Archive
You are currently browsing the archives for the As experimented category.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
Beside an enormous amount of media rants and raves, the recent launch of Apple’s tablet teaches us a lot of things about design, innovation and marketing in the era of the real-time Web.
Don’t Ask What They Want, Ask Yourself What They Do
In a recent article, Roberto Vergana suggested that, when creating new products, Apple mainly proposed a vision, staying away from focus groups and user-centered innovation. But is it really the case? In a not-so-far past, Henry Ford said that “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse”, but this statement applied in an era of mass consumption, when large scale breakthrough innovation acceptance was mainly a matter of one-way marketing.
Since then, marketers have learned to listen to consumers, through focus groups and panels, as we evolved into an age where building on the existing was their main concern, and leveraged incremental innovation to gain (and retain) competitive advantages. Present opportunities to directly and instantaneously engage with customers through social media is often no more than a speedier way to achieve the same goal, when it should be used even more than to gain insights, to exchange knowledge.
I saw so many products launches relying on insanely great “love this” feedback which were absolute failures, as nobody bought them in the end. Marketing is about knowledge, not about well wishes. Knowledge about what people do, not what they want. And that is exactly what Apple does with its products. Everybody wants phones and computers with removable batteries, but how many people are ACTUALLY changing a product’s battery? A lot of people are ranting about the iPad’s lack of camera or multitasking support, but who would have used them anyway, apart from computer geeks? Apple products are disruptive, not because they fill people’s wishes, but because they bring new dimensions to what people use.
The Whole Is Better Than the Sum of the Parts
Those dimensions are usually more cultural than technological. Apple quite never focused on real cutting-edge technology in its products. They never used the fastest graphic cards, the hypest webcams, the most powerful camera, and when they did (remember the water cooling system on G4 computers), they often failed. Microsoft has probably developed the most innovative multi touch technology, but what did they do with it? A table, where Apple put its own technology into a tablet. Tables are great for airport lounges and night-club entertainment, for sure, while tablets are built to be taken everywhere. Apple builds on our ways to use things to disrupt what we wish, coming up with products which bring and mean much more than an aggregation of technologies usually could.
Disruptive and Emergent Marketing
In a world where marketers have a duty to teach brands that they won’t survive unless they actively engage their customers through social media, Apple is not only disruptive in the insights they capture from customers, but in their whole marketing. While they have no Twitter account, no official Facebook page, they have the most ardent fans basis ever seen. And they don’t even treat them better than everyone else. No bloggers give-away, no ambassadors program, no nothing. I am not even sure they will keep on relying on traditional advertising channels to boost sales. They even treat their customers the worst they can: sky-high prices, backordered products, uneven customer support… This is marketing as the edge of chaos.
There is, of course, no way to generalize this marketing approach. But in our complex, non linear world, traditional marketing funnels are dead ends, and Apple’s unique strategy to leverage customers’ experience to new heights teaches us an important thing: our globally real-time networked world allows (maybe impose) us to find new creative, emergent, way to design and market products. Twitter’s monetization problem, for instance, as Venessa Miemis recently pinpointed on her blog, Emergent by Design, is a perfect example of this upcoming questioning.
What are you thinking about this?
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici. R8WDSZFCZWAY
Among the most overheard and misused buzzwords in companies are, you guessed it, ‘communities’ and ‘networks’. One of the side effects of Marketing 2.0 is, besides embodying new relationships between brands and customers, raising awareness among top managers about the potentials of collaborative work.
Of course companies, particularly the biggest ones, are dealing with internal communities for a few years now, often without truly understanding how to energize and leverage their power, but goofy expressions such as “Facebook for Enterprise” are now making their way into executives wish lists and discourses. Social platforms vendors aren’t helping either. Socialtext’s claim is ‘Social Networking with Enterprise 2.0 Collaboration’; Jive Software presents its SBS software as “robust social networking software for employee communities”. An awful 2.0 mess…
Technology itself, introducing more and more real-time capabilities into platforms, contributes further in blurring the lines between communities and networks.
Both concepts have their place in the connected Enterprise. Not only is the understanding of what differentiates them is key to successfully implement socio-collaborative initiatives, but harnessing their complementarity also provides us with a valuable framework of building blocks to leverage the internal ecosystem of Enterprise 2.0.
|
Communities
|
Networks
|
| Structure |
Stable |
Self-arranging and complex |
| Scope |
Adaptive – Defined perimeter |
Disruptive – Global perimeter |
| Goals |
Collaboration over time |
Specific |
| Governance |
Managed leadership |
Organic leadership |
| Level of integration into existing flows |
Department / Role |
Project / Task |
| Interaction mode |
Mostly asynchronous |
Real time |
| Adoption |
Gradual, built on purpose |
Affinity based, spontaneous |
Rather than fighting each other, communities and networks may, while serving different purposes, raise quality of connected work inside enterprise. Being fluid and highly interactive, networks can address specific issues out of the scope of a single community. They can be setup on demand, self-arrange to solve problems, then dismantled or put at sleep once the issue resolved. Networks act as powerful ad hoc task forces, their power amplified by real-time tools. Lot has been written about the need or not to embed community-based outcome into existing business processes. I do believe than working in a connected environment will ultimately lead to replace our actual processes by some new adaptive individually empowered mechanisms, and we can already put this vision at work: correctly driven (and understood, which means they must not been implemented as a substitute for communities but built ASIDE them), social networks have the tremendous power to deliver.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
Whichever definition and/or paradigm we are trying to wrap Enterprise 2.0 in, whichever framework we are tempted to fit it in when boarding key departments from enterprise, one of the main challenges we, practitioners, are facing every day, is to find relevant patterns and routines to foster change and facilitate adoption among employees.
Involving marketing people is usually a matter of one-to-one education, accompanying them in the journey from “listening” to “adding value to your customers’ experience”. Implementing large scale collaborative tools require a different approach, usually a mix between selective evangelization and viral facilitation. But, how far does virality live up to its promises?
The downside of virality
Basically, virality relies on two pre-requisites: a propitious ground, whether it be a shared comprehension of the objectives or a strong sense of community, and a well-defined adoption program. If (and only if, remember that you cannot plan virality, you can at best sustain it) adoption takes off, most people will build their collaborative behavior from observation of a few early adopters or evangelists, triggering a lot of mimesis among participants. Paradoxally, successful viral adoption may lead to misuse of tools or misbehavior.
Early adopters and evangelists have to be carefully chosen to trigger the right behaviors among other people. Alas, the qualities involved in community activity are usually not the very same needed to drive adoption. Moreover, mimesis is often a blindfold, and, in most cases, people will not be able to discriminate a correct behavior, in accordance to their role, from the one induced by early adopters, before the late stage of adoption.
Not to say that virality is a useless factor in Enterprise 2.0 adoption, but in such a closed system, the expected exponential results of virality take the typical S-shape of an innovation adoption curve; the individuals able to induce a different behaviors to community members and to align community roles with business objectives might well be among late adopters, thus leaving a flock of users clueless about real value of Enterprise 2.0.
A fractal perspective
Businesses are complex, dynamic and non-linear systems. Interweaving social tools into such systems require much more than virality. Aligning collaborative practices with business objectives require new social processes to foster decision taking and emergence of consensus in non-deterministic way. At pilot or department level, 2.0 initiatives usually succeed due to the impulsion of a few individuals, but this kind of approach usually doesn’t scale well. Among factors to take into account are corporate culture, meaningful organizational patterns, interactions between every stage of the value chain,… and the need to provide individuals with empowering micro-processes.
From many points, Enterprise 2.0 structure might be helpfully viewed as a fractal structure: recognizable, scalable interaction patterns, instable equilibrium state, complex and quite unpredictable output. In this perspective, how could fractals help us facilitate adoption and maximize value?
- Fractal patterns are scale-independent. Better than relying on early adopters and evangelists, we should try to enroll key actors (managers, facilitators, support functions…) as soon as possible, letting other employees arrange and model their interaction according to these pre-existing business patterns. “Setting clear objectives” is nothing else but implementing otherwise successful patterns into 2.0 initiatives.
- This same scale invariance could help dealing with difficulties inherent to organizational change. Enterprise 2.0 adoption is not only taking what works at some level to evangelize broader initiatives. It is about implementing these same successful features at different level.
- At individual level, the need for micro-processes, or social routines, is easily understood as requested by scale invariance. People should get, inside communities, the very same capabilities and roles the department they belong to has inside the company’s value chain.
- Fractal systems are also characterized by existence of strange attractors, which maintain global equilibrium. Changing little parameters may lead to a totally different state. This is an interesting analogy with the management of internal communities. Raising the necessary consensus is not a role-based process, but rather a practice-based one, which positively accounts for more instability, thus more innovation.
Looking at Enterprise 2.0 adoption and value from a complex system perspective gives us interesting insights on the necessary culture shift to undertake and might provide us with a roadmap to successfully implement and scale initiatives while maximizing a company’s competitive advantages.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
I had yesterday the privilege to be interviewed by Cindy King, on Twitter and on her blog, about cross-cultural communication. My answer to one of her questions (“Culture is…” in one word) raised a few interesting comments, and leaded me to further thinking. Culture is infrastructure.
From the fast growing literature about Enterprise 2.0, I only read few things about interaction between corporate culture and the necessary changes induced by embracing social tools behind the firewall. The relationship between governance, managerial routines and corporate culture is nevertheless far from easy to unveil, and has important implications in driving 2.0 initiatives.
Every company has a corporate culture
Even if not clearly communicated or formalized, relationships between employees, working habits and managerial style always define a set of embedded hard-to-move rules. Understanding these rules is a crucial step in determining which initiatives will or won’t be successful.
It is not always what you think it is
While CEOs and founders usually imprint their own vision as a corporate culture, reality is often a bit different, as day-to-day work usually follows its own path, independently from formal business processes. Micro-interactions are here much more important than macro-statements in determining the collaborative ability of a company.
Not all corporate cultures are suitable for E2.0
Apple is of course an obvious example of a company which successfully stays away from social media. A strong and meaningful corporate culture has by itself as much power as today’s most evolved social platforms.
Changing corporate culture is the hardest task to undertake
Changing an operating system takes time and commitment, but switching infrastructure is a radical move. Collaborative routines can easily be introduced in the most top-down company, as long as the wish to collaborate exists. Here too, look at micro-interactions between people to get a clue about potential success.
As usual, it is all about people
The fact that networks and communities must be driven by clear business goals shouldn’t obscure the key role of the Human Resources department. The larger the initiative, the stronger the HR commitment and support might be.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
Michael Idinopulos recently published an article encouraging companies to “skip the pilot” and adopt social media at company-wide scale. While I agree with him saying that providing a global environment for social initiatives inside Enterprise is the right way for companies to embrace the real power of the tools (provided they can afford the sometimes hefty price tag), launching E2.0 tools at company scale raise crucial issues about strategic management and governance which cannot be easily solved in most companies.
To highlight some of these issues, let us imagine a firm where collaborative and social software has been implemented everywhere, and look at different scenarios:
Off-process freedom
In most of our objectives-driven companies, social initiatives will be kept out from business processes outcome, and although employees might be encouraged to participate in several ways (from requirement to incentives), they will have to do it apart from their day-to-day tasks. Results are easy to figure out: collaboration and positive sentiment will decrease with time, leading to failure. Expecting to leverage collaboration and interaction without implementing them directly into business processes and allocating work time accordingly is a mere utopia.
The regalian enterprise
Implementing social behavior into business processes is not sufficient. I wrote about the need to enable consensus rise directly into networks, as it is directly related to enterprise governance. Separating collaboration from decision taking is of course an easier path to follow, especially when dealing with large scale initiatives. This, of course, flattens the whole hierarchy, as control steps and feedback loops can easily be rationalized and simplified in processes. But far from being an evolution, such a governance model is a regression from present structures, reinforcing a small group of decision takers and isolating it from the base. This somehow reminds the paternalist model from XIXth century industrial era or, in the worst cases, the monarchic model.
Lethal paralysis
Failing in implementing decision taking in a strategic way at the right level, and on the right time, may also lead to a less obvious, but equally devastating situation. The output from networked-based processes, if not correctly monitored and channeled, quickly leads to information overload, thus to a lack of necessary agility, and ultimately to paralysis. The wider the scale, the more overwhelming the effects. Frustrations, loss of company’s culture, lack of competitive advantages, inability to innovate, are among the most probable results from letting this situation taking over.
Avoiding these pitfalls, and adopting the right model for 2.0 governance, are a true challenge, but never forget that tools are only tools, and that only people have the power to successfully embrace today’s business evolution.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
McDonald’s is presently celebrating its 30th year of presence in France. But when I came back in Paris in 1978, I remember having eaten in some of the half a dozen McDonald’s restaurants opened at that time. So what happened?
The first McDonald’s in France was opened in 1972 in Créteil, near Paris, by Raymond Dayan, who had acquired the franchise from the American company. Nevertheless, in 1982, following an epic legal battle, Raymond Dayan was forced to give up McDonald’s name, while keeping his restaurants open under his own O’Kitch brand. The reason invoked by MacDonald’s company was a failure to respect corporate hygiene requirements, and McDonald’s France re-opened its first restaurant in Paris in 1988, while “officially” settled in France since 1979…
Most have forgotten (not everyone), but to justify such an incredible mess, McDonald’s France has adopted an incredibly rigid branding strategy: the company celebrates this year the opening of the first restaurant of McDonald’s France, NOT the first McDonald’s restaurant IN France. Is this sustainable? Definitely not.
Rigidity is no more an available branding strategy
Even if you are still in control of your brand, you cannot deliberately ignore anymore your customers. Branding has became a matter of interaction between them and you, products are not elements you may hide behind. Be prepared to move and to meet your customers wherever they are, the way they need it.
Transparency as a rule of thumb
Of course, brand transparency is an illusion, as understanding all the internal mechanics and implications of maintaining a brand and manufacturing products require some literacy not anybody has. But marketing transparency is a requirement. Whichever action or communication you plan, don’t allow for misunderstanding or bad communication. Our world moves at fast pace, and you would suffer backfire before even noticing.
Be prepared to fail
The importance of experimenting new ways to engage with your customers has already been underlined, largely enough. Experimentation might lead to failure. You must be prepared to fail, of course, but even more importantly, you must be prepared to answer to failure. As the web is fast to crucify a brand for unsuccessful initiatives, your marketing plan must integrate the possibility of failing and the way you will publicly acknowledge it. Today, every communication is potentially crisis communication.
The rules of branding have changed, and while adopting a rigid branding strategy and somehow faking history, McDonald’s France failed in following any of them. In France, the company has an incredibly long way to go before being more than a commodity.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
This might look like quite an academic title, but heaven knows how little academic I am! I was for a long time interested in AI as a way to use computers to something else than deterministically crunching data, and, as I worked on my last post, was struck by important analogies between key turn points in Artificial Intelligence history and our attempts to define and set up the early stages of the intelligent organization: the so-called Enterprise 2.0.
From processes to networks
Once the first dreams and myths vanished, AI research began to focus on two different subjects: manipulation of abstract symbols and contextual understanding (notably vision and natural language comprehension), and resolution of practical problems. That is, dealing with knowledge and information to take decisions, and ultimately act accordingly. During the late seventies, this field of research took off with the development of expert systems, which computed given information into a large set of rules (the expert knowledge) to trigger practical decisions. The main problem expert systems encountered were the necessity to deal with ever growing massive knowledge databases, and the difficulty to maintain this knowledge current. This approach reminds me a lot the way decisions are taken in our process-driven companies.
To address the enormous amount of necessary computation, researchers began to introduce computational shortcuts such as heuristics to bypass some portions of those huge knowledge trees. It is more than interesting to compare this with our attempts to introduce web 2.0 tools and practices inside business processes to give them more flexibility and efficiency.
Publication, in 1982, of Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities, by John Hopfield, was a breakthrough. The physicist proved that a certain form of networks was able to achieve the same results than rules-based systems. Instead of using databases, Hopfield nets stored it into weighted connections as they learned new patterns of distributed knowledge, and inferred decisions based on the output of the network.
Weights and convergence
The analogy itself between neural networks and a real community-based company is striking, and so are the similarities between the limitations of this approach and some Enterprise 2.0 concerns. Neural networks encountered two big problems: relevancy and convergence (they couldn’t ensure to converge onto the desired pattern, and sophisticated training techniques, such as back-propagation, were necessary to ensure convergence). Social media are facing the very same problems in the enterprise: how could we ensure that communities lead to the right consensus for applicable decisions to be taken? I evoked some possible trails in my last post, and this is a crucial point.
To push the analogy a bit further, the way connections were weighted inside neural networks might give us another path to follow: we might similarly “weight” conversations in social media to facilitate the rise of consensus. Such a system already exists on the Social Web, but is presently mostly a number game, people with more friends and followers are the most listened to, and the most influential. We cannot deal with the limitations of such a system in a professional context and need to look forward for better ways to weight authority and expertise there…
Further advances: micro-processes
The historical analogy stops there, as Artificial Intelligence kept on evolving from these paradigms. Most significantly, from explicit, the logical engines which process information went implicit, completed with a hybrid, “embodied”, approach, where physical captors capture perceptions from the environment: the intelligent agents.
Should, and will, the Enterprise 2.0 follow the same track as AI did? If so, next move would be to get rid of the big business processes we all know, and replace them with micro-processes applicable at individual scale. For instance, the way Japanese coworkers are able to make a consensus emerge from community-based workshops, one of the pre-requisite of Kaizen, rely on their heavy sense of “doing the right thing”. To set up such micro-processes is a radical move from where we are and where the most daring organizations try to go, and would only be possible with intensive education, and a strong commitment from HR and management. Whichever future we might predict to Enterprise 2.0, most underlying concepts are still in their infancy.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
While social media is slowly earning a place inside companies, they still have none or very little impact on the rigid business processes of the enterprise. A major cultural change, along with deep redesign of corporate governance and internal working, are needed. Ironically, the seeds which might nurture the organic development and integration of networks and social tools were present in the model Philip Crosby took when he wrote Quality is Free in 1979, setting the basis for most of present processes: the Japanese concept of Kaizen.
Back in the eighties, when the principles of a quality managed enterprise emerged, US companies were outperformed by Japanese ones, whether in creativity, innovation or quality. Learning from the Japanese approach to management seemed the best way to revamp Western companies, and the Total Quality Management system took every sector of the economy by storm. These revolutionary principles soon turned into processes and certifications, with the rise of the CMMI model, followed by ISO 9001 series of norms. The modern, predictive and productive enterprise was set up.
A 25 years old misunderstanding
While the principles of constant amelioration are at the heart of the Kaizen concept and philosophy, some crucial aspects were completely left over by occidental theorists, most of them inherent to the Japanese psychology.
Doing the right thing. Honesty and transparency matter, of course, but also the sense of being at the heart of processes and implicitly acting in the right direction. The human factor is what powers the enterprise, not the procedures.
Amelioration through participation, and constant innovation. First time I assisted a meeting in Japan, I was stroke by its apparent ineffectiveness. Everybody was discussing and questioning every point, going through the process again until a consensus emerge. But, most surprising to me at that time (1981), it did emerge each time, or was induced by a manager.
Kaizen is part of Zen. Zen tells us not to focus on results, but on the act of doing. By improving the way you manage a task, you obtain better results.
Valeria Maltoni recently gave insightful advices for bloggers, based on Kaizen principles. Sadly enough, most of the barriers which prevent us to easily adopt Enterprise 2.0 concepts come from a misunderstanding.
Where should we go from now?
Take a look at the above illustrations. It is no rocket science to see they don’t fit. The first one is the picture of a typical business process workflow, while the second illustrates a small network activity. To go any further, we now need to get back at the roots of the quality driven enterprise, and, one step at a time, redesign the processes with the help of social media. By looking back to the implications of Kaizen into enterprise, and how social media organically fits into it, we will correct a 25 years misunderstanding. Kaizen IS Enterprise 2.0.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
While more and more recruiters look for information about candidates on the internet, or recruit directly on social networks, every footstep we leave on these sites may turn out dangerous, or even disastrous. Numerous blogs or ebooks are now focusing on the ways to manage our e-reputation, and Frédéric Cavazza suggested me the other day we could adopt the attitude of artists, who often preserve their private life.
But how could we ask a teenager, in the age where sharing and provoking are ways of life, to resist uploading photos from a trash evening on their Facebook page? Should we, broadly speaking, go against a trend where professional and private parts of our life are merging, where interacting is often (maybe too often) a mere synonym to transparency?
E-reputation: management or dictatorship?
We are all teenagers in the fast growing universe of social media. Those who were yesterday able to preserve their private life while being overexposed, are now trapped too. During the last months, some first-class sportsmen’s career was endangered by tweeting or posting publicly some private stuff, andmy take is that Mark Cuban or Michael Phelps examples are just a beginning… If e-reputation management is now an important part of our professional life, it cannot, and shouldn’t, censor our private life. What is to be done as the frontier between both is now dissolving?
Job boards 2.0 vs Recruitment 2.0
Recruitment practices are changing on these days. Recruiters are present on main social networks, use video, favor recommended candidates… Job boards 2.0 Era has begun, but may we talk about Recruitment 2.0? Definitely not. Since recruitment in the age of the social web needs more than using new tools to change, it needs a mindset shift. Answering a job offer is enough to understand this shift didn’t happen yet.
Recruiters have still to find and setup different relationships with candidates. They will have to earn trust as real consultants, learn, and teach, what is meaningful in our digital footsteps, filter professional competencies from casual playful activities noise.
Of course, every tool is still not available for that. Imagine for instance a search engine with a chronological filter, giving results from the last x years, letting us able to focus on the significant period of our professional life. But beyond tools, what we need is a real cultural change. Recruitment 2.0 doesn’t exist. Yet.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the particularities of social media in Japan. During the early eighties, Japanese companies were taken as a management model and a lot of best practices were imported into our Western world to seed what are considered today as the roots of modern management.
We are now facing quite a similar necessary cultural change, as the need to implement conversational and collaborative practices into the enterprise raises and will soon become unavoidable. But life behind the firewall is far more structured and harder to move than the consumer market, and many social media initiatives fail or cannot be applied company-wide, due to lack of management involvement or cultural inertia. It may be time to have a deeper look at Japan – again.
Like in the Japanese social space, relationships inside a company are heavily structured, and can similarly be shematized into 3 concentric circles. At the inner level take place all informal conversations, while the middle circle represent all hierarchy and task-based relationships, the outer circle including all those nods and hellos exchanged with people you barely know. Given that model, what could we learn to help the conversation grow?
Inner circle: Put the water-cooler online
That was already told, but seeding the conversation often only means letting it flow between colleagues who already talk and work together. Allowing for informal, even quite irrelevant, exchanges online, is the best way to encourage collaboration. Let them set up blogs, wikis and forums on whichever topic they want. By encouraging employees to use social media in their day-to-day tasks, and chatting by the water-cooler definitely IS a day-to-day task, you”ll be rewarded.
Middle circle: Preserve intimacy
On both sides of the firewall, everything you write is quite indelible, and in the enterprise’s world, this means walking naked in front of your hierarchy, an absolute brake on social media acceptance. Please, allow your employees to use nickname, uncovering their true identities only to the ones they trust and value.
What is the risk? Bare none. Anyone is already authenticated and tracked in their online life. In case of suspicious activities, just ask the IT service to flag login or IP adresses. On the other side, people will feel much more free to share their thoughts and knowledge.
Middle circle: Break silos
Please forget about community-based platforms. These would only recreate online the information silos inherent to structured companies. Open any gates to everyone, or you may never know who has the knowledge you are desesperately looking for. Allow people to engage with others without any restriction, and make anything visible from everybody. Communities which will emerge from such an attitude might not be the one you think they would. Apart from better seeding the conversation, this will help you listen and monitor what is happening online.
Middle circle: Get middle management engaged
Well… I guess there is no need to develop this crucial point any further.
Outer circle: Encourage synchronism
Most of the communication taking place between people is synchronous: meetings, conference calls, team work,… The only asynchronous tool your employees are really used to is email. Sadly enough, most of social media tools are asynchronous per nature, which means you will need to induce new working habits as soon as you want to leverage your collaborative toolkit.
Setting up synchronous sessions, while people are online at the same time with the same tools for a few hours, will really help building a community feeling and will definitely ease the use of these tools.
