario to the detriment of others diminishes overall business and employee value.
Today, we know little about the underlying rational for how networks are cultivated and mobilized. We need to do more in this area.
Resource Orchestration to Create Competitive Advantage
“In this article, the authors discuss how an emerging research stream, which they term resource orchestration, has the potential to extend the understanding of resource-based theory (RBT) by explicitly addressing the role of managersâ€™ actions to effectively structure, bundle, and leverage firm resources. First, the authors review this emerging stream by comparing two related frameworks, resource management and asset orchestration. This comparison leads to their integration, which enables a more precise understanding of managersâ€™ roles within RBT. Then the authors discuss what is known and what remains to be known about resource orchestration. This leads to in-depth reviews of three areas where research on resource orchestration can be used to extend RBT. These areas are (1) breadth (resource orchestration across the scope of the firm), (2) life cycle (resource orchestration at various stages of firm maturity), and (3) depth (resource orchestration across levels of the firm). They close with a discussion of future research that will extend resource orchestration and contribute to a more robust RBT.”
Adaptive case managementâ€”A new approach for achieving goals
“Whether you are in government, non-profit services or something commercially oriented, your business is driven by goals. Those goals may be explicitly identified and formalized, such as with Peter Drucker’s management by objectives (MBO) model, in which leaders establish specific goals within the organization so that the outcome is mutually understood, while leaving the specific course of action and the decision-making to qualified workers and stakeholders. That approach offers the benefit of both guidance and measured outcomes that support establishing performance dashboards.
Alternatively, goals may be (and to some degree or another inevitably are) less formal and more likely in response to a particular event, such as countering a competitor’s product release or delivering aid in response to a natural disaster. In every case, however, goals drive the mission of all organizations, and transactions and transactional processes comprise some part of the means to the end.”
a survey I conducted recently (see downloadable chart
), in which respondents reported that the vast majority of any given day involved working toward specific goals, yet did not follow a predetermined path
Most of the day is spent working toward an identified outcome, yet the means for achieving that cannot be predicted in the way required to program it into a transactional system (think predefined steps, automated workflows, structured data models.)
What is new is the ability to leverage combinations of capabilities, such as business rule engines (BREs) and business process management (BPM), to deliver goal-seeking solutions that are driven by outcomes rather than predefined paths. The best examples are found in the new space known as dynamic or adaptive case management (ACM).
Most support systems, whether full-blown CRM or internal helpdesks, are focused on the fastest time to close the ticket (i.e., transaction processing) without necessarily focusing on the larger goal of satisfying the customer.
When a case is launched, the circumstances that define its successful conclusion are knownâ€”the policies, the rules, the resources, the players involvedâ€”but not exactly how those will combine to ensure the outcome, e.g., that the customer is satisfied. E
Adaptability is defined in terms of how a response is facilitated, rather than simply the ability to respond or change.
With ACM, the need to perform comprehensive product/system training in advance (what is known as “just-in-case” training) can be replaced substantially with a “just-in-time” ability, in which guidance is delivered within the run-time environment and the specific context at that moment (i.e., “context-sensitive support”) by leveraging the applicable business rules and case-related content. That could also include the ability to identify and initiate collaboration with specific subject matter experts.
ACM is ultimately about allowing knowledge workers to work the way they work best, giving them the tools and information they need to do their job. Increasingly, that means having access to social media and outside information sources.
Embracing Skills 2.0
“It is important that organizations take time out to evaluate the skills they value in their employees. Without this re-evaluation, organizations risk being locked into older, slower, business models that will hamper their ability to innovate and compete with organizations that have adopted Enterprise 2.0 technologies and a Skills 2.0 mindset.
To realize the real benefits of these new business models, organizations need to go beyond asking for change or implementing new technologies, they need to identify and reward skills & behaviors that are aligned with the organization of the future.”
- INDIVIDUAL: Modification of personal behavior to be more aligned with new models for success
- TEAM: Increased awareness amongst co-workers, to help create a culture that is capable of identifying and encouraging new skills and behaviors (or that is at least not discouraging of desired skills and behaviors)
- ORGANIZATION: Openness to re-evaluate and modify existing measurement and reward systems to encourage skills and behaviors need to compete and succeed in an Enterprise 2.0. world
Skills 2.0 Model: Assessment Tool â€“ A short-form assessment tool to quickly identify an individualâ€™s possible strengths and put them on a course of action to increase the level of conversation within an organization.
Skills 2.0 Model: Skills & Behaviors â€“ A set of recommended skills & behaviors that organizations may wish to consider rewarding. O
Resources â€“ Supporting tools and research that might be worth reviewing to evaluate and drive these new behaviors.
Architecture Organisationnelle: Sociocratie: La fin du management ?
“Le billet de ce jour fait suite Ã de nombreuses suggestions que jâ€™ai reÃ§ues de me pencher sur la sociocratie, en particulier suite Ã mon billet prÃ©cÃ©dent sur lâ€™effet dâ€™Ã©chelle. Les articles sur la sociocratie font souvent rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã la cybernÃ©tique et aux Â« systÃ¨mes complexes Â», ce qui a Ã©galement aiguisÃ© ma curiositÃ©. Il mâ€™a fallu plusieurs mois pour lire une partie de lâ€™abondante littÃ©rature et tisser les liens avec dâ€™autres ouvrages ou systÃ¨mes de management. Je suis arrivÃ© Ã une conclusion, plutÃ´t nÃ©gative, que je vais vous livrer autour de trois convictions :
La sociocratie combine un ensemble de valeurs, diagnostics et pratiques qui correspondent bien aux enjeux du 21e siÃ¨cle, mais câ€™est une approche contraignante et qui est en conflit sur plusieurs points avec les valeurs du Â« lean Â» ou mÃªme de lâ€™entreprise 2.0 que je dÃ©fends par ailleurs.
La sociocratie nâ€™est pas une architecture organisationnelle scalable. En particulier, ce nâ€™est pas la rÃ©ponse que je cherche Ã la maÃ®trise des flux dâ€™information lorsque la taille de lâ€™entreprise croÃ®t (malgrÃ©, et contrairement Ã , la rÃ©fÃ©rence systÃ©mique).
La sociocratie est trÃ¨s marquÃ©e dâ€™un point de vue culturel ; elle est adaptÃ©e Ã un petit nombre de cultures et de situations, mais nâ€™est pas universelle. Ce qui ne signifie pas que la sociocratie ne soit pas une excellente source dâ€™inspiration en termes de pratiques et de valeurs. A chaque entreprise de trouver ce qui peut lui servir, mais je nâ€™y vois pas le modÃ¨le de management de demain. Lâ€™avenir dira si je me trompe â€“ pour lâ€™instant, les exemples sont assez peu nombreux.”
En revanche, la structure de la double intersection des cercles est lourde et elle ne me semble ni scalable, ni efficace pour des grandes entreprises. Cette double reprÃ©sentation crÃ©e des comitÃ©s et lieux de dÃ©cision avec un grand nombre de personne, ce qui nâ€™est pas judicieux par rapport Ã la volontÃ© dâ€™agilitÃ© (face Ã la complexitÃ©).
lâ€™efficacitÃ© vient bien de la capacitÃ© de self-organisation et composition dâ€™une organisation modulaire avec des unitÃ©s autonomes, mais il faut favoriser un couplage faible et une coordination lÃ©gÃ¨re et agile, ce que le double cerclage ne rÃ©alise pas)
mais si les ambitions et les valeurs de Ricardo Semler
sont trÃ¨s semblables Ã celles dâ€™Endenburg, lâ€™organisation pratique de Semco est surtout centrÃ©e sur lâ€™aplatissement de la hiÃ©rarchie, la participation/re
- Il existe une trÃ¨s grande variation de compÃ©tences, Ã tous les niveaux, et lâ€™entreprise doit reconnaitre et sâ€™appuyer sur les contributeurs les plus talentueux (ce qui suppose de leur donner lâ€™autonomie de pouvoir le faire)
Il y a des individus coopÃ©ratifs et des individus non-coopÃ©ratifs, et lâ€™entreprise doit apprendre Ã reconnaÃ®tre/valoriser les premiers et mettre les autres dans lâ€™incapacitÃ© de nuire.
Une entreprise, en particulier en France pour des raisons qui sont bien expliquÃ©es par Pierre Servent ou Philippe dâ€™Iribarne, a besoin de Â« chefs Â». Le manager joue un rÃ´le clÃ© dans la communication, câ€™est un pivot dans les flux de transmission dâ€™information.
. Mon expÃ©rience en tant que DSI est que câ€™est la fonction qui crÃ©e le talent et non pas lâ€™inverse. Lâ€™organisation, pour bien fonctionner, a besoin dâ€™incarner certaines missions, en particulier celles qui nÃ©cessitent de la mÃ©moire et de la vision, pour garantir la bonne exÃ©cution des dÃ©cisions Ã longue Ã©chelle de durÃ©e (câ€™est prÃ©cisÃ©ment une remarque systÃ©mique).
Je ne crois pas du tout Ã la fin du management : au contraire, lâ€™augmentation de la complexitÃ©, qui le thÃ¨me commun Ã tous mes livres et Ã ce blog, ne peut pas Ãªtre traitÃ©e sans un recours au management. Ce nâ€™est pas le mÃªme management que celui du 20e siÃ¨cle, mais nous avons toujours besoins de managers. L
Si lâ€™on reprend la liste des rÃ´les du management dans une vision classique, telle quâ€™articulÃ©e par Fayol : prÃ©voir, organiser, commander, coordonner, contrÃ´ler, il y a bien un changement Ã opÃ©rer, mais les fondamentaux demeurent. Il y a moins de prÃ©vision (complexitÃ©), moins dâ€™organisation (auto-organisation), nettement moins de commandement