by Jon Husband
August 22, 2011 at 1:39 pm · Filed under
Collaboration, Connected Enterprise, Emergent, Innovation, Interaction, Management Theory, Network Effect, Social Computing, Work 2.0, Workplace, employee engagement, middle managers
OK .. so it looks like the Web, hyperlinks and ’social’ platforms for interaction are here to stay (unless electricity grids fail or corporations and governments completely take over the Web).
For the past couple of years at least there have been increasingly numerous and strident calls for fundamental make-overs of both management and leadership. People everywhere are clicking into the fact that yesteryear’s models and ways are less and less effective .. and yet we all labor on whilst yelling “change .. change, or die .. etc.”
World-renowned organizational effectiveness guru Gary Hamel set out the fundamental challenge(s) in his 2007 book “The Future of Management“. Others, such as John Hagel and John Seeley Brown’s “The Power of Pull“, have weighed in with equally sharp and challenging premises and theories. All of these pieces signal an urgent need to innovate and adapt to a new set of conditions .. conditions which are rapidly on their way to becoming ubiquitous and/or expected by the generations entering or approaching their chapter-of-life in the workplace.
It sometimes feels like this is only the next round or wave of coming to terms with rumblings and dynamics that began back in the ’60’s and ’80’s. After all, we began hearing about the critical need for empowerment, continuous learning, flexibility, agility and resilience at least two decades ago. Most of the pioneering work in these areas came from the soft-and-squishy (or seen to be that way) world of Organizational Development (OD), from people like Eric Trist, Fred Emery, Bill Passmore, Marv Weisbord, Peter Block, Charles Handy, Meg Wheatley and many many others.
As the years have passed since these pioneers first addressed the human issues in organizational structures and processes derived from engineering and efficiency principles, various elements of their thinking and practices have inexorably found their way into managing processes and people. I suggest that this is entirely understandable as the increasing frequency and intensity of complicated and complex organizational activities have grown over time, and along with the evolution of peoples’ expectations about work and meaning in a modern era.
My premise is that management innovation is available from that world of organizational development, as it’s principles and dynamics are closely aligned to Hamel’s suggestion that “activities will still need to be coordinated, individual efforts aligned, objectives decided upon, knowledge disseminated, and resources allocated, but increasingly this work will be distributed out to the periphery“.
The New Context Demands New Principles
What was yesterday called Enterprise 2.0 and today is called “Social Business” can be seen as the emergent stage of the intersection of significant advances in information technology, management science applied to business process, the analysis and control of operational activities AND the interaction and participation of people with information, opinions and knowledge to share.
These forces and factors are converging in today’s workplaces, wherein a continuous flow of information is the rule rather than the exception. Thus, it’s essential to cast a critical eye on the fundamental assumptions of work design and how work is managed. The core assumptions embodied in widely-used methodologies today still present work as ”static sets of tasks and knowledge arranged in specific constellations on an organization chart” (see all major job evaluation methodologies for more detail).
It’s getting clearer and clearer today that the capabilities and dynamics of what started in the consumer realm as social software … those funny things called blogs, and wikis, and widgets stitched together into and by web services … are finding (and have found) their ways into the workplace.
That they have migrated to the workplace makes sense. People have always (at work) been creating and building up “... knowledge through exchanging information, talking and arguing and pointing out other ideas and sources of information and ways to do things.” Such services and tools and the reasons for which people use them are the means by which general human activity (purposeful and otherwise) translates to the online environment.
So, as stated at the outset, it seems clear that we’re situated in a more interactive, less static environment. Whether we like it or not, we are passing from an era in which things were assumed to be controllable (able to be deconstructed and then assembled into a clear, linear, always replicable and thus static form) to an era characterized by a continuous flow of information. Because it feeds the conduct of organizations large and small, it is a flow that necessarily demands to be interpreted and shaped into useful inputs and outputs.
The methodologies still in use today generally did not foresee working with networked information flows, and thus the way work is designed and managed does not really address how it could or should be managed.
We need to revisit the fundamental principles of work design AND the basic rules used to configure hierarchical organizations in which the primary assumption is that knowledge is put to use in a vertical chain of decision-making.
Both Horizontal and Vertical
Horizontal flows of information and peoples’ engagement have already been put to work in a range of early Enterprise 2.0 and Social Business experiments. But let’s be honest .. how these will work, or not, is to date less than clear. There’s an enormous amount of inertia and habit to overcome, all whilst confronting continuously turbulent conditions seasoned with healthy helpings of ambiguity .. about economics, governance and peoples’ collective capabilities to adapt.
Hierarchy is not disappearing from the organizational landscape .. nor should it. It’s an useful construct for clarifying decision-making and accountability, and I believe it will come to co-exist with the core dynamics of networked people and information …
“a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results”
.. which, incidentally, is a fundamental aspect of all the ‘democratization’ (it’s probably too early to yet call it that, but let’s do so for the time being) we are witnessing in the recent uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. Would that our western governments and organizations watch and learn as they embark on the renewal of leadership and management in the 21st Century.
The implications are huge, will demand significant effort and responsibility on the part of all individuals, and may lead to very different ways of working and being in and of the world.
But clearly, we must evolve … what we have been doing looks less and less likely to be as effective as necessary in the rapidly-approaching future.
by Bill Ives
August 21, 2011 at 3:41 am · Filed under
Social Media, Web 2.0
I have enjoyed participating in the FastFoward blog for the four plus years it has been in existence. It have been a great place to meet interesting people and share ideas. At every conference I have met new people who said they were following us on this blog. All good things have their run and now ours is over. I hope you stay in touch with us through our individual blogs. I want to close with a look at an interesting study on the positive impact of Web 2.0. Ironically, the label the most tech savvy people in the study as the tech fast forward group.
Communispace, in partnership with Ogilvy & Mather, recently released findings from a joint research study that examines the impact technology has on the lives of today’s consumer, with a specific focus on the role technology plays on children and family life in our society. The ‘Tech Fast Forward: Plug in to See the Brighter Side of Life’ study evaluates the optimistic outlook associated with tech-savvy kids and their respective families and draws direct correlations to the resulting implications for marketers and brands.
In two phases of research, they surveyed 1200 US parents with children aged 3–12 in the household and qualitatively explored key topics with 112 tech-savvy community members and their kids. In the first portion they identified 5 segments: tech backward 3%, tech neutral 36%, tech forward 42% , and tech fast forward 19%. Ten they looked more closely the last group. Here is a video of the qualitative portion of the research, including footage from Flip cameras given to participants (children ages 3-12 years old) tasked with recording in-home technology-related behavior.
The vast majority of all segments saw technology as a positive force in their lives (84%) with the tech fast forward slightly ahead (87%) on this measure. In a related question: Will technology make of break us? All segments respond make 72% of the time and 85% of the fast forward said make. When asked if technology better connect or creates more distance, 72% of all segments said better connect and 80% of the tech fast forward sided with this view. This is an overall quite positive view and one that I share. The tech fast forward group is also more optimistic about the future.
Some of the key implications identified in the study that enable brands to more effectively connect with and reach the Tech Forward consumer include (mostly in their words with some additional comments):
Mobilize tech optimism: Brands have the opportunity to capitalize on today’s tech optimism by helping consumers create the brighter world they want to see.
Mine the family mindset: As intergenerational attitudes converge, opportunities to market to the family as a unit increase. Purchase decisions are family decisions.
Curate unexpected connections: Brands have the opportunity to bring unimagined access to consumers across the globe and should harness the power of connections in more interesting ways. We like this idea at Darwin.
Put the world to work for you: Technology has unleashed the wisdom of the crowd and brands can build on tech optimism to channel their customers’ creativity.
Respect the mode: Consumers today switch between modes of separation and integration, and seek service and product solutions to help them feel in control. Brands will benefit by providing a flexible feature set that speaks to the multi-modal life.
Un-connect the dots: Consumers want to interpret your brand—to make your brand’s story their own. So give them the building blocks and let them put the pieces together. I like this one. This is what we do at Darwin, enable people to better connect the dots themselves through content visualizations rather than prescriptive top down search.
Build gated communities: Safety and privacy create major barriers for self-expression online; private communities help consumers feel secure and confident when engaging with your brand online. This is what Communispace does quite well.
Let people mess with your brand: The creative impulse abounds, and today, any and all content is fair game for experimentation, adaptation and reinterpretation. This includes your brand! Companies need to embrace this trend and enable consumers to reimagine and remix brand assets. I like this one best of all. There is much more in the report that is available for free.
Thanks for reading this blog over the past few years. I hope to stay connected to each of you.
by Joe McKendrick
August 20, 2011 at 11:06 am · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise Software, SOA, Social Computing, Social Media, Social Networking, User Revolution, Web 2.0
I have been covering and reporting and analyzing the business technology scene for more than 25 years now.
And every couple of years or so, a new technology “revolution” would spring up. Not the stale, overhyped prior revolution that had just passed — but a new, exciting revolution.This time, things would be different. This new revolution would change the way we thought about technology. This revolution would change the business. This revolution would bring the power of information technology to the masses. A revolution unlike any other revolution that ever came before it. The most incredible, unbelievable, paradigm-shifting revolution ever. Yada, yada. Promises, promises. Here are a few revolutions:
- In the late 1980s, it was client/server computing — sticking a PC in front of a larger computer.
- In the late 1990s. it was Web computing — sticking a browser in front of a network.
- In the late 1990s, it was dot-coms — sticking a browser in front of a store.
- In the early 2000s decade, it was Web services and XML — sticking standardized code in front of an application.
- In the late 2000s decade, it was cloud — sticking a cloud in front of everything.
- And lots of revolutions in between — usually sticking something in front of something else.
Note on the above list: some would call these techniques “putting lipstick on a pig.”
And when I would come home for dinner at night, or saw friends over the weekend, nobody would ask me what I was up to, and eyes would glaze over if I attempted to tell them. I wouldn’t even attempt to begin to explain to people what I had been writing about all day long. What’s so revolutionary about speeding up a purchase order process or building a rules engine that reduced exception reporting? What’s revolutionary about displaying 3270 “green-screen” code within a terminal emulation window? (Good stuff every business should pursue — but not something that will make you the life of the party.)
Then, one day a couple of years ago, I came home — and found my daughters (tween and teen) actively participating in the revolution. The social networking revolution. An information-technology revolution had finally hit home, and in a big way. Unlike the decades of vendor pronouncements about revolution, this one was real. The old order was being driven out — by employees and children of employees.
I knew this time, it was different. So, my daughters may someday ask me: “What did you do in the Social Networking Revolution, Daddy”*? I will tell them about the writings my colleagues and I did here at the FastForward site. And where the revolution took us.
Social media was more than a platform or a new mode of computing — it was a new way of connecting, of doing business, of leading nations, of working, of making friends and renewing friendships. But, for purposes of this site, first commissioned in December 2006, the theme was to explore to unfolding new world of Enterprise 2.0 in work and business settings. Consider where the social revolution has taken us in just a few short years:
Personal outsourcing: For the first time, employees all up and down the line have access to information they need to do their jobs better, advance companies, and advance their careers. John Schmidt so accurately described it as “personal outsourcing.” Unlike the traditional model for outsourcing — firms contracting out functions or processes to an outside firm — “individuals are starting to outsource their problem-solving and their own professional development,” he says. “They’re leveraging things like wikis, blogs, other collaboration events to collaborate in real-time with other individuals.” IT professionals go to Google, Wikipedia, and other online sources of support, Schmidt says. “They write out their question in their blog and look for their community to respond and help them. …they extended their network of peers to outside the four walls of their company. …they’re taking their problems and their professional challenges to the world.”
Economic revitalization and opportunity: Social networking and E2.0 provides a vast new array of tools for seeking out new markets, as well as managing through the tough times. Companies have means to better leverage the knowledge coursing through their corporate veins to turn around distressed lines of business. Employees have tools to ride through tough times, by staying well-connected with their professional networks and potential employers — even after they have been laid off. They no longer have to be powerless victims of recessions. (I called it the LIFT phenomenon — LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.) Employers have a resource to identify key talent to build their organizations.
Improving the quality — and joy — and therefore productivity — of work: The 9-to-5 rut had been withering on the vine for a number of years, and social networking is putting the final stakes in the industrialized, command-and-control model of management. Productivity is not something that occurs in a cubicle between 9 and 5, it’s something that comes in “bursts.” Social networks and E2.0 give everyone the flexibility and connectivity to respond to those bursts. In the process, the lines between work and personal life have not only just blurred — they’ve disappeared completely. Some Gloomy Guses say that’s not a good thing, and that employers will exploit it. I say it’s a real good thing. People should be proud of their work, and have the passion raging within them to want to pursue it, think about it, and embed it into their lives. Good riddance, 9 to 5.
Return on investment: A hotly debated topic. But the ROI is there. McKinsey & Company, for one, did countless studies the past few years that proved it. A couple of years back for example, they published the results of a survey of nearly 1,700 executives from around the world which paints a highly positive picture of the business returns being seen from E2.0 deployments. Close to seven out of ten respondents (69%) report that their companies “have gained measurable business benefits [italics mine], including more innovative products and services, more effective marketing, better access to knowledge, lower cost of doing business, and higher revenues.”
It’s been close to five years that we have been covering the revolution — a real revolution — at this site. And it’s only just begun.
(*By the way, the title of this post is a paraphrase of the 1966 movie “What Did You Do in the War, Daddy?” in which a bunch of soldiers in World War II hosted a street festival in an Italian town. One could say social networking is a global festival of sorts.)
by Rob Paterson
August 20, 2011 at 5:10 am · Filed under
FASTforward'09
In my first post in July of 2007, I asked myself - What were all these new tools going to be about?. For when the steam engine arrived, I am sure the Steam Geeks, all talked about pressure, bearings etc. But steam changed the world. It forced us to use the clock. It meant that food could move long distance and so enabled vast cities pulling us from the country where we had lived for millenia.It changed war and enabled millions to be supplied and to move.
So back in July of 2007, that is the context that I asked the question “What’s it all about?”
I feel good and bad about how my question got answered by life. What we have seen is an acceptance of the new tools in many cases. I wrote the Twitter Guide for FF in December of 2008. Then most could not spell Twitter let alone imagine how it would change media and how we get our news. While Facebook can be seen as silly with all its games and pictures that we might regret, Twitter and Facebook have made a difference in the emerging freedom movements in the world. Social Media, especially in the video context, has enabled new ideas to get traction way earlier than before. Web Based Video is surely the Gutenberg Press of our time?
Most people have made the new media part of their lives. Skype is how we old farts communicate with our kids and grand kids. Who does not have a Android or iPhone that enables us to navigate, read books, stay in touch in a way that was impossible to imagine back in 2007.
The area that I am sad about is business. Yes in some cases the tools have been adopted but not the culture that is the game changer. So most large enterprise is really no different than it was back in 2007. Less than half of small business has ven taken the first step! Government also keeps the lid on. Politicians have their twitter handle. Departments have a facebook account. But the need to control everything from the top remains the dominating pressure.
So for me there is this disconnect between the people – who are all of us – and when we get inside a traditional organization.
As the people, we are being empowered and liberated by this new technology. Like Steam in its day, it is starting to change everything. People now can work where they live and chose where they live based on what they want and not have to fit into an office and one place. Very small business now has access to a global market and has tools that are often better than those used by large firms. New food systems are emerging. You can buy Bison meat online. A new education system is emerging. You can participate in some of the best lectures given by the best people at the best universities. New approaches to health are emerging – witness the take off of Paleo and Ancestral Health.
But the establishment is entrenching. Newspapers are putting up paywalls. Politicians praise the use of social media in the Middle East, but want to halt its use at home. Business leaders talk about innovation but do all they can to prevent it.
I think we close the Fast Forward Blog at an important juncture. I and my colleagues have done our best to show you what is coming in a timely and thoughtful way. We have stressed adoption. But now I think a line has been drawn in the sand. It is clear to all that just as Henry Ford invented a model for the enterprise in 1905 that overwhelmed all the artisans, so all the artisans connected in a global network, will overwhelm the Ford model. There is nothing moral about this. It is Darwin. In 1905 the better model won. So it will be again today.
So here is my last exhortation to any of you who push back at the cultural work that comes with using social media to its potential, do you want to be on the right side of history or not?
I know I ask no small thing. For when we change ur core culture, a large art of us has to die and who can face that easily?
So in all humility, thank you for reading us here. Thank you Fast and Microsoft for being so generous as owners. I have never been told to toe a party line. Thank you my dear fellow FF writers. We have known each other for many years now. I will miss interacting with you so much.
by Bill Ives
August 20, 2011 at 3:08 am · Filed under
Social Media, Twitter, Web 2.0
I had not been paying too much attention to Klout until I saw this article in the New York Times, Got Twitter? You’ve Been Scored. I skimmed it and tweeted about it to save the link for further reading. I often use my Twitter, @billlives, as a social bookmarking tool so I remember and have access to posts and articles I want to save. I then go through my tweets twice a month and it gives me an overview of what I thought was important during this time. Then I do a blog post that lists the tweets I found really important as a way archive these tweets. I am sure there are more efficient ways to archive Twitter but I find this practice a useful exercise.
Well, the tweet on Got Twitter? You’ve Been Scored got retweeted six times within a few hours so this action caused me to look more closely at the article. I then tweeted that I was inspired by the RTs to write a blog post on the article and I got two replies for the six who said they were looking forward to the post. I was pleased as this type of exchange is how Twitter is supposed to work. I also met a few new Twitter friends in the process.
The article itself exposed me more to the growing movement behind such tools as Klout and Peerindex. It is about all of us getting a number, similar to Robert Parker’s quantification of wine. While there is more objectivity here that with Parker, the underlying motive is the same, the quantification of the world. This is a topic I have covered several times. I did a four part series on this blog that began with Rising Above the Over Quantification of Content: Part One: Parker vs. Piaget.
In this post I quoted, Adam Gopnik in the September 6, 2004 issue of the New Yorker, “(Parker) was uncannily successful because (he was an) apostle of a radical American empiricism – an insistence that facts and numbers could show you what was really going on, against everything tradition told you…The debate is not about whether the numbers are right but whether it is right to have numbers.”
In a similar perspective, Nick Carr quotes Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, in his Atlantic article, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, that it is “a company that’s founded around the science of measurement,” and it is striving to “systematize everything” it does. Carr adds that what Fred Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind. I would add: and what Robert Parker did for wine. Nick goes on to write, “in Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed.”
Personally, I think a little ambiguity and complexity is good. So how does this relate to someone’s reputation on the Web? Personally, I follow people for many different reasons so a single score is not going to help too much. I also follow people related to three different twitter accounts I am connected with (@billives, @darwineco, and @outstart). The fact that Klout does offer the top ten topics a person is known for helps but there is still a gap between the complexity of why I follow people and a score, in the same way I might like a wine for many different reasons, occasions, and food parings.
I look at the Klout scores of people I know and there is a rough correlation with my views of what works for me but certainly not a precise one. Like wine, I think this is an area best left to the full range of human cognitive abilities and the multiple associations the human mind can make. The Klout score of someone I do not known might help except for the fact that I know it is not completely accurate for my needs, only a clue about what to pursue in more depth. For the record, I did check my scores on two of these tools and my Klout score is 55 and my Peerindex score is 59 but I am not really sure what this means.
Next entries »
