Archive for the ‘collaboration’ Category

Video review of Andrew McAfee’s “Enterprise 2.0″

Monday, November 30th, 2009

enterprise2.0TRANSCRIPT:

We’re here today to talk about “Enterprise 2.0” by Andrew McAfee. He is with MIT, used to be at Harvard Business School. Just switched over a couple of months ago. He writes an excellent blog on IT and business, that I’d recommend you read if you haven’t come across it yet. And so, he’s just produced his first book. To explain the title, Enterprise 2.0 is a term he coined to refer to using web 2.0 tools like Flickr, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and similar tools in a business context.

The book is a lot like a recent book, “Groundswell,” that explained to general business people how social tools affected customers and markets and how to use those to communicate and listen. Communicating from inside the business to outside. “Enterprise 2.0″ performs a similar task, focusing on using those tools inside the business, more for collaboration and tapping the collective intelligence of employees. And so it takes this marginal topic and moves it to a general management-type discussion. Which I think is really important, to get it out of the IT discussion into the management discussion.

So as part of that objective he does a really good job of explaining how these tools work and also what ties them together because if you think about tools like Flickr or YouTube or a blogging platform or a messaging platform or a wiki there are a lot of differences among those but he’s tied together the common threads, using an acronym called SLATES (search, links, authoring, tags, extensions and signals). Signals, for example, like RSS that allows people who follow these platforms without having to log on to them every single hour to see what’s changed.

Another important part of the book is in putting the different tools into a context in terms of how useful they’d be for different organizational problems. He uses a bullseye metaphor focused on the strength of ties between colleagues to explain that. At the center of the bullseye are strongly-tied colleagues meaning people who work together in the same department, in the same location, all the way out to the edge of the bullseye. meaning colleagues who have no relationship at all. Different tools apply at different levels of the bullseye. In the center, people with strong ties would use tools like wikis, or collaborative development tools, like Google Docs.

Midway out the bullseye are colleagues with weak ties. People who know each other but don’t get together often, who don’t talk often, but would like to keep apprised of each other’s activities for the purposes of sharing knowledge, best practices, identifying solutions to problems, and so forth. For that ring of the bullseye, Facebook-like tools are very useful.

At the outer edge of the bullseye, where colleagues have no relationship other than that they work for the same company, a prediction market is a useful tool, that gathers people’s guesses about the possibility of certain things happening like a certain sales volume being reached or likelihood an innovation will succeed in the marketplace and aggregating that information to get a better answer than any individual would come up with themselves.

He doesn’t go overboard in terms of enthusiasm for how great these things are and how it’ll change companies overnight, and he has a pretty clear-eyed view of how difficult it is going to be to bring these tools to wide use. It just takes a long time -and he dwells on that at some extent – how long it takes for revolutionary innovations to take hold, and he doesn’t think this is any different, though he is optimistic that it’ll happen eventually.

And finally in the book he talks about kind of different management models or practices that work well with these tools, and by contrast he talks about typical Model 1 behaviors which are more command-and-control type behaviors, self-protecting behaviors and less-collaborative behaviors, which don’t go well with these new tools. To really utilize these new tools, people have to adopt what he calls Model 2 behaviors, which are collaborative, not so much focused on self-protection but looking out for the best interests of the company. Quite a different model than what most people have seen where they work. And I think that heaps underline the challenges in getting these systems adopted and in wide use.

It’s an excellent book, very well-organized and well-written. It takes an important topic and brings it into the mainstream. I really enjoyed it and I think you will too.

“Story banks” for dispersed collaborative communities

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

The Mistake Bank is a project that continues to surprise and delight. A couple of blog posts from Scott Berkun and Nat Torkington on O’Reilly Radar brought a few hundred new visitors and several dozen new members over the past week.*

This shows, I think, that the idea of story banks–collections of stories on a certain topics which users can read, comment on and share–has legs. And over the past few weeks, in part due to spending time with the New Tech Meetup of Central PA and meeting the folks from Symbian at CTIA, I’ve been thinking that story banks are a powerful tool that distributed development communities can use to share tips, tricks, even mistakes/dead ends/failures.

The story bank I’m thinking about combines the experience I’ve developed curating The Mistake Bank with a story-bank platform like Cynthia Kurtz’ Rakontu, deployed in a company or development community (like Symbian) as a way of sharing deep lessons among people who aren’t anywhere near each other physically, and at the same time developing a shared culture and values through the stories they tell and retell.

I’m looking for companies/groups who might like to pilot the idea. If you want to get in on the experiment, email me at john (at) caddellinsightgroup (dot) com or leave contact information in the comments.

*Ajeet left a great comment on the Radar blog to the effect that the Mistake Bank is the only bank guaranteed to grow into perpetuity. How true!

Female guru alert: Amy Edmondson in July/Aug HBR

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008

Amy Edmondson of Harvard Business School appeared on our recent list of Overlooked Female Business Gurus, and she has also published an article in the July/August Harvard Business Review. Titled “The Competitive Imperative of Learning,” it’s a blockbuster that will cement her position on the guru list for some time to come.

Edmondson persuasively argues that a focus on efficiency in most companies chokes off resources for innovation and learning and creates an environment of harried, fearful employees rushing from task to task. Sound familiar?

In such an environment, given that the business, market and competitive playing field are changing continuously, the certainty is that the company will lack the learning, vision and insight to adapt itself to new realities. In essence, it will become a highly-efficient producer of last year’s products and services. The market will have moved on.

Edmondson’s work complements that of Dave Snowden and Mary Boone on the Cynefin Framework. Snowden & Boone describe simple and complex business contexts and the challenges these different contexts pose to managerial decisionmaking. In simple contexts, best practices and efficiency are the tools for success. But in complex contexts, learning, experimentation and adaptation are key.

As Edmondson points out, “the influx of knowledge in most fields makes it easy to fall behind.” In other words, the space where competitiveness is created today is the complex space.

Three key inhibitors to learning environments are time, safety and review. Efficiency-based companies don’t allow time to think and reflect–the emphasis is on processing and dispatching tasks quickly. (Gary Hamel discussed this issue nicely in “The Future of Management.”)

And few companies provide the psychological safety required in a learning environment. Learning requires failure, failure is stigmatized, therefore people try to avoid it. Or if it’s unavoidable, it is covered up or played down.

I can tell you based on my work to date on The Mistake Bank that psychological safety is a big issue. I have had numerous dialogues with colleagues, members, mentors, etc., which have involved the ramifications if someone were to discover the mistake the person has contributed to The Mistake Bank.

[My position on that matter is this: people who admit mistakes are more valuable to companies, customers and colleagues than those who don't--because we all know that everyone makes mistakes. No exceptions.]

Finally, Edmondson emphasizes the need for disciplined reflection and review. By evaluating, discussing and communicating the results of new ways of doing things, companies achieve the payoff of experimentation. My experience is that most companies don’t like to look back.

There’s a lot more to the article than I’ve discussed here. Read it when you have some time to think and reflect! (Better yet, talk about it with a colleague.)

Related posts:
Great innovation requires great teams
Leaders need to manage complexity
Toyota excels by revealing hidden problems
Stop studying the problem and just try something!
On Gary Hamel’s “The Future of Management”
For consultants, adopting the “Google 20%” is vital

Tags:
, , , , , ,

There’s a web2.0 hammer for lots of business nails

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

I was talking to a prospect today and they mentioned that their recent expansion had created an entire new level of people involved in their business. In other words, their staff now was communicating with end-clients through an array of agents and contractors, which had not been the case as much in the past. This raised the concern with them that they would not hear stories, both good and bad, from the front lines, and that they would struggle to communicate out to those end-clients.

After they finished speaking, I offhandedly said, “Have you thought of starting a social network where your clients, agents and contractors could all contribute?” Their kind of business has some strong unifying factors and a social network, to me, was a natural step to aid in the kind of communication they wanted.

They grabbed right onto the idea. It brought to mind Josh Bernoff’s (”Groundswell”) recent statement that few will make a business out of providing web2.0 tools to consumers, but many companies will thrive if they can create tools for use inside businesses.

And in today’s business world, there are opportunities to use these tools to greatly improve information flow, collaboration and idea generation. Here are some thoughts:

wikis…for group collaboration
social networks…for communicating with customers/partners
blogs and RSS…for communicating and listening to the broader industry or world at large
social bookmarking…for sharing interesting ideas
microblogging…to create a feeling of a virtual workspace

There are countless other possible examples. Andrew McAfee has an interesting take, where he assigns tools based on the strength of people’s ties. He also usefully points out that these tools work best when structures are allowed to emerge from the interaction of the participants, rather than being imposed by some authority.

(Picture by gerard79 via stock.xchng)

Related post:
Dell’s web2.0 efforts pay off

Tags:
, , , , ,

There’s a web2.0 hammer for lots of business nails

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

I was talking to a prospect today and they mentioned that their recent expansion had created an entire new level of people involved in their business. In other words, their staff now was communicating with end-clients through an array of agents and contractors, which had not been the case as much in the past. This raised the concern with them that they would not hear stories, both good and bad, from the front lines, and that they would struggle to communicate out to those end-clients.

After they finished speaking, I offhandedly said, “Have you thought of starting a social network where your clients, agents and contractors could all contribute?” Their kind of business has some strong unifying factors and a social network, to me, was a natural step to aid in the kind of communication they wanted.

They grabbed right onto the idea. It brought to mind Josh Bernoff’s (”Groundswell”) recent statement that few will make a business out of providing web2.0 tools to consumers, but many companies will thrive if they can create tools for use inside businesses.

And in today’s business world, there are opportunities to use these tools to greatly improve information flow, collaboration and idea generation. Here are some thoughts:

wikis…for group collaboration
social networks…for communicating with customers/partners
blogs and RSS…for communicating and listening to the broader industry or world at large
social bookmarking…for sharing interesting ideas
microblogging…to create a feeling of a virtual workspace

There are countless other possible examples. Andrew McAfee has an interesting take, where he assigns tools based on the strength of people’s ties. He also usefully points out that these tools work best when structures are allowed to emerge from the interaction of the participants, rather than being imposed by some authority.

(Picture by gerard79 via stock.xchng)

Related post:
Dell’s web2.0 efforts pay off

Tags:
, , , , ,

Making and keeping commitments: a must for success in business

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

In a brief but potent post, professional-services expert David Maister points out the importance of keeping commitments. (I touched on this topic in an earlier post.) Writes Maister,

It is OK to need more time as long as you ask for it ahead of time. It is OK to struggle and ask for help.

It is not OK to break your commitments. The fastest and surest way to fail is to break your word.

It’s a concept so basic as to seem trivial–yet the inability to create and honor commitments between co-workers, between managers and workers, and between workers and clients destroys value every single day, in every company, all over the world.

Maister focuses on one side–the responsibility of the assigned party to honor commitments. The other side also has responsibilities. Often people ask for commitments in a wishy-washy manner, which at minimum creates confusion and ambiguity, or at worst enables commitment-phobes to feign performance by using ambiguity as a rationale for non-action. Here are some examples:

  1. Manager A sends out a note to entire team asking for something to be done.
  2. Worker B sends email to co-worker, stating, “It would be great if you could do task X by next Friday. If I don’t hear from you by tomorrow I’ll assume that’s OK.”
  3. Client C makes the same demand several times, ignoring any counter-proposals made in the meantime, hoping to wear down the vendor until they simply agree out of fatigue.

In these cases, the ultimate responsbility, unfortunately, reverts back to the assignee. You frankly can’t allow people to get you to do things without creating the environment for a strong commitment. You need to probe and negotiate: “Which of us do you want to take this on, boss?” “I just got your note and I’m afraid I can’t meet your desired date. Can we discuss and come up with an alternative?” “Help me understand why you want it done this particular way.” etc. And then work to shape the request into a proper commitment that you can perform.

The environment that W. L. Gore Industries created (profiled in the new Gary Hamel book), is ideal for commitments. Any staffer asked to do something can accept or refuse the commitment. Once accepted, the commitment is expected to be completed. And a rigorous 360° review process incents people not to refuse every commitment (Bartleby the Scrivener wouldn’t last long at Gore).

, , , , ,

How enterprise 2.0 adds value to the connections between workers

Monday, November 5th, 2007

Andrew McAfee, the Harvard Business School professor and formulator of the term Enterprise 2.0, shows us that there’s more than one way to create a great blog. He doesn’t post every day, or every week, even. It’s been a month since his last post. But when he does post, it’s the Web 2.0 equivalent of a scholarly paper. Detailed, well-reasoned, and complete.

Call his blog the anti-Twitter.

I write this because his new post is significant. Those of us who regularly work with Web 2.0 tools take it as a given that they can help businesses. Who could argue that more sharing and collaboration is harmful, we think? Unfortunately, this type of reasoning, or lack thereof, can’t convince a skeptic to install Enterprise 2.0 tools in his data center and let them loose with the employee base–especially given the threat they pose to the information hegemony of senior management and the IT department.

Luckily, McAfee has been thinking about the “why” question. And in his latest post, he describes the value to businesses of Enterprise 2.0, by aligning its tools to the ties between workers–strong ties, weak ties, potential ties, and even no ties.

For example, wikis allow teammates (workers with strong ties) to collaborate on a deliverable. On the other end of the spectrum, prediction markets allow workers with no ties at all to contribute to answering a question or predicting a future result.

In sum, Enterprise 2.0 allows businesses to enhance value from the ties between workers. McAfee presents this conclusion in a very simple table.

So, we have our explanation. It’s time to open up the data center. Who’s with me?

, , , , ,

It’s not just the network, it’s making the network work

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007

I was discussing this recent post about the ability to connect being more important than one’s individual work output with my Vice President of Common Sense (a.k.a. Maura).

She said, “There are lots of people who can create networks, but there aren’t many who can use those networks to get things accomplished. That’s the real difficult task.”

And I really couldn’t respond to that at all, because, you know, she’s right.

Who you know may be more important than what you can do

Wednesday, June 27th, 2007

I read something today that was so counterintuitive it just might be true. Patti Anklam, the author of “Net Work, A Practical Guide To Creating And Sustaining Networks At Work And In The World,” quotes in her blog fellow knowledge management expert Stowe Boyd on the value of personal networks:


It will happen, he said (or I am paraphrasing; I did not take notes), that having a larger number of connections is more important at work than simply doing a job well, or in his words, on a great slide show from his site titled Flow): “Productivity is second to Connectivity: network productivity trumps personal productivity.” That is, the more connections you have the more resources you have to bring to a task: all work can be co-work.

I read this on a day when I talked to people in Chicago, the UK, suburban Washington and Seattle. And when I emailed a former colleague in Texas to locate someone’s phone number to get to the Washington contact. And… you get the picture.

I had always looked to my intelligence as the supreme asset I brought to the workplace. It’s taken me nearly forty-five years to learn that my (virtual) Rolodex is far smarter than I am.

And it works harder too.

(Photo by Frances Twitty via istockphoto.com)

In the future, senior executives will work together harmoniously to achieve shared goals for their company

Tuesday, June 12th, 2007

So say Professor Yves Doz of INSEAD and Mikko Kosonen (formerly of Nokia), who write in this month’s Harvard Business Review (”New Deal At the Top” – link $$). Here’s their view in a few words:

Senior executives at new deal companies assume collective – not individual – responsibility for results. They do so by building interdependencies… motivating themselves to engage with one another rather than work in splendid isolation…. Challenges to conventional thinking are encouraged – as are challenges and criticism from outside the ranks of the top team…

Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Yeah, I don’t believe it either. There are so many things in this model that are counter to human nature, never mind management selection and conditioning, that it’s difficult for me to believe that a company could work in this way (perhaps a democratic company, but how many of those are there?). Every glimpse I’ve had into the senior executive conference room (and I spent six years in one) has shown a very different picture of the “deal at the top.”

Let’s take them one at a time.

  1. Collective responsibility for results – flies in the face of the passion companies have for individual accountability (call it accountabalism, like David Weinberger does).
  2. Engaging with one another – senior executives have rivalries over budgets, targets, and the next step in the hierarchy–never mind substantial individual workloads–that make it very difficult to engage deeply with their peers.
  3. Challenges to conventional thinking – I heard the now-discredited Bob Nardelli speak last year, and when referring to Home Depot he said “I this” and “my that”–never “we” or “our.” And read this Business Week article to see how James McNerney slammed in Six Sigma during his tenure at 3M, without debate or reflection. Last time I checked, GE (where both CEOs came from) was considered the premier senior management talent factory, and they don’t sound ready to embrace participative management.

I also thought this quote was telling:

Claus Heinrich, an executive board member of SAP and the director of global human resources, put it like this: “If I see Leo [Apotheker, a fellow board member and head of customer operations] doing a great job, I say, ‘Wow, great!’ I am quite willing to subordinate some of my own priorities to help him achieve the common goal.”

Very warm and fuzzy, but as I read that I wonder how his year-end performance review would go. “Yes I know I didn’t make my objectives this year, but I was subordinating my own priorities to help Leo achieve the common goal!”

It’s possible that all six companies I worked for were utterly dysfunctional, but I tend to believe that senior executive rivalry is innate in the people who rise today to those positions. [And when I was a senior manager, I was right in there fighting for my goals, my department, etc., along with the rest of them.] Only the exceptional company, with a different training and career-pathing process, which considers a different kind of person to promote, will be able to overcome it. There may be a day when all great companies are run by X-Teams, but I think that day is a long way off.

(Photo: “Teamwork” by candace.jeanne via flickr)