Three Examples of New Process Strategy
“There are three fundamental ways that companies can improve their processes in the coming decade: (1) expand the scope of work managed by a company to include customers, suppliers, and partners; (2) target the increasing amount of knowledge work; and (3) reduce cycle times to durations previously considered impossible (as I discussed in my last post).
So how do you do this? As science fiction writer William Gibson said, “The future is already here â€” it’s just not very evenly distributed.” This is to say that you don’t have to wait until the end of the decade for some breakthrough technology to emerge; it’s already here, albeit in bits and pieces.
I’m collectively referring to these process improvement approaches as “Process Strategy 2.0”. They stand on the shoulders of the methods of “Process Strategy 1.0″: Lean, Six Sigma, and Business Reengineering. Let’s explore what Process Strategy 2.0 is all about:”
To streamline customer experiences in end-to-end processes, Process Strategy 2.0 will require aligned goals and supporting systems to manage work between partners.
To keep such a multiparty system from degenerating into chaos, virtual process teams must have aligned goals and support systems.
To manage the rising tide of knowledge work performed by a younger generation of employees, Process Strategy 2.0 will depend heavily on social collaboration tools
Companies who just try to let it evolve, don’t go after it with a plan and with dedicated resources, and don’t seek to create a culture around collaboration will fail
To speed operations and improvement, Process Strategy 2.0 will make greater use of quick experiments and more agile management processes.
Use Social Media to Build Emotional Capital
“Many organizations have started using social media tools internally to interact with their employees. However, in our survey of 1,060 global executives, only 30% of executives work for companies that benefited from the internal use of social media.
To understand why the rate is so low it’s instructive to compare the social media experiences of two companies we studied. “
Authenticity. What you communicate through social media has to be aligned with how you interact with people in the real world
Pride. Pride is a better motivator than money and relying on financial or promotion incentives to elicit employee engagement in social media initiatives can backfire
Community. Social media users often do not consider time spent on non-work related discussions within social communities as wasted from a professional standpoint. When employees identify common non-work related interests among each other and forge informal bonds, they will eventually start discussing work-related matters even outside of formal work hours.
Fun. Enjoyment is well known to be a strong motivator of innovation.
internal social media success isn’t really about the software but about the emotional connection it creates.
Companies that lack active community builders tend to create cold communities without heart and spirit, underutilizing technological infrastructure, generating employee cynicism and destroying what little emotional capital was present.
executives should use locally appropriate means to develop the four pillars of emotional capital.
The Missing Dimensions and Context of â€œOrg Chartsâ€
“Organizational structures are typically represented as inverted trees with the root of the organization at the top and its adjacent branches denoting the major divisions or functions. More branches follow all the way to the atomic level of the organization where the smallest units of work take place. Every organization requires this kind of inverted tree manifested in an â€œorg chartâ€ to legitimize its structure; however, â€œorg chartâ€ abstractions do not tell the entire story of the structure of an organization. What is missing is the identification of the part of the organization that controls its destiny; the specification of the major method the organization uses to coordinate its activities; and the type of decentralization for decision-making that is employed.”
practical framework for understanding the structure of organizations and provide insight on the three missing dimensions of â€œorg charts.â€ They are: the key parts of an organization; the organization’s coordinating mechanism; and the type of decentralization employed.
The key parts of an organization are the operational components that drive success or failure. Even though Mintzberg defined five key parts, only one is generally dominant. The five key parts are:
- Strategic apex, which consists of top management and its support staff.
- Operating Core, which consists of workers who carry out the organizationâ€™s tasks.
- Line managers, which consists of management teams, particularly middle management.
- Technostructure, which consists of specialized professionals such as engineers, accountants, planners, researchers, and personnel managers.
- Support staff, which consists of people who provide indirect services.
Within an organization, coordinating mechanisms specify the way the organization organizes and manages its work. While there are six possible coordinating mechanisms, only one tends to be employed by an organization. The six coordinating mechanisms are:
- Mutual adjustment, where coordination takes place through simple, informal communications.
- Direct supervision, where coordination takes place by person issuing orders or instructions to others.
- Standardization of work processes, where coordination takes place by specifying the work processes that people follow to carry out interrelated activities.
- Standardization of outputs, where coordination takes place by specifying the results of different work.
- Standardization of skills, where coordination takes place through the specialization and training of the various people in the organization.
- Standardization of norms, where coordination takes place by engaging the same set of beliefs and expected behaviors, such as the case in a religious organization.
Types of Decentralization
This dimension relates to the distribution of decision-making power. In its basic form, decision-making power can be centralized or distributed. Mintzberg differentiates six types of decentralization:
- Centralized, where all of the powers resides in the strategic apex.
- Selective, where the apex shares some of the power with the technostructure who standardizes the work for everybody.
- Parallel, where leaders of market-driven parts of the organization are given the power to make decisions for their units.
- Decentralized, where most of the power rests in the operating core.
- Selective decentralization, where decision-making is shared by the operating core, support staff, line managers, and staff experts who work in teams at various levels of the organization.
- Distributed, where power is shared more or less equally by all members of the organization.
Next time you look at an â€œorg chart,â€ ask what the strategy behind the structure is
LE RECRUTEMENT A Lâ€™HEURE DU Â« GOOGLE-FRIENDLY Â» VS ROI
“Il est tendance actuellement dâ€™entendre de ci de lÃ Â«les JobBoards sont morts, comme la presse hier Â» ou encore Â« vos annonces faut les mettre sur les rÃ©seaux sociaux Â»â€¦ Opposer devient le maÃ®tre-mot en Ã©chos Ã un autre mot trÃ¨s en vogue, le ROI. En lâ€™espace de 18 mois les marchands du temple sâ€™en donnent Ã cÅ“ur joie sur le marchÃ© du recrutement en ligne, trompant allÃ©grement les Â« users-digital Â» qui se veulent les rÃ©volutionnaires du 3.0.”
Les entreprises sont encore Ã lâ€™Age de pierre de la parole dÃ©mocratique digitale et seraient sur le point de se ruer sur les rÃ©seaux sociaux pour recruter lowcost ? Jusquâ€™Ã preuve du contraire un rÃ©seau social nâ€™est pas un JobBoard ! Sa raison dâ€™Ãªtre est le contenu, lâ€™Ã©change, bref le participatif !
Le communiquÃ© de presse de Facebook prÃ©cisait lors de ce lancement Â« Nous savons que la puissance des mÃ©dias sociaux â€“ les connections entre amis, membres de la famille et communautÃ©s â€“ peuvent avoir des consÃ©quences Ã©normes sur la capacitÃ© Ã trouver un travail
Penser une ligne Ã©ditoriale, travailler un contenu, former les Ã©quipes RH Ã lâ€™Ã©criture et Ã la conversation digitale, sortir des sites RH Â« bÃ©ni oui-oui Â» au profit dâ€™un Ã©cosystÃ¨me mÃ©dias sociaux et une harmonisation des profils en ligne, structurer une valeur ajoutÃ©e de Marque Employeurâ€¦ SONT DES CHANTIERS PRIORITAIRES.
En vingt ans, les budgets de communication RH ont Ã©tÃ© divisÃ©s par 12 ! En face, lâ€™influence des DRH sâ€™est effondrÃ©e en Ã©cho Ã un mal-Ãªtre gÃ©nÃ©ralisÃ© â€“ Â«en entreprise on nâ€™existe quâ€™Ã la hauteur de son budget
OUI, TROIS FOIS OUI, LES RÃ‰SEAUX SOCIAUX SONT Lâ€™AVENIR sous rÃ©serve de ne pas les instrumentaliser via une dimension rÃ©ductrice du recrutement et de les intÃ©grer dans une vision globale de stratÃ©gie de Marque et non de les limiter au ROI du cv
Business Process Dilemma; blending traditional w/ social
“There seems to be a general concensus these days, one I emphatically agree with, that adoption of social business will hinge on the success with which it is integrated into business processes. Successful social integration will require a detailed examination and transformation of existing business processes in light of this new transparent social culture.”
This highlights the dichotomy we face, where we want to keep some of the structure & governance of traditional processes, while at the same time benefiting from the flexibility of social.
dentifying a ROI from collaboration is probably the first question most managers have â€¦ starting from an existing process and its baseline is a great way for seriously evaluating the improvement participative work provides
its the only way of accurately measuring social ROI integrated into existing KPIs
how do I keep some level of governance and capture provenance with socialized business processes when social is inherently ad-hoc
One gives you control, governance, traceability, and provenance, but is slow and rigid. The other gives you speed, responsiveness, transparency, and broad engagement, but is hard to govern
One of my favorite social analytics projectsâ€¦
“I just tripped over an old video of a prototype I built a couple of years ago for IBM Lotusphere in Orlando. The objective was to distill the cacophony of noise out in the socialsphere into something that could be effectively integrated into the business, bringing together internal and external communications. The solution combined a range of approaches:
Content analytics for entity extraction and classification.
Semantic disambiguation for topic detection.
A graph store to persist the social semantics.
Social network analysis for social ranking.
Influence scoring for building trust networks.”
Enterprise Software Needs Flow And Not Gamification
“I donâ€™t believe in gamifying enterprise applications. As I have argued before, the primary drivers behind revenue and valuation of consumer software companies are number of users, traffic (unique views), and engagement (average time spent + conversion). This is why gamification is critical to consumer applications since it is an effort to increase the adoption of an application amongst the users and maintain the stickiness so that the users keep coming back and enjoy using the application. This isnâ€™t true for enterprise applications at all. This is not only not true for enterprise applications, but gamifying enterprise applications is couterproductive that makes existing task more complex and creates an artificial carrot that does not quite work.”
A design philosophy that we really need for enterprise applications is flow.
Mihaly describes flow as a series of autotelic experiences as an activity that consumes us and becomes intrinsically rewarding
What people really want is enjoyment and not just pleasure. They are different. Enjoyment is about moving forward and accomplishing something.
All the gamification efforts by new innovative entrants that I see seem to be disproportionately focused on â€œedgeâ€ applications since itâ€™s relatively easy for an entrant to break into edge applications to beat an incumbent as opposed to redesigning a core application
Application designers have traditionally ignored flow since itâ€™s a physical element that is external to an application, but life and social status extend beyond the digital life and enterprise applications
Social Business 2013: Less Talking. More Doing.
“For customers, 2013 will be a year of taking action. Over the last few years organizations have invested a great deal of resources into learning about the technological and cultural shifts required for social business transformation. Now they can move past the struggles explaining “Facebook for the Enterprise” and instead focus on implementing the social features that will help their employees get their jobs done.
For product vendors, 2013 will be less about creating shiny new features and more about helping their customers (and prospects) derive real business value from their platforms. Yes, of course there will still be innovations in user experience, mobile access, analytics and many more, but for the next little while the “competitive feature wars” will be less important than proving they understand how to help organizations succeed. “
Collaborative applications for specific business purposes.
Information will be structured around projects
Personal Task Automation helps employees get their jobs done
Keep track of information from multiple applications
Elearning makes a comeback as social learning
It’s time to turn that webcam on at work.
SAP helps businesses deal with social anxiety | Washington Times Communities
“We’ll know social has arrived when it ceases to stand out” says Sameer Patel. Patel is the Global Vice President, Enterprise Collaboration and Social Software Solutions for SAP – a global leader in enterprise solutions.
Patel has a refreshing take on how social technologies can work for business, a successful blog and a propensity for making the complicated sound and seem simple. If you’re interested in understanding where busines is trending, read further.”
A well designed and purpose driven collaboration fabric is critical to ensure that companies efficiently find, share and engage with each other in the context of business activity.
By bringing BI and social collaboration together, sales teams can quickly share, discuss, and analyze pipeline opportunities allowing them to prioritize quickly, marketing teams can plan campaigns and analyze metrics post-delivery to ensure success or take away learnings that can be applied to future campaigns, or supply chain teams can track, discuss, and analyze metrics directly with each supplier
The problem with many social and collaborative offerings today is that they sit in a silo and as a result, business value or adoption is hard to achieve.
Many are great at letting people connect, but they miss the important business context that sparks purpose-driven collaboration, and as a result, social applications suffer from limited adoption
the next big thing in social is the disappearance of social from the center of the conversation
When organizations finally see how it can be applied to drive business value, weâ€™ll see it become part of the business technology fabric and an indispensable capability to get work done
It isn’t the central value proposition but when combined with a contextual application, it becomes much more powerfu
Lâ€™universitÃ© ne voit pas venir le MOOC
“La communautÃ© universitaire nâ€™a pas idÃ©e de ce que la mise en rÃ©seaux des gens et des contenus va bouleverser son Â« Ã©cosystÃ¨me Â» dans les prochaines annÃ©es.
Il nâ€™en sera probablement pas question au Sommet sur lâ€™enseignement supÃ©rieur, mais le phÃ©nomÃ¨ne des Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) est un des leviers de transformation les plus percutants de lâ€™enseignement supÃ©rieur, Ã court terme, et lâ€™universitÃ© ne le voit pas venirâ€¦
Les Ã©tudiants inscrits Ã un cours offert par une universitÃ© dans une Â« dynamique MOOC Â» (voir cette infographie) font lâ€™expÃ©rience dâ€™apprendre en Ã©tant connectÃ©s en rÃ©seau (du connectivisme) avec une masse impressionnante dâ€™autres Ã©tudiants. Le ou les professeurs Â« dans un monde de MOOCs Â» adopte(nt) une posture diffÃ©rente. Cette vidÃ©o (En) de Dave Cormier et Neal Gillis me paraÃ®t Ãªtre le document le plus Â« abouti Â» qui rÃ©pond Ã la question quâ€™est-ce quâ€™un MOOC ?”
Â« Lâ€™internet fait naÃ®tre un nouvel espoir de rÃ©volution dans lâ€™enseignement supÃ©rieur. Depuis lâ€™automne 2011, un grand nombre des meilleures universitÃ©s du pays (dont le MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Princetonâ€¦) offrent des cours gratuits sur le Net et plus dâ€™un million de personnes Ã travers le monde se sont engagÃ©es Ã les suivre
Le prÃ©sident de Stanford a Ã©voquÃ© le tsunami Ã venir.
partout, son intÃ©gration [du numÃ©rique] pose plus de questions quâ€™elle nâ€™offre de rÃ©ponses.
Pourquoi l’Entreprise 2.0 et les initiatives de social business ont-elles du mal Ã se frayer un chemin ?
“Aujourd’hui, les notions de bottum-up / top-down, d’intelligence collective des foules et autres sujets connexes sont trÃ¨s souvent Ã©voquÃ©s. Pourtant, la concurrence est palpable entre les deux concepts : d’un cÃ´tÃ©, les mÃ©thodes qui prÃ´nent des modes d’organisation trÃ¨s structurÃ©s et particuliÃ¨rement bien dÃ©finis ; de l’autre, le monde en plein essor des flux interconnectÃ©s, lÃ oÃ¹ les connaissances se construisent petit Ã petit, Ã©change aprÃ¨s Ã©change (tous ces liens interactifs qui composent ce que l’on appelle le Â« travail de la connaissance Â»), portÃ© par le social computing.”
L’Ã©valuation des postes (et ses dÃ©rivÃ©s tels que la cartographie de la responsabilitÃ© ou encore l’analyse de la redondance) est un outil essentiel Ã la conception et l’organisation du travail. Les mÃ©thodes que nous utilisons aujourd’hui sont nÃ©es dans les annÃ©es 1950 et n’ont pas beaucoup Ã©voluÃ© depuis lors. Les principes fondamentaux sur lesquelles elles se basent s’inspirent directement du Taylorisme et ont contribuÃ© Ã asseoir cette mÃ©thode de travail au sein de l’organisation moderne.
Fondamentalement, l’Ã©valuation des postes (la mesure du travail dans le jargon professionnel) repose sur le postulat que le savoir est structurÃ© et utilisÃ© de faÃ§on hiÃ©rarchique. Il en rÃ©sulte que celui ou celle qui dispose du (ou les postes qui requiÃ¨rent le) plus haut niveau de connaissances, sur le papier, mÃ©rite d’Ãªtre plus haut placÃ©(e) dans la hiÃ©rarchie de l’organisation.
Ces mÃ©thodes Ã©mettent une hypothÃ¨se fondamentale et essentielle quant Ã la nature du savoir. Elles laissent entendre que l’acquisition des connaissances, leur dÃ©veloppement et l’usage que nous en faisons suivent un schÃ©ma relativement stable qui Ã©volue lentement et posÃ©ment et que le savoir se dÃ©finit selon une classification officielle et entendue
Ces mÃ©thodes d’Ã©valuation n’ont pas anticipÃ© l’arrivÃ©e du web, des hyperliens et des multiples Ã©changes d’informations qui, petit Ã petit, empilent et assemblent les connaissances ; pas plus le phÃ©nomÃ¨ne de nÃ©gociation, par les pairs, des rÃ©sultats et responsabilitÃ©s que nous observons dans le monde en rÃ©seau actuel.
Dans cette dynamique oÃ¹ se mÃªlent intÃ©rÃªt, dÃ©bit et circulation d’informations pertinentes et utiles, le social computing (les outils du web 2.0 selon les adeptes de la MÃ©thode Hay) monte en puissance, le service et les compÃ©tences sont plus fermement ancrÃ©s dans le travail de la connaissance sous la forme de plateformes collaboratives â€” c’est ce que l’on appelle dÃ©sormais l’Entreprise 2.0.
Ceux d’entre nous qui connaissent le milieu des moyennes et grandes organisations voient pourquoi le postulat dictÃ© par le Taylorisme (selon lequel le savoir est agencÃ© verticalement, utilisÃ© dans des structures pyramidales pour ensuite redescendre au niveau exÃ©cutif) se trouve aujourd’hui sur le point d’exploser dans le monde de rÃ©seaux interconnectÃ©s dans lequel de nombreuses personnes travaillent aujourd’hui.
Ces phÃ©nomÃ¨nes gÃ©nÃ¨rent dÃ©saccord et ambiguÃ¯tÃ© car les objectifs fixÃ©s, l’attribution des tÃ¢ches, les modalitÃ©s de rÃ©munÃ©ration et les systÃ¨mes de bonus sont gÃ©nÃ©ralement basÃ©s sur la structure verticale des connaissances et leur utilisation intervient dans le cadre d’initiatives planifiÃ©es et structurÃ©es. Comme le travail de la connaissance est rÃ©alisÃ© en grande partie par les individus qui communiquent et Ã©changent des informations par le biais dâ€™hyperliens au sein des rÃ©seaux sociaux (lieu de rÃ©sidence du savoir) et les dirigent lÃ oÃ¹ il y en a besoin, le schÃ©ma vertical des connaissances se trouve ainsi perturbÃ©, voire menacÃ©.
Peu importe qu’il y ait beaucoup de dÃ©bats autour du besoin de leadership Ã tous les niveaux ou encore de la responsabilisation et la dÃ©mocratisation des travailleurs dans une organisation X ou Y. La gestion de la performance et les niveaux tant de rÃ©munÃ©ration que hiÃ©rarchiques ne se sont pas encore acclimatÃ©s Ã l’environnement ni au monde en rÃ©seau.
What Does Culture Look Like in a Company All about HR?
“Yesterday I wrote about the steps needed to proactively manage company culture. Today, Iâ€™d like to look at one company who does just that â€“ LinkedIn.
Youâ€™d think a company all about serving the needs of Human Resources would get this right, but thatâ€™s certainly not always the case. However, LinkedIn does get it right. Indeed, they take it to a level I rarely see â€“ adding an additional layer of â€œdimension.â€
So our culture has five dimensions: transformation, integrity, collaboration, humor and results. And there are six values: members first; relationships matter; be open, honest and constructive; demand excellence; take intelligent risks; and act like an owner. And by far the most important one is members first. We as a company are only as valuable as the value we create for our members
Itâ€™s how the values are different from culture thatâ€™s important
â€“ the values are very clearly behavioral actions
. The values clearly say, â€œGo behave this way in how you get your job done.â€
Culture is who we are. Itâ€™s essentially the personality of our company â€” who we are and who we aspire to be. Values are the principles upon which we make day-to-day decisions.
Gary Hamel On Innovating Innovation
“I talked with Gary Hamel last week about the new M-Prize challenge on Innovating Innovation. The challenge is organized by the Management Innovation eXchange (MIX), an open innovation platform that aims to â€œcrowd-source the future of management.â€ Among other things, it launches idea-challenges called â€œM-Prizesâ€ to stimulate contributions from their community of management practitioners. Previous M-Prize challenges have focused on â€œManagement 2.0â€ and â€œBeyond Bureaucracyâ€. This time, the focus is on â€œinnovating innovationâ€.”
Weâ€™re never going to build a truly innovative company without a gene-replacement therapy.
. Moreover, my guess is that most of those â€œsatisfiedâ€ managers werenâ€™t benchmarking themselves against Apple [AAPL] or Amazon [AMZN]. They were thinking about their other lackluster peers, and worrying about whether they were even up to snuff there.
You look at a company like Nokia [NOK], which for a time was absolutely a product innovator. Their original candy-bar shaped phones were a huge design innovation. Then they lost it.
Procter & Gamble [PG] was celebrated as an innovation power-house. They had this model of â€œconnect and developâ€, where they were trawling the world for new innovation ideas. Yet, by their own admission, they have struggled over the last few years to come up with groundbreaking innovation.
A DNA-level problem
First, innovation isnâ€™t like something that weâ€™d like to have and so we just go out and get it. Organizations were built to do things that are antithetical to innovation. Organizations were built around principles that deify conformance, control, alignment, discipline and efficiency. The principles that organizations have at their core are antithetical to innovation.
Building a capability takes time
Secondly, if you want to create an innovation capability, you cannot do it in a piecemeal fashion. What often happens in organizations is that they have a series of unlinked and partial innovation programs. Somewhere there will be an idea-wiki. Somewhere else, there will be an innovation rewards ceremony. Somewhere else there will be a CEO slush fund or an internal venturing arm that vets new business ideas. So those efforts are not joined up. They are incomplete.
You have to train people how to be business innovators. If you donâ€™t train them, the quality of the ideas that you get in an innovation marketplace is not likely to be high
An innovation marketplace wonâ€™t work unless thereâ€™s a rapid feedback process.
There also have to be clear criteria around which your ideas get evaluated and then funded.
And the decision needs to be linked to the availablity of experimental capital.
There are so many things that you have to think through and get right, and a lot of companies just havenâ€™t thought this through in a truly systemic way
So if you want innovation capability, you have to have all these thingsâ€”training, funding, and accountability for it at every level of the organization
But we do have to think about innovation as a systemic capability, with the skills, the metrics, the policies, the values, and the IT platform that support innovation
Organic sharing of innovations
The organic route draws on the fact that thereâ€™s actually a lot of innovation going on. Companies are tackling individual pieces of this problem. They may not have seen it as systemically as we do. But by starting to aggregate these innovations together, people can learn from each other and see where are the missing pieces in their own innovation efforts.