There are several reasons for this, but one of the more interesting ones is that this might be a basis for an evolution towards a more innovative, creative, equitable and human business and society.

An interesting example of this thinking can be found in a recent blog post by Venessa Miemis, Tapping the Network to Facilitate Innovation, where she writes:

A tool that would map the connections within a network combined with a 'human capital' assessment could aid in this process. By mapping the network, one would understand the relationships between individuals and groups, how knowledge flows, and spot areas where communication channels could be opened and new connections made. A human capital inventory would be like a resume, but with context. It might show an individual's past experience and affiliations and skills, but also include things like social capital, sphere of influence, reputation, inherent strengths, and personality type. This information would give clues as to how to create dynamic teams and at what stage of a process an individual's skills would be best applied.

It is a tempting idea. Very complex to do, but let's dream for a moment...

However, even when we succeed in doing this correctly, will we have mapped and measured the right things and will we have chosen the right individuals?

We don't know, but we have two concerns.

First, social networks exist because individuals want to express themselves, connect with friends and family, exchange information, etc. However, we must not forget that behind every social network there is always a company.

Now, these companies might not always have a real business plan, but at the end, their reason for being is rarely to create a better world, but to make a profit and preferably, a big one.

Therefore, given their venture capital based financials, the standard approach of these companies is always focused on growth, ruthless growth and this translates into the look-and-feel of the platform where all aspects and metrics that are growth-oriented are heavily promoted. More is always better.

So, to what extent will the resulting metrics reflect "real social dynamics" or merely the side effects of a for-growth business strategy?

Second, in all these discussions, we always seem to think that social networking is a level playing field for all participants. It is not.

Fortunately enough, our human race represents a broad mixture of cultures, preferences, ambitions and personalities. Some of us are very extrovert, others are very introvert individuals. All have their merit and their place in our society and this diversity is generally seen as an advantage, a basis for creativity and innovation.

Now, in social network environments, such differences in personality will also be reflected in the way individuals use (or do not use) these platforms. In addition, given the nature of these platforms, in combination with the above-mentioned focus on growth, small differences in personality are likely to result in huge differences in usage and metrics.

The net result will be a bias in favour of certain groups of personalities. Whether this is a bad thing or not is impossible to judge. The only thing we can say is that the resulting "influence base" will be different from what we have today. In addition, this influence base will be more homogeneous, more concentrated around specific personality profiles, hence representing a loss of diversity.

The future will tell whether we really took this path and whether it was the right path to walk. But remember, on the path of evolution, there is no coming back.

Categories: Trends, evolutions, future aspects of society

     standard  full text

About the author

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant and owner of Xpragma. Marc started Xpragma in 1999 after a 20+ years career in the IT sector. Today, he provides advice, training and mentoring services focusing on the intersection of technological evolution, organisational change and business strategy: a messy world of unfulfilled promises.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens

In the article, Hagel and Brown argue that current open innovation approaches such as the well-known Innocentive platform still are largely "transactional" systems: the company posts a problem, the solvers propose solutions, the company selects the best solution and pays the solver(s). Transaction completed. All parties move on.

According to the authors, this limits the potential of the open innovation approach since it has two limitations:

First, it misses the opportunity to build long-term trust-based relationships among participants. Second, it does not encourage participants to build cumulatively upon the contributions of others.

Therefore, Hagel and Brown promote an "extended" open innovation approach that is more oriented towards fostering and building upon the relationships between the parties involved.

We agree. This "extended" open innovation vision builds on the same value proposition as other, more familiar Enterprise 2.0 approaches that claim that by facilitating the interaction between parties, increased "knowledge", hence value will be generated.

This is certainly correct. Unfortunately, while walking this more daring path, open innovation is likely to face similar challenges as previously experienced in the more traditional E2.0 initiatives.

Indeed, as we already wrote in Enterprise 2.0 - Enter the dark force, one of the main reasons for the success of initiatives such as Innocentive is that the approach nicely avoids the biggest roadblock. This transactional approach is such a good fit for the enterprise since it does not require the enterprise to change:

• First, using a service such as Innocentive, the company brings problems or questions to the table and accepts solutions that are closely aligned with the company's own strategy and thinking. The company continues doing what it was doing.
• Second, problem solvers remain external to the company, so there is no organisational impact whatsoever and legal and intellectual property risks are well controlled.

So, while in all Enterprise 2.0 literature, Innocentive is always mentioned as a prime example of a successful E2.0 solution, in reality it is not. It is in essence a very traditional, very structured approach that nowhere near matches the interaction dynamics of "real" E2.0 solutions such as enterprise social networks.

Consequently, a move towards a more interaction-oriented type of open innovation is unlikely be the easy homerun.

A first consequence of increased interaction dynamics will be that the "direction" of the solution can no longer be under control. By definition, the result of the "perfect" interaction between all agents can only be disruptive change. While all companies will claim that they are searching for this type of innovations, do they really want them?

Second, it makes little sense facilitating the interaction between parties if the company itself does not become part of the interaction. This means allowing the solvers to reach behind the firewall, building relationships and exchanging knowledge with the company’s own employees. How far can you go?

So, while the vision of Hagel and Brown is indeed the right one, it cannot fit the reality of today’s enterprises. Neither is it obvious how the enterprise can adjust to this new paradigm.

Realizing the vision of Hagel and Brown essentially implies that the enterprise has to become some kind of complex adaptive system, without formal boundaries, continuously adjusting its form and course as opportunities arise, on a path to an unknown destination.

Now, that is what they really want to hear on Wall Street...

Categories: Business change and innovation

     standard  full text

About the author

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant and owner of Xpragma. Marc started Xpragma in 1999 after a 20+ years career in the IT sector. Today, he provides advice, training and mentoring services focusing on the intersection of technological evolution, organisational change and business strategy: a messy world of unfulfilled promises.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens

Over the past couple of weeks, we've been following the discussions on the theme of "design thinking" on the Unstructure website. Bruce MacGregor, Managing Partner for IDEO, initiated the debate with his post How does design thinking give companies a competitive advantage?

The overall concept of design thinking as a better approach for innovation within organisations is attractive and this certainly explains part of the present enthusiasm for it, not to say the present hype. However, while looking closer, very little of this is fundamentally new. Most of the methods and tools that are used in design thinking are also used in other approaches and methods that try delivering new value through innovation.

So, knowing that none of these other approaches has been found to be the miracle solution, why will design thinking be the better path?

Unfortunately, we fear it will not be and this for the reasons given by Noah Raford in his post The coming boom and bust of design thinking, where he states that Whatever our speciality, we are most often engaged to bring a given product, building, or service to life that has already been substantially conceived by others before them.

Same as for any other attempt to drive change, improvement, knowledge building, innovation... the potential outcome is largely determined by the starting context and the ability you have (or don't have) to change this context. Therefore, as we have already written in earlier posts, in most cases, the success of a certain method must not necessarily be viewed as the proof for the value of the method but rather as the confirmation that the right conditions were in place allowing the method to succeed.

However, as we all know, changing starting conditions is hard, very hard, if not impossible. Consequently, the majority of our initiatives will not live up to their promises.

It will not be different for design thinking.

Starting conditions. We know them very well. Management knows them very well. But there are a myriad of reasons for not changing them. So, consultants have to conceive the ultimate workaround that will deliver success against all odds. We should know better.

Last month, the Belgian national railroad company had to report a historically low score for the timeliness of their trains over the past year. Less than 90% of all trains were arriving on time.

As a result, the focus for this year will be on improving this aspect of the service. Very likely, scores of consultants will be contracted that will use approaches such as operational research, systems thinking, design thinking and perhaps even chaos theory, trying to find ways to improve the service.

They will fail. The service will not improve.

Why?

Simply because today, the definition of timeliness at this railroad company is a train that is not more than six minutes late. Six minutes late.

How on earth can a project to improve timeliness succeed in an environment where there is a mindset that not being on time is still OK?

This six minutes late mindset will feed through all procedures, all schedules, all decisions and all attitudes of employees, continuously allowing for small "glitches" to occur since well below the six minutes rule, but finally resulting in the complete failure of the system.

Using design thinking to conceive a better railroad system is OK, but first make sure that you are allowed to set the counter to zero.

Categories: Business change and innovation

     standard  full text

About the author

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant and owner of Xpragma. Marc started Xpragma in 1999 after a 20+ years career in the IT sector. Today, he provides advice, training and mentoring services focusing on the intersection of technological evolution, organisational change and business strategy: a messy world of unfulfilled promises.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens

The first was this short series of tweets by Oscar Berg (@oscarberg), a brief recap of the thoughts most of us have. As the timestamps suggest, you have to read this from bottom to top.

The second was this blog post by John Sviokla, Better Customer Service Through Transparency, Tribes, and Talent, exploring some of the ways the new evolutions can help us to improve customer service.

Both messages touch on the subject of customer service and how new technologies and approaches such as social media and enterprise 2.0 can provide new ways to address the challenges of excellent customer interaction.

Of course, both Berg and Sviokla are right. New patterns emerge that allow for additional, innovative ways to interact with the customer and prospect communities. New opportunities become available for self-service, self-support and community building.

However, will all of these result in better customer service?

As John Hagel describes in his brilliant post Relationships and Dynamics - Seeing Through New Lenses, perhaps this is once again an example of how our western "object thinking" clouds our view. We see a problem (poor customer service) and a solution (social interaction) and we link the two together.

Unfortunately, these new forms of social interaction will not be the cure for poor customer service. Poor customer service is the logical result of the wrong attitude and culture, lack of vision and short-term thinking. None of these issues go away because of the availability of new tools or approaches.

No, the "solutions" that we perceive in this new space of social interaction are simply examples of the intelligent use of the new tools and methods that become available by companies that are addressing the customer interaction challenge with the right mindset. However, without this right mindset, these solutions will not deliver the value we might hope for.

We think perceiving solutions for the problems we face, but we only see the outcome of a system that is not having these problems. Solutions are the consequences of doing things right.

Cure the system and the solution becomes available, but not the other way around. The solution will not cure the system and therefore, for the foreseeable future, customer service is unlikely to improve.

Categories: Customer experience, Enterprise 2.0

     standard  full text

About the author

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant and owner of Xpragma. Marc started Xpragma in 1999 after a 20+ years career in the IT sector. Today, he provides advice, training and mentoring services focusing on the intersection of technological evolution, organisational change and business strategy: a messy world of unfulfilled promises.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens

We will be transformed

Of course, there is some truth in this. These are turbulent times. In the coming ten years, we will see a lot of change. But is that any different from what we have seen in the past ten years? And will it be a change for the better? Looking at the outcome of the Copenhagen convention, we might have to wait for the next decade...

However, there is more. There is the growing belief that the ongoing evolution in so-called "social technology" will transform our life, our work, our society and our own personality in an unprecedented way. In the next decade, we will be transformed.

That is strange, since most scientists agree that (unless external intervention such as brain surgery or other fancy things) our core personality, beliefs, values, etc. hardly change once we have reached the age of about 16.

Of course, we will start doing new things, using other tools, searching information in a different way, working together in novel ways... But will we be transformed?

The newer generations will be raised in new contexts and possibly, will inherit a somewhat different average social behaviour. The older generation, well, will be faced out, all contributing to the ongoing gradual evolution of the average "human personality". However, is there a change of the individuals?

While looking at change and transformation, we must ask ourselves whether we are looking at the change of the individual or at the change of the encompassing system of which they are a part.

Improving the interactions

Over the past weekend, we watched some DVDs with lectures by Russell Ackoff. The DVDs were a gift of William Bellows, Associate Technical Fellow & Lead Enterprise Thinking at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. Thanks again for that, Bill!

As most of you will know, Ackoff was one of the greatest experts on 'Systems Thinking'. Without going into the details, one of the laws of systems thinking is that improving the individual parts of a system does not necessarily result in a better system. It might even make things worse. Instead, we must focus on improving the interactions between the composing parts in a way that benefits the overall system.

Now, as always, language gets in our way and the word 'interaction' carries too many loads. So, for this discussion, we will use the expression for "the mutual exchange of value between actors in a way that contributes to the overall performance of the containing system".

So, to what extent does "social technology" improve the interaction between the parts?

At first sight, a lot. Our ability to reach new people, find new information, irrespective of time and location has improved considerably.

Yes, but are we talking about improved interactions or about improved communications?

Mobile communications does allow us to interact with colleagues, friends and family in a much more flexible way. But does it give better interactions?

Collaborative tools do increase the ease of sharing information, working together on the same project, informing each other about our activities, finding answers... but does it give better interactions?

Perhaps. Maybe not.

In many cases, these improved communications are just dearly needed fixes for the issues created by our present business and personal life environment: too many choices, too many interests, more need for flexibility, just-in-time, mobile offices, too little time, two income families, etc.

We might end up having many more contact moments, but do we have better interactions?

So, let's now look at this in the context of a social technology such as Twitter. For sure, Twitter has created a revolution by providing a "contact mechanism" that essentially allows anyone to connect to anyone who is part of the system. Doing so, there is enormous opportunity to find new ideas, information, news, etc. Some even call it the emergence of a global brain.

However, does it improve interactions between individuals?

We doubt it. The exchange of information and ideas on Twitter can certainly improve the learning and understanding of the individuals involved. But does it improve the system?

Perhaps. That will largely depend upon the personalities of the participants and their intentions while using the platform. However, as we have already written in Where are the learners? today, the vast majority of the messages on Twitter are posted for personal positioning purposes and add very little to the build-up of knowledge within the network.

And does it allow us to have more interactions? Does it allow us to move past Dunbar's number?

Again, we doubt it. Twitter certainly allows us to "follow" a far greater number of people. But what remains of the interaction? To what extent do we really have a "stable social relationship" with these contacts?

With its 100 million members, Twitter looks enormous. However, knowing that there are only some 5-10% really active members, it remains a minor spot on the social canvas of our planet. Today, we see members following 1000+ people. Already a daunting task that only allows for occasional dips into the ongoing stream of tweets. What would happen if a billion people were using Twitter?

Twitter is not the answer. It does not scale. It is not the solution because it essentially allows the improvement of the parts, but adds little to the improvement of the system.

Many will argue that still, this combination of improved individual knowledge will result in a better performance of the system. However, as Ackoff would say, this is the same flawed thinking as the one they teach you at business schools. The kind of thinking that gave us globalization, the financial crisis and global warming.

We are well on the road for the next decade...

Categories: Trends, evolutions, future aspects of society

     standard  full text

About the author

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant and owner of Xpragma. Marc started Xpragma in 1999 after a 20+ years career in the IT sector. Today, he provides advice, training and mentoring services focusing on the intersection of technological evolution, organisational change and business strategy: a messy world of unfulfilled promises.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens

Still, we have a lot of "experts" explaining us how we should use social media, what is the untapped wisdom hidden in these networks and what will become the next big thing.

Being an expert is something we all seem to be longing for and therefore, our activity in social networks is largely focused on building a personal brand instead of becoming a more knowledgeable, yet perhaps less known, individual.

Twitter lists, number of followers or connections, influence rankings... they all are becoming increasingly important metrics. But is there anyone learning in these networks or are we just confirming what we already know?

Eat your own food

It is all very human. However, sometimes, our behaviour gets a bit in direct conflict with the wisdom that we preach.

As an example, over the past few months, we have spent some time exploring the ins and outs of the Enterprise 2.0 space. We admit, we are likely part of the more sceptical part of the equation. For the real believers, the unlimited, fully transparent and open interaction of individuals would transform the enterprise and raise it to new levels of competence.

However, exactly in this space of believers, an initiative was started called the Enterprise 2.0 Adoption Council, which is essentially a closed community of like-minded individuals.

The unlimited, fully transparent and open interaction of individuals...

OK, there are of course numerous good reasons for doing so. Still, it gives us an uneasy feeling. It seems a bit weird. It is a bit like software vendors not using their own products.

Follow me, but with respect

And more recently, we stumbled upon this post by Dean Pomerleau, titled Social Media Etiquette.

We won't go into the details of what is written there. We suggest you all read this for yourself and make your own conclusions. Yet, again, we have the uneasy feeling that we are observing some weird behaviour.

Networks should be just what their name says: a network, a connection mechanism that links participants. Of course, there must be a minimal level of rules regarding the way we communicate, such as not using offensive language, etc. But for the rest, we should avoid other rules or constructs. Every additional rule adds to the noise and reduces the real potential of the network.

Of course, we all have a job (or are looking for one) and personal branding is important. Yet, at what cost? Already today, the vast majority of the messages on Twitter are posted for personal positioning purposes and add very little to the build-up of knowledge within the network.

The next big thing

Follow me and I'll tell you about the next big thing.

Unfortunately, as we can learn from the past, evolution is not a process of incremental change and therefore, our future is very difficult to predict.

In the past, our evolution has been largely determined by a limited number of disruptive changes or discoveries that fundamentally redefined our evolution path. In nearly all cases, none of these changes or discoveries were things we were anticipating. But they happened. There is no reason to expect that this will be different in the future.

Therefore, as Nassim Taleb rightfully explains in his book The Black Swan, making predictions about the future is not really a sensible thing to do. Whatever the brilliant ideas we have about the future, we will have to express them in terminology of the things we already know today. We are talking the future in a language of the past.

Therefore, use social networks for learning, but don't predict the future. It doesn't make sense.

Just be part of it.

Categorieën: Trends, evoluties, toekomstige aspecten van de maatschappij

     standaard   volledige tekst

De auteur

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant en zaakvoerder van Xpragma. Marc startte Xpragma in 1999 na een meer dan 20-jarige loopbaan in de IT-sector. Vandaag levert hij advies, training en mentoring diensten die zich richten op de intersectie van technologische vernieuwing, organisatorische verandering en bedrijfsstrategie: een troebele poel van niet ingeloste beloften.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens

The main proposition in this post is that People want to perform work that matters to them. Therefore, having a better understanding of the matching between an employee's personality, skills and desires versus the needs of the enterprise will be a better basis for a successful collaboration. Recent developments in the quantification of skills, such as tests developed by Gallup, can assist us in making such assessments.

Matching the pieces

To some extent, we agree. Having a better mutual understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, needs and expectations of the parties involved is indeed likely to increase chances for a more successful employer-employee relationship.

However, is this thinking radical enough?

Indeed, this way of addressing some of today's HR issues still is largely based upon the assumption of a traditional enterprise model and the associated employer/employee relationship. Is this model still viable?

For a consulting organisation, having the perfect understanding of the capabilities of its employees is indeed a great asset. Their business is largely driven by external demand and therefore, largely unpredictable. Being able to assemble the right team for the right project is a major advantage.

To some extent, the same is true for a regular enterprise. However, in this context, having the "perfect" matching between the needs of the organisation and the capabilities/wants of its employees only gives you the best solution for the present status quo.

What will make the organisation successful in five years time is essentially unknown and therefore, the characteristics of the "dream team" that you need today are also largely unknown. The more you assemble a team that perfectly addresses today's challenges, the more you are likely to have the wrong team in place.

This is similar to what we see in other business practices such as business process management. The more an organisation optimizes and removes waste from its business processes, the more it becomes rigid, with less ability to change. In every system that exists in our world and likely in the universe, we see the same duality.

Relationships and interactions

Therefore, having this better understanding of mutual needs and expectations only gives us a marginal advantage. The real thing that determines long-term success is the "relationship" that guides the interactions between the parties.

As for the correct understanding of this "relationship" concept, just think about marriage. If you are married, is it because you have the perfect understanding of each other's character? You might have such understanding today, but did you at the start? Certainly not! You were just guessing and hoping for the best.

So, when you are still together today, is it because, by miracle, there was that perfect match or is it because you were both able to live with the differences?

In a world that is guided by Gallup tests, nobody gets married.

Categorieën: Organisatorische verandering en innovatie, Trends, evoluties, toekomstige aspecten van de maatschappij

     standaard   volledige tekst

De auteur

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant en zaakvoerder van Xpragma. Marc startte Xpragma in 1999 na een meer dan 20-jarige loopbaan in de IT-sector. Vandaag levert hij advies, training en mentoring diensten die zich richten op de intersectie van technologische vernieuwing, organisatorische verandering en bedrijfsstrategie: een troebele poel van niet ingeloste beloften.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens

Ever since we have discovered the wonders of social computing, on-line collaboration and other wisdoms of crowds, numerous people have been viewing this as a path towards the development of more open, transparent, non-hierarchical business organisations and, more general, of an evolution towards a more social, ecological and truly equitable society.

As a result, we see an increasing number of posts discussing the "larger context" of phenomena such as Twitter and Facebook and business trends such as Enterprise 2.0. An example of this is the interesting Is Twitter a Complex Adaptive System? blog post by Venessa Miemis that also contains several links to other related posts.

Complex adaptive systems

Yes, at first sight, the mechanics of the use of social tools and solutions have indeed a lot in common with the internal workings of certain aspects of the biosphere and the ecosystem. And yes, without any doubt, these evolutions will have a profound impact on what our future society will look like.

However, is this really the all-is-good evolution we are hoping for or are there serious side-effects?

Nobody can tell.

We sometimes seem to forget that the essence of a complex adaptive system is that it adapts. Not that it goes in the right direction. It will react to changes in the environment and finally settle in a new "stable state". What stable state? Largely unpredictable since the result of an extremely complex interaction of all the "agents" that are part of the system. Largely unpredictable since the smallest event can finally have a major effect. Remember the butterfly.

While looking at nature, we always have an impression of harmony. All things seem to perfectly fit together. We all have seen the numerous documentaries that show us examples of the often-complex interactions between plants, animals or other living creatures, all supporting the further survival of the species.

However, we must not forget that none of these forms of cohabitation are "by design". None of these plants or animals had a plan for doing so. What we are seeing is simply the final result, the outcome of the complex process of adaptation that has brought them into the present form of "stable state". For the dinosaurs, there was no more room and when you are an antelope standing in the African savannah, surrounded by lions, your view on this "harmony" might be different.

Influenced adaptive systems

Also in nature, not all agents in an adaptive system will be equal. Same goes for social networks. As a matter of fact, social networks stimulate the non-equality since they facilitate the discovery of agents that have the greatest "value". These become the so-called "connectors", the individuals everyone is following or connecting to, thereby further increasing the likeliness of being followed or being connected to.

Now, "value" is in this context a very relative concept. Is the person who is writing about a certain subject and who has the most followers indeed the best expert about that subject? Or is he/she simply the better social marketeer?

Again, we don't know. There is the belief that the interactions between the individuals in the network will make the better experts become visible, but there is no real guarantee.

However, what we do know is that this process of "emergence" will inflate even small differences in perceived value. It is a similar process of "cumulative advantage" as we have described in The logic of random. If the first individuals who started following person x did so because x is indeed an authority for that subject, then we are OK. However, if they did so because x simply was the first-mover or did blog a lot, then we might get into trouble since these initial votes are likely to attract more votes, which will then...

Uniform adaptive systems

So, what we are essentially seeing is an evolution towards networks of the few. Networks whereby only a few individuals will dominate our thinking about a given subject.

This process is further accelerated by the existing information overflow. The amount of information that now is available to us makes that increasingly, we will rely upon other individuals to become filters for specific parts of that information, largely outsourcing our individual opinion creation. Twitter lists will be our guide.

The net result will be more uniformity in opinions and taste. In theory, we are living today in an era of unprecedented choice. However, never before we have seen so many people making the same choice for the same product within such a short timeframe (Facebook, iPod) and this trend is likely to accelerate.

This is unfortunate since complex adaptive systems use contradictions to create new possibilities to co-evolve with their environment. Perhaps we no longer want to evolve. Perhaps we simply want to settle for the stable state.

The ant society

To summarize. We are moving into a direction that is essentially unknown. Increasingly, our thinking is controlled by a small group of individuals or organisations that we might have chosen for the wrong reasons. Increasingly, we are becoming look-a-likes in a flattened society where differentiation only exists in the features of our handheld device.

We don't know whether this will give us our perfect stable state, but it seems that the lions are getting closer...

Categories: Trends, evolutions, future aspects of society, Web 2.0

About the author

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant and owner of Xpragma. Marc started Xpragma in 1999 after a 20+ years career in the IT sector. Today, he provides advice, training and mentoring services focusing on the intersection of technological evolution, organisational change and business strategy: a messy world of unfulfilled promises.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens

The Enterprise 2.0 conference in San Francisco is now history. For most participants, it was a great success. The number of implementations is increasing and we have a better understanding of what works and what doesn't.

At the same time, the discussion about the potential value or the non-value of the phenomenon continues. Today, we even see some polarisation of opinions, drifting apart in separate worlds.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with a confrontation of opinions. Normally, this will result in a better understanding. Unfortunately, we also see a lot of non-conversations, exchanging the same words but with different meanings or using arguments for the wrong reasons.

Interactions, emergence and structure

One of the reasons for this is the label "Enterprise 2.0". There has already been written a lot about the correct definition of it, so we won't repeat it here.

Still, the official Andrew McAfee definition is one of the main reasons for our non-conversation issue. Indeed, this definition largely fails to highlight the fundamental differences in the underlying principles of the various types of approaches that all fit the label "Enterprise 2.0".

As a result, it is rather pointless talking about the success or the failure of E2.0. Enterprise 2.0 covers so many fundamentally different things. Some of them are clear winners, for some other approaches...

So, while thinking about E2.0, we prefer looking at it in a different way, in a way that better highlights some of the essentials:

• Enterprise 2.0 is about fostering new or better interactions in a business context.
• New or better interactions can introduce emergent behaviour.
• Often, emergent behaviour will not be aligned with the existing business structure.

We repeat, this has not the ambition of being the better E2.0 definition. This only provides another view on the phenomenon that, we think, is a better basis for reflection. At least, we don't talk about software and we avoid using the word "social", which apparently has all types of meanings except the one that we need.

Not one size fits all

Now, there are likely better ways for doing this, but taking into account above mentioned dimensions of interaction, emergence and structure, we can roughly distinguish three categories of E2.0 solutions.

Specials

Starting a bit in reverse order, our first category are the "specials", the group of solutions that encompasses things such as crowdsourcing and prediction markets.

We call them "specials" since, compared to the freewheeling style of most Web 2.0 initiatives, these are very structured approaches. Interaction between the company and the participants is very formal and, in general, interaction between participants is non-existent. For certain approaches, the absence of such interaction is even a mandatory requirement.

As a result, emergence is nil. The final result is of course unknown, but the type of result we will get is something we expect. We can describe it and, when done well, we are likely to get is. It is almost like math.

As for the 'structure' dimension, no problem. These are initiatives that might touch specific departments, but they do not touch roles, authority, etc.

Social media

In this category, we group all the solutions that are "customer facing", where the interactions essentially occur between the company and its customers (or its target market).

In general, it is a few-to-many concept. A small team of employees will play the role of the enterprise. They might be visible to the outside world as individuals, yet they do not really act as individuals.

Here also, emergent behaviour is limited. The interaction between the customers and the company might lead to unexpected situations, but in general, it remains a rather controlled eco-system.

As for the 'structure' dimension, again, this does not lead to specific issues. This might touch certain departments but it does not really touch the current status quo.

Enterprise social platforms

Finally, the group of E2.0 solutions that are used behind the firewall, facilitating the interaction between employees. This is also the type of solutions most people have in mind when talking about E2.0.

Here, we are facing a completely different game. Here, we are talking about initiatives that, potentially, will have many-to-many interactions, strong emergent behaviour and that will run across the organisational structure.

Potentially.

Of course, these solutions can also be deployed in a more "controlled" way, which will reduce risks, but create less potential for breakthrough. Less a sales call.

Now, this is certainly not a perfect classification and nothing of this is any new, but in the discussions, people sometimes seem to forget these fundamental differences in the underlying mechanics. Fundamental differences that can result in substantially greater complexity and risk.

Unfortunately, in the "conversations" of the past weeks, we have often seen that the success of one type of initiative is used as the generic "proof" for the likely success of another, completely different, approach. That is not the type of discussion we need. Therefore, for the sake of the discussion, it would be better to stop using the generic E2.0 label and to make clear what we are really talking about.

We might not be able to explain it to our grandmother, but we must certainly not lie to her.

Categories: Business Interaction Management (BIM), Enterprise 2.0

About the author

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant and owner of Xpragma. Marc started Xpragma in 1999 after a 20+ years career in the IT sector. Today, he provides advice, training and mentoring services focusing on the intersection of technological evolution, organisational change and business strategy: a messy world of unfulfilled promises.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens

Yesterday, we received a message on Twitter stating that CSC was awarded Jive's Community Adoption award for their successful Enterprise 2.0 implementation. You can read Jive's press release here. As you will see, CSC was only one of the companies receiving such award, so we assume the sender of the message has/had some personal relationship with the company. Other nominees included United Business Media (UBM), NIKE Inc., National Journal Group, Kaiser Permanente and Swiss Re.

According to Jive, CSC was selected for the launch of its internal community "C3: Connect. Communicate. Collaborate." Through the tenacity, credibility and trustworthiness of those involved, the CSC team secured a phenomenal level of executive endorsement from the onset and established a clear linkage between its "enterprise 2.0" initiatives to the company's core business strategic objectives. Through enabling a strong global advocate network and allowing collaboration patterns to emerge, C3 enjoyed viral success in only 20 weeks, achieving 25,000 registered users, over 2000 new groups and generating over 1 million page views a month.

The message got our attention since, also for us, CSC is a bit of a "special" company. Indeed, the Belgian branch of CSC was more or less established following the acquisition of the CIG-Intersys Group in 1989. CIG was the company where we started our career. We left the company in 1987, less than two years before the acquisition by CSC.

Today, CSC still is the employer of several of our ex-colleagues and news items about the company always get our attention.

This time, the context was even a bit special since, a week earlier, we had participated in a reunion of the ex-CIG employees, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the start of the company. Several of our ex-colleagues were present, many of them still working for CSC.

To be honest, we do not really fancy this type of coming-together-again events. In general, they are essentially showcases of "how we all are getting older". In this case, things were not really different.

Even worse. While talking to some of the old friends, we got the impression that today's CSC did not really generate "exciting enterprise 2.0 feelings" for them. The overall sentiment was more one of burnout, acceptance, no further ambition, waiting for the final signoff.

Of course, this is the biased view of a small group of older employees and we are not in a position to really assess the validity of some of the things that were said. Perhaps this was just a bunch of losers.

Still, this might also give a rather realistic view on certain aspects of today's larger organisations. Even in organisations like CSC that are praised for their successful enterprise 2.0 initiative, some groups of employees are likely to remain completely disconnected.

And that is not really a surprise. While searching for my ex-colleagues on the web, very few of them show present. Even in very common business networks such as LinkedIn, their presence is limited; their activity none.

OK, we are no specialists in these matters, but perhaps this is not completely unexpected. We are talking here about a group of people who did not grow up with the craziness of what we now call Web 2.0, so the use of Web 2.0-style social or collaborative tools is not their default behaviour.

In addition, when spending the whole of your career within the same company, very likely there was little need to walk the networking path or to extend your view beyond the corporate walls. When finally this new generation of social tools reached the enterprise, most of these employees were already in "established" positions (read: at the end of their career with little or no visibility on further progress).

And then, the unavoidable questions come: Why should I bother? What's in it for me?

For the company, the promises of Enterprise 2.0 are very nice: finding and retaining the tacit knowledge of knowledge workers, finding the right specialists, fostering collaboration... but where does this improve the personal life of the individual? Apparently, for this older generation of employees, there is little or no answer.

So, while talking about "Enterprise 2.0", the part of the enterprise that we can really reach might be quite a bit smaller than hoped for. Perhaps, it is unrealistic to hope that we can successfully roll out the same new approaches across multiple generations of employees. Perhaps that in today's larger organisations, business transformation simply rolls like waves over the older workforce, drowning them instead of engaging them.

At lunch, we were sitting next to an old colleague that we knew quite well. We have the same age, have the same degree and started more or less at the same day our career at CIG. In the past, we had quite a few drinks and a lot of fun together.

May 2010, he is retiring.

The remainders of a career.

Categories: Enterprise 2.0, Trends, evolutions, future aspects of society

About the author

Marc Buyens is analyst, management consultant and owner of Xpragma. Marc started Xpragma in 1999 after a 20+ years career in the IT sector. Today, he provides advice, training and mentoring services focusing on the intersection of technological evolution, organisational change and business strategy: a messy world of unfulfilled promises.

http://www.facebook.com/marcb254
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcbuyens
http://www.twitter.com/mbuyens