Wednesday, 22 July 2009

Gaining Social Advantage

 

  

 

I’ve been posting about Social Advantage for some time now.

Social Advantage expresses a combination of Social Capital and Competitive Advantage – which is what this blog is about.

I had thought about calling this blog ‘Social Advantage’ too, but couldn’t get the right url.  However, I now have it, so this blog will shortly be moving to http://blog.social-advantage.com.

I still like the name ‘Competitive Society’ as an alternative description of the ‘New Social Business’ or even ‘Enterprise 2.0’, but I don’t think it would be the right title for my book.

Mind you, even ‘Social Advantage’ has other connotations:

  • ‘My social advantage’ which appears to be a rather dodgy promotion scheme.  I wouldn’t say it is / was a pyramid scheme, but other people certainly have.
  • The principle of maximum aggregate welfare - a fundamental principle of public finance. This principle states that public finance leads to economic welfare when public expenditure and taxation are carried to that point where the benefit derived from the MU (marginal utility) of expenditure is equal to the marginal disutility of sacrifice imposed by taxation. In other words, maximum social advantage or aggregate welfare is the result of two contradictory and opposite forces. One, which tries to increase it… (you get the idea).

 

I guess there’s always going to be some drawbacks no matter what the name!

 

 

 

 

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Tuesday, 21 July 2009

    HRZone: HR blogging comes of age

     

          My latest blogosphere bulletin is up at HR Zone.  I write about the tweeting, blogging, podcasting etc which has taken place recently at SHRM’s annual conference, and suggest that this is the first sign of HR blogging becoming a bit more mainstream.

    I hope the CIPD reacts to this and we see something similar in the UK (first signs aren’t encouraging – they haven’t responded to the question I tweeted them as yet).

    I’ll let you read the full article (free membership required) but would like to re-emphasise my final points:

    “So what are the lessons from all of this? One is about the opportunity to add value to traditional events through the use of web 2.0 and social networking technologies – and is something that applies to in-company as well as sector-based events. Just imagine if your own annual conference got this much attention within your own company!”

    “And of course, this attention is something that can be generated and sustained throughout the whole year as well. Social media may raise issues over security, productivity and potential legal problems, but it provides a great opportunity to raise engagement and productivity as well.”

     

    I really do think there are some great opportunities for organisations here.

     

    Resources:

     

    Technorati Tags: ,,,

     

  • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
  • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
  • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
  • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

    .

  • Monday, 13 July 2009

    HR web 2.0 applications / Resources

     

           I’ve been asked by a contact of mine to suggest some resources for information on companies using web 2.0 applications within HR ie for recruitment, learning, engagement etc.

    This is my short list.  Any suggestions – what have I missed?

     

    General:

    Bertrand Duperrin’s Notepad

    Michael Specht

    Steve Boese’s HR Technology

    Learning on the Leading Edge

    Knowledge Infusion Centre of Excellence

    Strategic HCM

    Talking HR

    Bill Kutik Radio Show

    Matt Lafata

     

    Recruitment:

    ERE

    Sirona Says

    Recruitment 2.0

    HR Capitalist

    Fistful of Talent

    Jessica Lee Writes

    Marenated

    Human Capitalist

    All Abord

     

    Learning:

    New Learning Playbook

    Centre for Learning and Performance Technologies

    Clive on Learning

    Dare to Share

     

    Engagement / Communications / Employer branding (I've not included things like FIR that relate to broader uses for communication):

    Melcrum

    Polly Pearson

     

     

    As well as the above blogs and podcasts, there are a few print reports that I will also suggest may be useful, for example, the latest CIPD report.  Again, any others?

     

     

    Technorati Tags: ,,

    Graphic: http://creatr.cc/creatr/ 

    ypdnv5wsz4

     

  • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
  • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
  • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
  • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

    .

  • Sunday, 12 July 2009

    Implementing Enterprise 2.0

     

    Implementing Enterprise 20 The other book for which certain chapters have been made available online is Ross Dawson’s Implementing Enterprise 2.0.

    Of particular interest to me is Chapter 11 – Social Networks in the Enterprise (and for my day job: Chapter 20 – Implications for HR, but this isn’t available without payment).

    Dawson notes that:

    “Social networks, while potentially extremely valuable to organisations, are possibly the most difficult of the Enterprise 2.0 suite of tools to implement successfully. The most important challenges are behavioural, though there are also notable technological challenges.”

     

    In addition, there are particular challenges that need to be addressed in implementing internal social networks:

    “The best focus for initial adoption of internal social networks is specific teams or groups, within which it can be fairly easy to gain majority or significant uptake in a brief period. These groups can then help seed contacts in other groups across the firm.”

     

    This reminds me of some earlier posts touching on the different ways to introduce social media.

    I actually think these different approaches relate to the three levels of value in the value triangle.  I’ll post further on this shortly.

     

     

     

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Saturday, 11 July 2009

    Andrew McAfee, Enterprise 2.0

     

    Frs.FrsGetImage   Chapter 1 of Andrew McAfee’s new book, Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Oragnisation’s Toughest Challenges is now available at Harvard Business Press to tie in with the Enterprise 2.0 conference.

    It looks like it’s going to be a good read.

    However, I’ve never been completely comfortable with McAfree’s definition of Enterprise 2.0.  As he explains at the start of the chapter,

    “I coined the term Enterprise 2.0 to describe how these same technologies could be used on organisations’ intranets and extranets, and to convey the impact they would have on business.”

     

    This is what’s led to a problem which continues to be associated with E2.0: that it’s all about the technology.

    It’s not, or at least it shouldn’t be.  (Perhaps in reference to one of McAfee’s blog posts, I should say it’s not not not about the technology???)

    We need to move from a technological to a sociological perspective in our exploration of E2.0.

    Take a look at the attributes McAfee ascribes to E2.0 (posted in a recent rebuttal to Gary Hamel’s suggestions for management 2.0 – incidentally a rebuttal based on the limits of technology, rather than the opportunities of sociology):

    1. Hamel: All ideas compete on equal footing. McAfee: No ideas are above review or commentary; there are no sacred cows within the organization.
    2. Contribution counts for more than credentials. Credentials are not necessary for making contributions.
    3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed. Some hierarchies are allowed to form naturally.
    4. Leaders serve rather than preside. Leaders expand their toolkit by using 2.0 technologies and participating in the resulting communities. They blog, tweet, join social networks, and use 2.0 technologies to show why they’ve ascended to high positions.
    5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned.
    6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing. Just as with hierarchies, some tasks and groups are self-organizing.
    7. Resources get attracted, not allocated. This is a tough one. Current resource allocation processes are highly hierarchical. Even when initiatives arise from emergent work, they get funded officially from the top down. It’s hard to see how to effectively change this. Ideas, anyone?
    8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it. One way to become powerful is to share information, refine and improve it, and/or use it to connect people with each other.
    9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed. Decisions are subject to peer scrutiny. In other words, the crowd has the ability to weigh in on the direction the company is taking. This is very different than giving all crowd members veto power, or even a vote. Enterprise 2.0 does not mean setting up a corporate democracy (even Wikipedia is not a democracy).
    10. Users can veto most policy decisions. See #9. I think and hope that individuals will have greater voice within organizations in the future, but not greater veto power.
    11. Intrinsic rewards matter most. Companies use 2.0 tools and approaches to tap into a wider mix of motivations – both intrinsic and extrinsic. One note here: it’s important not to confuse intrinsic vs. extrinsic with small vs. big, or monetary vs. non-monetary.
    12. Hackers are heroes. Dissenters are valued as long as they do two things: justify their arguments with logic and facts (or at least lay out how to test their hypotheses), and strive to be helpful to others and productive for the organization. “Everything sucks and this place is run by morons” is the stance of a sullen adolescent, not a courageous truth-teller.

     

    Whatever we decide about the validity of Hamel’s or McAfee’s thinking, it is these attributes that are important, not the method an organisation uses to develop them – which could be web 2.0, or it could be something else.

    And actually I think this list is to prescribed anyway.  Some of these may be appropriate for a particular organisation and some may not.

    So it’s even more useful to think about the outcomes – what does Enterprise 2.0 produce?  And to me, it’s social capital – the basis for organisational Social Advantage.

    It’s this that is the missing link in McAfee’s analysis so far – it’ll be interesting to see whether it’s addressed in his book or not…

     

     

     

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Friday, 10 July 2009

    Enterprise 2.0 / the Kumbaya Zone

     

    The Kumbaya Zone  I’ve been following the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston.

    One of the issues that seems to have been coming through is – what is Enterprise 2.0 designed to do?

    For instance, in ‘Enterprise 2.0: Confronting Social Media's Dirty Little Secret’, Information Week’s Alexander Wolfe suggests:

    “Everyone is seeking ways (and tools) to connect people in more collaborative ways. Perhaps that's because many companies have been stripped-mined into flatness, where today's employees have to cut through layers to get stuff done, because those layers just don't exist anymore. Or maybe it's because of the geographically dispersed nature of modern workteams.”

     

    And in ‘Enterprise 2.0: A solution in search of a problem’, Victoria Axelrod at 21st Century Organization notes that:

    “The emphasis needs to be on the who, not the how which is where E2.0 has focused despite protestations of its proponents.”

     

    Michael Krigsman (quoting Jonathan Yarmis) may have expressed it best, discussing the need to avoid the Kumbaya Zone at IT project Failures on ZDNet:

    “The Kumbaya Zone is where we all sit around the campfire, singing odes to social media, and how important it is to “engage in the conversation.” If I hear that phrase one more time, I think I’ll go crazy. Instead, we need to apply social media strategies with a sound business strategy in mind. Why should I do this? Which conversations do I want to engage in?What outcomes do I hope to achieve from engaging in those conversations?”

     

    I’d agree – although I still think this suggests a overly heavy technology focus.  We need to begin with the business strategy – the social media strategy falls out of that.

    I’ve not been a strong supported of Enterprise 2.0 in the way it’s been defined (Andrew McAfee etc), and I’ve suggested ‘Social Business’ and ‘Competitive Society’ as alternatives.

    But I do actually like the 2.0 tag – as long as it’s applied to something ‘social’, not just something different, particularly not just slightly different.  I think this suggests a clear qualitative, not just a qualitative change.

    And I think there’s still a clear opportunity for Enterprise 2.0 to inform this transformative change.  But for this to happen, we need to put developing social capital (not technology) first.

     

     

    Picture credit: The Kumbaya Zone, ZDNet

     

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Tuesday, 7 July 2009

    Reith Lectures 2009: A New Politics of the Common Good

     

       Sandel’s last Reith lecture (also see my post on his first lecture) has dealt with how the government can mimick the market:

    “It’s the idea that government should try to replicate the outcomes that competitive markets would produce if all goods and resources were properly priced.”

     

    Sandel descrbed how trying to price goods that can’t be priced – accurately or morally – often results in dysfunctional outcomes::

    “Consider environmental policy. If air and water are “free” - that is unpriced - then companies and consumers will produce too much pollution. So government’s job is to set regulations to correct for this market failure - through cap and trade, for example, or a carbon tax.

    To do this, the policymakers have to ask how much pollution is too much. And to answer this question, they have to figure out what value to place on clean air, clean water, and the resulting health benefits. Here’s where “market-mimicking governance” comes into play. In order to make these calculations, regulators often use “cost-benefit analysis”: they place a monetary value on the benefits of clean air and water, compare them with the costs, and set regulations accordingly.”

    It sounds perfectly sensible. What’s wrong with comparing the costs and benefits of government regulation? Nothing - if by comparing costs and benefits you simply mean assessing the advantages and disadvantages of a given policy.

    But cost-benefit analysis aspires to scientific rigour. It tries to assign a monetary value to costs and benefits. It tries to mimic the market. And here’s where it goes wrong. Many of the benefits of public policy involve values that can’t be captured in monetary terms - most notably, the value of human life…

    Monetising all costs and benefits makes for a spurious science that shifts decision-making from democratic politics to technocrats.”

     

    As with Sandel’s first lecture, I’d make the point that these concerns apply within organisations too. There is always going to be a desire to value things like social capital – firstly, because they are so important, and secondly, as a result of the human need to manage and control (for example, as a result of the oft quoted but in my view, erroneous belief that ‘you can only manage what you can measure’).

    But I don’t think this is appropriate. And I think Sandel has nicely expressed why.

     

    Photo credit: AntonyB

     

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Wednesday, 1 July 2009

    Does blogging support or hinder conference attendance?

     

         I’ve been tracking commentary (via blogs and twitter etc) on three different conferences recently – the Social Recruiting summit at the Googleplex, Enterprise 2.0 in and SHRM annual conference in New Orleans.  All have been easy and interesting to follow, although this  is still a long way from being anything like the experience you can get from physical attendance.

    I can also image that this much social communication must add value to the attendees who are using these tools.  I have to imagine as I’ve not yet attended one where the tools are being used extensively – I usually end up being the sole person tweeting or blogging, which I still find helpful to me, and I hope others do too, but it is obviously a much more solitary experience.

    In fact, if I were to want to attend any of these conferences next year, I would probably do so in order to meet and network with these other bloggers and tweeters, rather than for anything on the formal agenda of these events.

    But am I (and probably you, as a reader of this blog) in a minority here?

    What about the non-social media user attending theses events?  (This probably applies more to the SHRM conference than the other two where most attendees are going to the conference because of their interests in social media.) 

    The good news is that heavy social media reporting is going to encourage these people to start using the tools.  (It’s encouraging that the SHRM conference post on the ‘HR Bloggers’ session, Who Are These People and Why Should I Care?, is one of the most popular, but then again this is based upon a population of people who are already reading a blog).

    The danger is I guess that even though these people are only going to see or know about a small fraction of the conversation going on on-line (blogs, tweets, SHRM Connect etc), this may be enough to make them feel part of the ‘out-crowd’, making them feel less welcome.

    Is the heavy focus on media one reason why attendance at the SHRM conference has dropped 4000 people from 2008?

    And how do we balance our need to connect and build relationships with people using these tools, while not excluding those who don’t?

    What do you think?

     

     

    • Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
    • Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
    • Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
    • jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

    .

    Tuesday, 30 June 2009

    Cisco’s Collaboration Framework

     

       Cisco have launched a new guide describing use of their Collaboration Framework, ‘Creating a Collaborative Enterprise’.

    The guide is designed to help other organisations learn from Cisco’s experience, and gain some of the same benefits from enhanced collaboration:

    “The Cisco guide helps employees and customers accelerate business value creation for collaboration and avoid pitfalls through the use of a collaboration framework. This framework helps organizations effectively incorporate collaboration into their operations by integrating the right people, process, and technology components at the right time.”

     

    The importance of collaboration

    Cisco explain that their guide / framework respond to the evolution of web 2.0 / social networking and other technologies including multimedia communications, technologies such as virtual workspaces, web conferencing applications, text messaging, Internet phone services.

    These new technologies are enabling organizations make great changes to more quickly and effectively connect people, information, and knowledge communities.

    The key outcome is collaboration - the act of people working together to reach a common goal.  This is much more than communication. It is the way that all the people in an enterprise function together.

    Collaboration has always been important in business as it supports knowledge management and also responds to our natural needs, as social animals, to interact with each other.

    But the new technologies, new pressures on businesses and demands of Gen Y are making it more important than ever.

    In fact, Cisco believes collaboration is the “next big thing” and is heralding a major transformation in business which provides opportunities for greater agility, exceptional levels of productivity and competitive advantage:

    “Organizations need to make use of new collaboration possibilities or face a significant competitive disadvantage.  Companies that successfully adopt new collaborative processes will be able to move faster, make better decisions, draw from a deeper base of information, and more effectively operate across time and distance barriers. As is always the case in business, either you pull ahead or the competition will.”

    The role of people, process and technology

    Cisco’s framework is built on these three components.  However, although the opportunity is built upon new technology, it is people and process that are the most important parts.

    This is because, unlike past IT advances, collaboration technologies are about increasing access to the latent knowledge stored within employees, partners, customers and even the broader public (which might harbour unknown experts with special insight.  And this human element makes web 2.0 and social networking tools different from
    IT improvements of the past:

    “The tacit knowledge in a person’s mind is much harder to capture and codify. It is complex, rapidly changing, and often a bit messy. New collaborative communications tools, including blogs, virtual workspaces, wikis, desktop video, telepresence conferences, web conferencing, presence communications, and instant messaging, offer new ways to tap such crucial information.”

     

    -   People

    This component of the framework focuses on ways to influence people’s attitudes and collaborative behaviours: “what people believe, how they feel about something, and what they think is proper behavior”.

    New behavioural expectations need to be clearly defined, developed, and incorporated into an organisation’s culture.

    Relevant levers include:

    • Leadership values, expectations and competencies
    • Management practices,
    • Company, management and individual performance measurements
    • Incentives and rewards
    • Developing / communicating role models
    • Employee and workplace, including hiring policies.
    • Collaboration readiness benchmarking and progress tracking.

    -   Processes

    In a collaborative environment, the unit of performance shifts from the individual to the group or team.

    This means that traditional systems of performance will not work effectively (“that is, individual systems produce competition,
    whereas team systems produce collaboration”).

    Management models, processes (including governance, decision making, skills cultivation, funding, and operational logistics, with a strong emphasis on review-and-improve cycles) and HR systems need to change to reward and recognise the right behaviours.

    Relevant levers include models and processes for:

    • Staffing
    • Priority setting and funding
    • Support services
    • Leadership and management development
    • Data sharing
    • Internal change management consulting (collaboration experts)
    • Systems of accountability and management for group performance.

     

    -   Technology

    Including wikis, blogs, virtual workspaces, video etc, ideally provided through a single intranet portal (providing individuals with personalisation options to best support their unique needs).

    Networks ideally should support:

    • Voice over IP (VoIP) to provide fully integrated teleconferencing capabilities with multimedia web applications
    • Video capabilities, especially to facilitate collaboration among remote employees
    • High-fidelity communications, which enhance the effectiveness of many collaboration tools
    • Easy-to-use, dependable tools readily available through the corporate network
    • Integration with internal systems for supporting existing business processes, such as inventory management, sales, and
      manufacturing.

     

    Cisco also notes:

    “Organizations can build efficiency into collaborative tool development by finding replicable models, such as “virtual expert”
    or “virtual teaming” modules that can be repurposed for a wide range of business scenarios.

    These kinds of models focus on the type of interaction rather than the business model or operational function. Cisco estimates
    that up to 80 percent of all collaboration processes can be addressed by replicable tools.”

     

    Cisco’s own experience

    Cisco’s framework has clearly been built on the company’s own experience, and that of its partners in its Collaboration Consortium.

    The company has one primary operations organization for the vast majority of the company, with few divisions or large subsidiaries. Everything must work together as one. The more transparently that happens, the more productively Cisco’s 60,000 employees can work.

    Cisco has therefore spent the past 8 years moving from a command-and-control operation dominated by competing departments to a widely cross-functional company that uses collaborative councils, boards and working groups which facilitate executive decision-making, create cross functional alignment, and guide business initiatives. (see a previous post of mine that also refers to some of this).

    Cisco now has more than 750 company leaders involved in councils, boards, and related working groups. But Cisco’s goal is to broaden
    participation to 2500 or more employees.

    These various teams are supported by Cisco’s executive collaboration process, C-Change, which helps collaboration across virtual, global teams by ensuring everyone speaks the same language and by prescribing steps to establish group norms which offer ‘a common social foundation’:

    “Organizational structures need to reflect collaborative activities. Command-and-control management does not work well with collaboration. Cisco has spent the past 8 years moving from a command-and-control operation dominated by competing departments to a widely cross-functional company that uses collaborative councils, boards, and working groups. These senior leadership teams facilitate executive decision making, create cross-functional alignment, and guide business initiatives.

    In 2006 Ron Ricci, vice president of corporate positioning, formed a team to observe what works in councils and boards. The team
    documented what it saw and called it C-Change. C-Change teaches ‘the people aspect: culture and process, and helps apply
    the technology aspect. The principals of C-Change can lead to effective collaboration for any type of group,’ Ricci says.”

     

    In addition, Cisco used a range of video and voice communication tools (it’s own offerings – Webex, TelePresence etc) to support its transformation.  One example is C-Vision:

    “C-Vision is a video forum like YouTube, but inside the corporate firewall. On C-Vision, employees can easily make and post
    desktop-quality videos for viewing at websites or on blogs. Cisco does not yet have a specific strategy for C-Vision. For now, it just provides another way to communicate besides emails and written blogs. This is okay, though. By making it easy for employees to try video, Cisco is helping employees become more adept at using the technology.”

     

    The framework also describes the importance of change management, and Cisco’s own experience of going through their major change process.  For example, although Cisco’s CEO, John Chambers knew that he had to sponsor the change, he initially resisted suggestions to blog, recognising that “even for fast typists, written blogs can take a lot of time “ (don’t I know it!), but later took to video blogging and now often communicates with his employees this way.

    Guided by the best practices of this framework, Cisco saved US$691 million and increased productivity 4.9 percent in fiscal year 2008.

     

    Changing to become more collaborative

    Cisco points out that collaboration takes time and a sustained effort to mature in any organisation.

    To support this effort, the framework provides “a clear evolutionary path and a portfolio of structured methodologies” based upon three phases: investigation, performance, and transformation, which help organizations move beyond a tactical, fragmented approach to a truly
    strategic approach to collaboration that can be implemented throughout an entire organisation.

    The focus is firstly, on taking advantage of the uses of web 2.0 and social networking technologies that are most likely springing up in an organisation (likely perpetrated by younger, Gen Y employees).

    And secondly, the focus is also on ‘Collaboration Impact Zones’ –intersections of information exchanges and expertise at which web 2.0 and social networking collaboration tools can help most ( a concept which I think is similar to the differentiated workforce in HCM):

    “Collaboration ‘impact zones’ are the building blocks of the Cisco Collaboration Framework.  Collaboration zones are the highest-intensity intersections of interactions, information, and expertise in your organizational ecosystem (employees, partners, customers, etc.).  These are the high-value areas that, if improved through better collaboration, can most improve your organization’s business and management processes.”


    The key activity is the creation of a ‘Collaboration Vision and Strategy’ which carefully aligns new collaboration efforts with business goals. This allows organisations to identify, prioritise, and sequence the initiatives necessary for establishing new business and management processes.

    Some of the questions to ask in developing this vision include:

    • How do you want the organization to change in the next 3 to 5 years?
    • What does the organization need to do to get there?
    • What role can collaboration play in achieving additional levels of process performance?
    • What sequence of activities is needed to build the necessary collaborative capabilities?

     

    In addition,organisations should take the following actions during the investigation phase of their process:

    People:

    • Define collaboration
    • Help ensure that executives lead the way
    • Establish a code of business conduct
    • Create intellectual property and nondisclosure policies
    • Develop collaborative decision-making processes.

    Processes

    • Develop a community of experts.

    Technology

    • Create a technology “sandbox,” for experimentation
    • Consider virtual teaming and collaborative processes.

     

    To develop this strategy, an organisation first needs to use social mapping techniques and tools to find out how it collaborates now.

     

    My thoughts on the framework 

    I like most of what this very comprehensive framework includes.  I certainly agree with the need to see this sort of change more from a people than a technology point of view:

    ”It is no accident that people and processes are listed before technology as framework components.  People and process concepts blend fluidly. They both combine to create behavioral changes that lead to operational improvements in an organization. While technology is the crucial catalyst for enabling improved collaborative activities, the success of such efforts hinges on the behavioral changes that must take place through
    leadership, people, and processes.”

     

    However, I think this shift in focus could still go further.  Collaboration doesn’t have to depend on social networking tools, and I’d have preferred to see even greater focus on the behavioural change than the technology.  See this point from Cisco’s document for example:

    ”Investments in information technology help organizations change the way they can do business. But technology cannot change old habits. Time and time again, Cisco has found that leadership coupled with strategic management is the most effective way to create the organizational changes necessary to take best advantage of advances in technology.”

     

    Actually, it’s not about taking advantage of technology, it’s all about the organisational change!

    So, I also like many of the tools included in the framework, particularly C-Change.  But I think the need for social norms (common vocabularies, behaviours etc) to support collaboration applies to all organisations, whether or not they are using social technologies.

    My other criticisms are about, firstly, the evolutionary change process – I don’t believe organisations need to start with an investigation phase (based again, upon use of social networking technologies – or ‘spontaneous use of web 2.0’), then a performance phase, before seeking to transform:

    “Using these new tools to create a more collaborative enterprise is not an easy task.  Deploying the technology is only one part of the process. Moving from experimental, impromptu use of social networking capabilities to strategic, companywide implementation requires close attention to cultural and procedural changes throughout an organization.”

     

    I think organisations can start work on the transformation phase straight away.  And  given the scale of the opportunity (Cisco’s ‘next big thing’), I’d advise organisations to do just that.  (I don’t mean to imply that organisations can do everything they are going to need to at the same time – but I do believe they should focus on the end vision from the very start – ensuring that all activities blend seamlessly as part of the bigger transformation.)

    Also, I don’t believe focus should be restricted to ‘collaboration impact zones’.  I understand their desire to prioritise, but to get the sorts of benefits Cisco have referred to, I think the whole organisation, and everyone in the organisation needs to change.

     

    Overall though, I’d agree with Oliver Marks at ZDNet that this is one of the best and useful guides to collaboration that organisations can use to help them gain more value from their people and (supported by web 2.0 technology).

     

     

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  • Wednesday, 10 June 2009

    Rebuilding trust

     

           There’s a major focus on trust in Harvard Business Review this month.

    Referring to the declining levels of trust found in this year’s Edelman Trust Barometer, HBR’s editor notes:

    “If companies can’t address this problem, an economic turnaround may be delayed indefinitely:  Banks won’t lend money; innovation will slow to a crawl; trade across borders will fall even more rapidly; governments will overregulate the private sector; unemployment numbers will continue to rise; and consumers won’t open their wallets for anything they consider nonessential.  A complex modern economy simply can’t function unless people believe that its institutions are fundamentally sound.”

     

    One of the bodies receiving criticism is the business school, with MBA graduates being seen as ‘greedy, selfish creatures’.  In ‘The Buck Stops and Starts at Business School’, Joel Podolny suggests:

    “Business schools have largely ignored the teaching of values and ethics because those aren't subjects of inquiry for traditional business school academic disciplines. The consequences have been disastrous. For instance, when HBS professor Scott Snook recently surveyed MBA students, he found that a third regarded right and wrong as defined by the norm. That is, if several people were following a course of action, the students felt it was OK for them to do the same. Even when business schools teach ethics courses, as some of them started doing in the wake of the Enron fiasco, they do so in a vacuum. Teaching one ethics course doesn't ensure that a marketing professor will, for instance, discuss privacy-related issues while describing the Net's use as a marketing medium. On the contrary, because of a lack of interest, perhaps, or a fear of leading a discussion in an area outside their expertise, faculty members often stay away from teaching the normative aspects of business.”

     

    Podolny suggests a range of solutions to this problem, but I’ve also been drawn to an article in the New York Times, ‘A Promise to Be Ethical in an Era of Immorality’, which discussed a group of graduates from Harvard Business School who would be taking a new oath to remain ethical throughout their careers.

    This idea has panned quite widely, including in this post (and most of the comments) from Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.  But I’ll admit that I’m quite drawn to the idea – it at least attempts to make change at the right sort of level (belief as well as behaviour).

    What else do you think would help develop trust in managers and other business professionals?

     

    Photo credit: Bridge builders by Gyula Drekovits

     

  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com

    .

  •