By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
History, we know, is apt to repeat itself, and to foist very old incidents upon us with only a slight change of costume.
George Eliot
New technology is often disruptive, and social technologies make no exception. Today, quite everyone agrees on the necessity to focus on cultural change to help embracing the new behaviors they enable, and there is quite a consensus on the levers which might make the shift happen. Pilots, either as small scale projects or as fox-in-the-henhouse tools, are common practice, and integration into the flow of work is this year’s new black. Those are, in no doubt, pragmatic catalysts for change. But… are we really focusing on the RIGHT change?
And the pocket calculator hit the school system
Pocket calculators were banned from examinations for a long time after being allowed in the classroom. Then, gradually, they made their first official appearance as digital replacement for arithmetical and other mathematical tables. In accordance to Moore’s law, the power of calculators grew rapidly, and the school system began to foresee much larger applications for these devices.
In France, an official document officialized the use of any type of pocket calculator -even programmable ones- in 1986. Furthermore, their use was largely encouraged during mathematical classes. But the interesting part isn’t the fact that teachers recognized the benefits of the technology and further promoted them (‘adoption’ and ‘empowerment’ might sound familiar to you), it is what these benefits were intended to be. A new version of the document, still applicable today, was published in 1999, explicitly setting the purpose of calculators’ use. Translating from French:
Mastering the use of calculators use represents an important goal in every student’s training, as it constitutes an effective tool to be used in their education and during their professional, economic and social life. For these reasons, their use is planned in many teaching programs and should be widely accepted during examinations and competitive exams.
In other words, calculators’ mastery is now required because of the way they allow faster and more sophisticated calculation, and are a good introduction to man-to-machine language. Wow… Where we could free students from tedious tasks to focus on higher level concepts, leading to a different mathematical culture, what we got is mathematics-as-usual on steroids, and a focus on technology.
Redefining organizations
For more than a century, our economies has been based on a paradigm where profit derived from production of goods and accumulation of assets, and where offer-and-demand markets where the only measure of customers’ satisfaction. Today’s globalization has displaced production toward less costly countries, and it won’t be long before intellectual production follows manufacturing of goods. What can be replicated, it can be outsourced. Markets reveal the internal complexity of interactions between capital, capabilities and irrational considerations. Uncertainty has replaced growth, and there is a growing and unsustainable chasm between the civil society and big corporations pursuing their own goals.
In this context, unleashing the power of horizontal networking inside and across organizations represents a promising answer to some of the toughest challenges our companies, and, beyond them, our society, are facing today. Businesses must repurpose themselves, and adapting to these challenges means acknowledging that work, as a set of activities, is changing nature, and that organizations must redefine themselves.
This shift is already happening on the public web: Clay Shirky, and others, have shown how social technologies foster resilience and creativity, and allow the connective tissue of our societies to take back their central role in human life. Alas, on enterprise side, what we are seeing is mostly the use of these technologies to enforce work as usual, the change we are calling for is too often a desperate chase to more productivity and efficiency. As history tends to repeat itself, social technologies are the new pocket calculator.
Sandboxes, not pilots
What is the purpose of an Enterprise 2.0 pilot project? The no thrill answer is obvious: they are set up to facilitate the diffusion of Enterprise 2.0 practices into the organizational culture, and to demonstrate business value. They allow, often through trial-and-error iterations, to blend the impact of social technologies into the operational structure of a company. They are not meant to help redefining the nature of work by fostering new behaviors, they are instead meant to leverage these behaviors to enhance the way work is presently done. The numerous experts talking about implementing social technologies “in the flow” don’t say anything different.
Social technologies DO HAVE business value, indeed, and that value is far more important than the transitory productivity gains that many tend to highlight. Most of the problems businesses tackle today are way too complex to be addressed the way companies are run today. Networked communities are better armed to deal with wicked problems than any leader, no matter how insightful or visionary he could be. In that sense, Steve Job’s resignation from Apple is highly symbolic: it somehow marks the end of an era, the one of lonesome visionary leaders.
Rather than thinking in terms of pilots, it is time to open sandboxes throughout organizations. Time to allow open, free-willing individuals to gather around real business problems, whether they are financial, strategic or organizational, and to let them probe and discuss how they could solve them. Here lies the real power of social technologies. Empowering employees is not about giving them more tools or putting higher performance expectations on them. It is about opening up what really matters, and giving them the power to influence the destiny of the company they are working in.
With big data comes big challenges
Integration is another social business buzzword on these days. Integration into work, integration into our systems’ architecture. This is, of course, a view suitable to a finite world, where most of business activities and outcomes can be stored into a system of record, and correspond to our process-based neo-industrial organizations. Here too, social technologies suffer from the pocket calculator syndrome. But companies can no longer ignore the outside world, and the necessity to take account of your customers in core business practices will radically change the nature of work and our reliance on today’s IT architectures.
We are only seeing the beginning of an era where data, and the way it flows freely in real time, relegate systems of records into the dark age. Social CRM is setting the basis for a future where interpreting and inferring patterns from customers’ interactions will become an important part of work. Handling and interpreting big data meaningfully will come with more uncertainty and complexity than today’s IT architecture can cope with, and will require changing most of today’s assumptions about how we deal with technology.
As an example, consider the evolution of weather forecasting. The more powerful the models are, the less precise they become. Among the characteristics of complex systems is that their evolution can only be predicted if the original set of conditions is known. The more parameters we introduce, the more precise we have to be in order to get coherent results.
A lesson from history
Pocket calculators, in France at least, changed the way mathematics are taught, but not in the right way, and didn’t change the essence what is taught in courses. Social technologies have a similar power to seed and sustain an inevitable change in work requirements and organizational redefinition. Let us just be sure that history won’t repeat itself.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
From knowledge management to social business, nearly every framework or practical initiative tackling the human dimensions of organizational efficiency emphasizes on knowledge sharing. Most of social tools and features’ justification is grounded in the simple assumption that openly and transparently sharing knowledge is the best way to help workers achieving their tasks. So far so good, unless knowledge doesn’t want to be shared.
Most of the tasks we are trying to achieve in our daily job are either complex or complicated. They involve multiple steps, human-to-human or human-to-machine interactions, use of different tools, all of which require following procedures, navigating through -and sometime despite- hierarchical requirements and validations, mobilizing resources whose availability isn’t aligned to your needs, producing some outcome for clients, either internal or external, whose logic isn’t yours, all of that in a reduced time frame. Whether we run a home-based business, are a public sector clerk or a Fortune 100 executive doesn’t make much difference here.
In my last post, I wrote about how people often develop “grey behaviors” in order to compensate for the lack of appropriateness between most business applications and the way the work is really done. Moreover, interactions between people is ridden with uncertainty, inappropriateness and fuzziness, even in a business context. We are human, after all. While modern organizations have developed enough processes, procedures and control structures to avoid black swans and mitigate unproductive mist, one of the main driver of efficiency remains the ticking clock.
To keep the flow running
Have you ever looked at a torrent? Water always follows the least resistance path, but this path often winds in unintuitive ways down the mountain. Local slopes can trump the global direction of the flow, even if this proves ineffective, and would a rock slip or a change occur to the torrent’s banks, the water will eventually create an alternate path without discarding the old one, unless it gets highly inefficient.
The same prevails in the workplace. In order to keep the workflow running as fast as possible and get their job done, people learn a huge amount of small tricks and tweaks, and don’t give up on using them unless a really more proved-to-be-efficient procedure is pointed out to them.
Of course, everybody wants to work smarter and faster, but what everybody wants overall is to ease the pain caused by lenghty or known to be ineffective organizational bottlenecks. Whether it be by directly calling out someone who may influence a decision in order to bypass a manager or by removing a security shield from an industrial saw to avoid sawdust accumulation, we all have gathered such knowledge.
Getting “social” from talk to walk
While one of social software’s goal is to harness freeform communication to facilitate knowledge sharing, this kind of tacit knowledge, mostly learned by doing or exchanged nearly in secret between peers, is quite never shared. In a short exchange with Harold Jarche in the Social Learning Community created by Jane Hart (you should join it if you haven’t yet and are interested in the use of social media for working and learning ), I called it Renegade Knowledge, as it clearly subverts organizational behavior. Paradoxically, it is also the kind of knowledge which makes up for processes and procedures shortcoming and helps things keeping running.
Never documented, quite never openly shared, renegade knowledge is yet an important part of organizations’ assets. It is fully actionable, as it directly relates to people’s expertise, and has the power to help companies improve the way they operate. Nevertheless, it takes a really high level of trust and resilience to allow it to flow and be made explicit. Unleashing the hidden power of renegade knowledge is removing the ultimate barrier between believing how an organization works and knowing how things really get done. Until we get there, the truly collaborative enterprise will be mostly talk and little walk.
I would love to hear about your experiences, if any, and thoughts in dealing with renegade knowledge.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
However we want to call it, Enterprise 2.0, social business or collaborative whatsitsname, what we are watching now is a vendors-claimed increasing evolution toward maturity of leading platforms. During its last symposium, the Gartner Group held a session entitled “Managing Social Software Maturity: Supporting Pioneers and Settlers“, and is predicting a near-billion figure for the social software market in 2011.
If you haven’t yet jumped the shark, it is about time to buy one of these full-featured collaborative platforms, read the installation manual, hire some consultants, like me, to help driving the necessary internal change, and begin witnessing the benefits of fluid communication, contextual knowledge sharing and overall collaboration. Every serious vendor will provide you with distinctive stickers white papers claiming “Increased Productivity”, “ROI Warranted” or “Easy Adoption Curve” along with the software. Does this seem ironic to you? Yes it is, of course, but that’s what maturity usually means. And that’s seriously flawed.
The broken Project Framework
The way most of today’s business applications are conceived and integrated still inherit from the design-build-run model. Agile methods and iterative methodologies has added speed and flexibility to it, rapid prototyping allows for a better understanding and consideration of users needs, but the original Project Framework still prevails; once users’ needs are supposed to be understood, tools are designed and built, then users are left on their own to invent a way to get their job done.
I recently met my financial advisor to open a new savings account. For a few years now, French laws require banks to only propose products for which the client fully understands operation and risks involved. So, as we agreed on one of the accounts the advisor proposed me, she asked me a few questions about financial operations to allow the software to build my investor profile. But at the end, the application didn’t offer me the type of account we agreed on earlier. I am moderately risk-taking, so while there was clearly no problem with my choice, it was nevertheless blocked by the machine. Thus the advisor took a pencil and a notebook, and wrote down the details of the account for me, since she would have to tweak my answers to force my choice into the software.
People do this kind of things everyday in their job, as they have to tweak business processes to get the desired outcome. They develop a whole set of “grey behaviors” just to get their tasks done. While evidences of the flaws of the Project Framework constantly show up, it gets even worse when dealing with human interaction and collaboration, which involve some of the messiest dimensions of the human mind. As Paula Thornton wrote, requirements need not apply, in Enterprise 2.0 realm even less than elsewhere.
A growing chasm
Social business software is actually attempting, while adding more security, reliability and focus, to mimic some of the tools available on the internet. There is only one meaningful difference between both spheres, but it is crucial. Internet tools are constantly and organically reshaped and recreated by users, in continuous interactions. Product development is not driven by customers’ needs (or by what one thinks customers’ needs are) but by customers’ behaviors, in resonance with their own culture.
Of course, the strongest vendors have customers too, and listen to them. But how many customers? 50? 100? 500? Is this number big enough to ensure that their software will meet new customers’ culture? IBM asserts that their products are shaped by the 500 000 IBMers using them internally on a daily basis. That’s a bunch of people of course, but this mainly says that IBM’s platforms have evolved organically to fit their internal culture and work behaviors. But does this give us a clue about how they fit different organizational cultures? How many companies have an internal culture similar to IBM’s one? The more “mature” the social platforms get, the closer they get to the Broken Process Framework, constraining people to adapt their behaviors to predefined schemas, digging a chasm between the way they need to behave internally and habits they grow on social networks.
The “Like” button lesson
The cultural dimension of social platforms gets even deeper. The genius of Mark Zuckerberg, when launching the “Like” Facebook button, was that, through a simple word, he cut through all layers of meanings to directly appeal to emotion. Of course, “I like” means what it means, but it more than often rather means “I follow” or “I subscribe”. Involving emotion was clearly a winning strategy, as it has the same universal value, and makes people click without thinking first about what their action could lead to.
In the workplace, emotion has a much less obvious place, and most online actions are left to thinking, which is largely dependent on national and organizational culture. The simple button which accompanies the microblogging activity stream in most social software platforms can make a whole difference in the way the platform is used, according to its label; writing “share”, “publish”, “tell” or “post” is anything but innocent in any given company’s culture. User experience deserves more than being left to any external choice, and people won’t harness the full potential of social software unless it is tailored to the way they work and the culture they are immersed in.
A call to vendors
Because they are dealing with human behaviors and trying to leverage the collaborative potential of people, social platforms shouldn’t follow the broken path of most ERPs and business applications. Don’t make them customizable, but re-thinkable. Don’t design and build them for companies to run, time is right to sit down together around a table and to share experiences and insights, to fully grab the diversity of collaborative behaviors. I know that there is a struggle for profit and dominance going on, but please walk the talk of your white papers: collaboration, or call it coopetition, is the future of business. Even for social platform vendors.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
Co-evolution has always played an important role in the history of humankind, specially when it comes to the complex relationships existing between technology and social behaviors. The social tools sweeping over the web and entering at increasing pace into our organizations are no exception. But evolution is neither linear, nor always a positive-sum game. Social business, in its present acceptation of defining a new way to get work done, might actually have reached a crossroad.
“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” This famous quote from Archimedes illustrates the dual nature of technological evolution: while giving a theoretical and scientific framework to the lever, he invented pulley systems allowing the handling of up to then unbelievable weight, but also the catapult, one of the first mass destruction weapons. From invention of fire to nuclear fission, whether it be through disruptive progress or through incremental adaptation, technological innovation has always been a curse as well as a blessing.
Every light comes with a shade
2.0 technologies are no exception. Each day comes with its load of dithyrambic articles about how the social web is transforming our reality, driving empathy, making the world and organizations better places. How cool. How wrong. Social technologies have the potential to transform our world for better, but also for worse. Empathy might turn into hate in a snap, or be actively used in psychological manipulation of crowds and individuals. Every light comes with a shade. I am not talking here about reputation crisis or so-called social media disasters, which repeatedly sustain the content of so many “marketing” blogs, and usually result from unsustainable product positioning or from some employees’ childish behavior, but about a stronger, deeper threat to the social web potential: a call to the dark side of the human mind.
Time to walk the talk
Failing to taking this threat into account, while keeping on focusing on social media blunders to claim that social technologies are transforming the world is not only stupid, but harmful, when the very same attitude enters the business realm.
Tangible evolution of the nature of work, and actual transformation of organizational structure, mostly exist for now in marketing hot air. Things change slowly, and by far require more of a culture switch than simple tools’ adoption. As Mark Tamis judiciously pinned out (in French), Social Business (as now defined by IBM) is in fact much closer to the original definition of Enterprise 2.0 than it is to the collaborative enterprise described by Esteban Kolsky, or to the Wirerarchy envisioned by Jon Husband. Changing the terminology doesn’t make the smoke screen any thinner.
‘Taskization’ of the conversation
Furthermore, tools, like Salesforce Chatter, or more recently Tibbr, are appearing which allow for direct integration of business applications outcomes into social platforms. I am convinced that socialization of business processes is not a meaningful track toward social business, but the real treat stands elsewhere. Tibbr allows people to choose which information they want to receive, and when they want it delivered in the middle of their conversation stream. Although this might (for some) look like a great idea, how de you think such a feature would be used in the vast majority of companies, for which ‘becoming a social business‘ (to quote IBM’s words) merely means throwing tools to employees without relinquishing their traditional command-and-control structure? What would it mean to those businesses focusing on process-based productivity, workforce optimization and costs reduction?
You know the answer: such tools will give managers new opportunities to control their teams’ workflow, in real time, new ways to tie workers to their tasks. In a world where not answering an email ten minutes after receiving it is considered as an error, there won’t be any more excuse not to check outputs from ERP every half an hour. Conversations will turn into more interruptive tasks, empowerment will turn into less self-organization opportunities. The dark side of business exists, it is alive and well.
Social business offers businesses a major opportunity for redefining the nature of work and the structure of companies, freeing knowledge workers from organizational-only pressure and defining a new social contract between customers, workers, firms and their ecosystem. On a dark side, it also gives companies novel ways to enforce business-as-usual and to further exploit the outdated legacy of our industrial era. People-centric or IT-centric, the use of social technologies for enterprise is at a crossroad, and it might be time to face it without self-indulgence.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
Our world is changing, so is the way we are thinking about it. The rise of online networks has not only modified our possibilities to connect and exchange knowledge with other people, but also has it given anyone with internet access a new, almost (not yet totally, but for how long?) unalienable, power. From charities to tyrannies, from companies to markets, a lot of this power is shifting to citizens and customers. Paradoxically, the more people gain access to it, the less we can think in terms of mass. Individuals, their diversity, their relationships, their interactions, matter more than the standardized bulk dynamics prevailing in the industrial logic.
To adapt to this change, organizations have to reinvent most of the ways they operate. Customers are no more passive buyers to target. Companies are no more fierce industrial strongholds aimed at infinite growth and bracing their back against long-term competitive advantages. Work is no more a clearly designed set of tasks, defined by roles and rewarded by career paths. Trees grow no more to the sky. Previous equilibrium between production, sales and profit is broken, and a new one is required, which embraces the evolving complexity of relationships between customers, companies and workers.
SD-logic and co-creation of value
Service-dominant logic draws a framework in the quest for such an equilibrium. By switching from a transaction-based model of organizational justification (I sell therefore I am) to an interactive model of value creation, it provides us with critical insights on the necessary mutation economic actors must undergo to survive in an ever more challenging environment. I already wrote about service-dominant logic (and you can learn a lot more here -and on the SD-logic website if operational again-), but, at the risk to oversimplify the works of Steve Vargo and Robert Lusch, let me recall some basic principles of their theory: companies do not market products for customers to buy; they make proposals (of products, of services) which customers hire (thus on a momentary, but not instantaneous, basis) to help them get their job (the real-world activity they want to use the product or service for) done. Value is co-created by company and customers during the whole length of time the customer uses the product / service.
For companies, beyond profit and other measurable benefits (reputation and loyalty for instance), value means knowledge about their customers’ needs, expectations and uses, which drives further development of better products and services, and better engagement. For customers, value also means knowledge about how to better fit their needs. Through value co-creation, both parts evolve.
Furthermore, value is neither created in the void, nor in a simple dual firm-customers relationship. People talk, compare, their own networks influence the overall value creation. Companies, too, are part of networked ecosystems composed of suppliers, subcontractors and many other stakeholders. As more and more people share knowledge through their online networks, as more and more companies get in the use to listen and engage with them, they will get more and more involved into customer-driven innovation, and will co-evolve.
The dynamics of co-evolution: competition
Co-evolution dynamics are originally related to natural ecosystems and living species, but are more and more considered in organizational and societal theories, as an inherent part of complex systems behavior. Co-evolution happens when a system and its environment, or different subsystems, are influencing each other to change.
The first kind of co-evolution is competitive: a system evolves to gain advantage onto another, in a typical predator/prey relationship. As more companies turn to customers and other parts of their ecosystem for added value, they will compete for what best serves their needs in a particular category, which involves several risks.
The first risk of a purely competitive co-evolution is relativism: competition involves getting advantage, but a subcontractor may work for several competitors (as Vargo and Lusch acknowledged), or customers may give insight in reference to competing products (imagine I own both a Kindle and an iPad). Companies may end up trapped in a kind of Zeno’s paradox, a zero-value sum, driving just enough innovation to get closer to their competitors’ best proposal.
The second risk is called the Red Queen’s dynamics, and is a hypothesis formulated by the American biologist Van Valen in 1973, stating that co-evolution in tightly related species doesn’t preclude any of them from extinction, whatever the number of precedent evolutions might be, and more and more considered in economic research. In our business context, it means that companies might be obliged to dedicate more and more resources to value co-creation, thus to evolve, not to thrive, but just to stay in the competition. Following the Red Queen’s hypothesis, engaging in that sort of arms race would equal, for companies which aren’t deeply involved in design-driven innovation, an overwhelming takeover by customers.
The dynamics of co-evolution: cooperation
While a truly cooperative economy might be seen as a mere utopia, cooperation, whether between firms or with customers, is a business reality. Whereas collaboration’s dynamics, requiring aligned goals, resources and outcomes, are mostly endogenous and pertain to a shared system’s level, cooperation takes its power from diversity, empowering each actor through shared information and behaviors. Meaningful sustainability initiatives assume active cooperation between whole business ecosystems and customers. Coopetition, which combines cooperation and competition, is gaining acceptance as a powerful business strategy in our networked economy.
Still an emergent domain of research, cooperative co-evolution doesn’t suffer from the same flaws as its competitive counterpart. Furthermore, it provides to value co-creation an interesting analogy with the cognitive learning process; all actors gain and create knowledge from information available, according to his own needs, expectations and personal background. Could we therefore use the different types of cognitive learning to provide a practical frame to the promises of the service-dominant logic? That’s a great perspective I would love to discuss with you. Online networks are transforming the way we behave, chances are good they will transform the way business is done. For better.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
As ever increasing speed and amount of available knowledge are reshaping day after day the world we live in, it looks like a gap is widening between the way most businesses still operate and the capabilities needed to deal with our environment’s growing complexity.
Organizational responses to overall increasing speed too often are costs reductions, automation and optimization. Efficiency has become the new business’ black, and BPR is its credo. But speed isn’t only a factor we have to cope with; it is deeply transforming the nature of our relationships to the world. As Paul Virilio wrote: “The speed of light does not merely transform the world. It becomes the world. Globalization is the speed of light.” When considering speed as an external constraint, companies are keeping themselves deliberately out of many of today’s new fundamental dynamics. Pushing the gas pedal won’t drive anyone faster than the engine was built for, and current business engine was assembled in the — industrial – XIXth century, and amended more than thirty years ago with the rise of the process-driven enterprise.
The shy face of Enterprise 2.0
On every subject, for every aspect of our life, the quantity of information available is so tantalizing, that we cannot simply store all information we need at some time into our memory anymore. Such abundance has transformed our cognitive process: we now mostly remember links and references to information, extending our memory map, our knowledge, to a network of peers and sources. The more information is made available, the stronger and wider this network becomes, and the faster knowledge is able to flow. This networked nature of our representation of the world in turn participates in increasing the global speed of the world.
One major Enterprise 2.0 frameworks’ motto is to help companies to deal better with this information overabundance, to make organizational knowledge expandable and faster to access, with the help of social software: connecting with the right information at the right time. So far so good. Power has shifted from knowledge to knowledge sharing. Cool; but for how long? Even if there is little hope to break the 90-9-1 rule in organizations, information is becoming ubiquitous in an exponential way.
A recent attempt to deal with this growing quantity of knowledge flows is content curation, to allow for a better distribution of information. Unfortunately, this only helps facilitating knowledge acquisition when the desired outcome is already known, since what is relevant to you isn’t necessarily so for someone else, or even in another situation. Context is missing here. What we need is another way to filter information in context, another way to make information usable through non-deterministic tasks. The real power resides in knowledge use, not in knowledge sharing.
Another motto is to start with clear objectives. Business objectives… When quantity of information and speed of transmission are changing our way of thinking, are deeply transforming our lives, is it reasonable to believe that aligning corporate practices with private habits will spare us to rethink the way we work, the way we do business? Can we seriously think that getting from silos to clusters will save us deeper organizational transformations? Yes, we have to set up business objectives to any collaborative initiatives, but we have to consider which new kind of objectives can be achieved through social business, and what it means for the future of business.
The poor performance of processes
Umair Haque recently stated that “Making Room for Reflection Is a Strategic Imperative“. This is a nice injunction, backed with lucid and thoughtful arguments, but can we just “stop doing”, in an environment where speed has become the very stuff of things? I don’t believe so, taking a break is no more an option, and what we really need instead is to think differently. Accelerated growth of available data requires new ways to acquire knowledge and put it into action. In such a situation, unlearning has become as important as learning.
As most of our knowledge is now stored outside of our memory, the challenge not only lies in matching real-world situations with experiences stored in our memory, but also in pairing those situations with the right external connections, in order to gain access to the relevant knowledge. Not only do we have to deal with data, in anything but routine thinking, but with people, and our cognitive process now encompasses our networks. Information retrieval, and learning, had become inherently hyper-connected.
From internal “social” initiatives (let us consider them as knowledge networks rather than true collaborative environments for demonstration purpose) to customers’ relationships, present process-based approach to business is broken. Business processes expect a deterministic output; they rely on repeatability and explicit workflows, which often proves itself far from the nature of human relationships. The cognitive process, instead, is a non-linear mechanism, able to make sense from disjointed information. Cognition doesn’t appeal for processes, but for patterns. Furthermore, processes suit perfectly machine-to-machine communication. Human-to-machine communication needs to take into account user experience, which hardly resumes to processes, and human-to-human communication is all about weak signals and pattern recognition.
Knowledge work is all about patterns
Venessa Miemis has written a great post about the importance of patterns recognition in the cognitive process. To quote her: “there are strong and weak signals all around us, patterns, which indicate a change has happened, is happening, or has the potential to happen”. Business processes work as long as nothing changes, or at least changes slowly, which happens less and less in present business environments. Dynamic patterns, instead, are emergent phenomena of complex systems. They are highly adaptive and relate not only to existing flows (whether they be knowledge, work, customer journey, etc.), but also to how these flows change over time. In other words, they can be harnessed as predictive tools as well as operational routines design. A simple change in an underlying process might translate into huge and fast modifications of related pattern. Looking at the way patterns change (sometimes dramatically) in our networks provides us critical clues on how to improve broken processes, or on when to seamlessly switch to another one.
Here is a short summary of dynamic patterns versus processes characteristics:
| Processes |
Patterns |
| Linear |
Non-linear |
| Designed on purpose |
Emergent and self-organizing |
| Inside-out |
Mostly outside-in |
| Hard to change |
Highly adaptive |
| Need stability to perform |
Require instability to form |
| May cause formation or modification of a single pattern |
May emerge from multiple different processes |
Patterns are already used in business context. Emergent practices leveraged from online communities are patterns. Ethnography, and many design thinking methods, invoke pattern recognition to decipher customers’ behavior. Social learning implies the use of patterns in knowledge acquisition. Dynamic patterns are much more adapted to knowledge work than business processes are.
As they can be broken down to processes, monitoring patterns’ evolution in networks represent a promising way to handle the exceptions crippling most of the processes in which human interaction is involved. Integrating pattern recognition into work might require dedicated competencies, but it also requires new approaches. Adaptive Case Management is a promising framework to help dealing with knowledge flows rather than with processes, considered the fact that not only should we focus on information, but also on the way information, and connections to it, changes over time. Time has come, to understand that information is not only the blood of our networked organizations, but also their bones.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
Another day, another buzzword… Integration is quite a hot topic on these days of predictions, especially after both David Armano, from Edelman Digital, and Jeremiah Owyang, from Altimer, qualified 2011 as year of social (‘media’ for David, ‘business’ for Jeremiah) integration.
Integrating social into business
As many words, ‘integration’ has quite a few meanings, but they all rely to the fact of ‘getting the part to fit into the whole’. From a business perspective, the matter of integrating ‘social’ into every aspect of companies’ operations is of course a trend we will all see happening one day or another, but I cannot keep from being dubitative about the length of the road 99.9 percent of businesses will have to follow to transform themselves from their present state to truly social businesses. Integration requires parts to exist before they can fit into the whole.
More and more initiatives exist which prove the competitive advantages associated to becoming a social enterprise, and the exponential growth of the social web, where most of customers’ conversations now take place, is now an unavoidable business fact, but the vast majority of organizations still do not get it at all. These are still mainly emergent behaviors. Seriously, heralding 2011 as being the year of social integration amounts to claiming it the year of time travel.
Integrating social into platforms
Integration is also a technology matter. In this context, ‘integrating’ can be helpfully defined as ‘dealing with’. The iPod ‘deals with sound’ so that, when associated to iTunes, it integrates most of the ways we daily interact with sound. The result is a sleek, one-size-fits-all device able to generate the best ever user experience while hiding all internal complexity. Similarly, Microsoft Excel ‘deals with numbers’ with the single elegant paradigm of a grid.
We all dream of integrated beauties such as Star Trek’s Tricorder, but ‘dealing with’ doesn’t always stands for a great user experience. Another Microsoft product, Word, for long, is a synonym for big bloated piece of software, with many features one doesn’t even want to hear about. In fact, Word ‘deals with words’ in the same way the iPod ‘deals with sound’, which shows that integration is far from being straightforward when it comes to deal with complex concepts. There are so many radically different ways we use words in written documents that no software can seamlessly integrate them.
When it comes to ‘dealing with social’, large platforms tend to look much more like Word than with the iPod or Excel. Huge sets of collaborative tools clearly do not facilitate collaboration: not even do they facilitate the comprehension of what ‘social’ means. Time will tell if vendors will succeed in developing a new paradigm for collaborative interfaces, but, in that sense, actual toolsets clearly demonstrate a failure in what we can expect from integration.
Nevertheless, we are seeing today technological integration happening much faster than business integration… for better or for worse.
Integrating social into CRM?
Considering the growing importance of the social web, it is not surprising that companies are looking for ways to monitor customers’ activity and interaction beyond engagement in communities. ‘Dealing with [social] customers’ is Social CRM’s ambitious promise. As you have guessed, integration is here too a key concern (or should be); but should we look after integration in this domain?
If I had one prediction to make for 2011, it would be the rise of analytics tools. Dealing with customers means a lot of data mining and analysis, and most tools are either quite awfully imprecise, like sentiment analysis, or require deep knowledge and heavy hand-tuning, like social network analysis. Add to that the difficulty of tapping into real-time modifications of your customers’ interactions, and you will understand why we need much stronger analytics tools than those available today.
Furthermore, a global understanding of what your customers are talking about is a lame objective. What customers want is a personal experience, at every single point where they choose to interact –or not- with your company. Traditional CRMs are about personalized relationships, and Social CRMs must follow this track, and aim at offering a comprehensive view of individual customers’ interactions.
Unless being able to deliver on such a demanding promise, social CRM integration, from a toolset perspective, is quite nonsense. Whether you start from a collaborative or a CRM platform, present offering will leave you with a gathering of imperfect tools for a less than perfect result.
On the other hand, companies’ needs –and will- to better understand social customers’ behaviors grows rapidly, whether it be to progress toward a more social business, or, more often and prosaically, to ‘traditionally’ increase profit through social channels. While integrating social into business is still far away, interacting with social customers is a reality most departments are facing today, to reach different goals, following different processes, using different tools. To understand how social business can drive better business, companies need to be able to reach them, they need to feel the way customers now want to get their jobs done better with the help of the goods and services they buy. Social CRM has this power, and, as fuzzy a concept it still is, its integration into business has the potential to change the way most business is done.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
“Social software enables people to rendezvous, connect or collaborate through computer-mediated communication and to form online communities.” This definition, taken from Wikipedia, and quoted by Andrew McAfee in his 2006 definition of Enterprise 2.0, summaries pretty well most present ‘social’ approaches. Or misconceptions, should I say… ‘enables’, really?
The innovation literature is full of controversies between technology-first and customers-first invention, but there is very few evidences of preeminence of technology in emergence of new human behaviors. As Steven Shapin stated it:
The tendency to exaggerate the impact of technological innovation follows from an artifact of historical consciousness
Use transforms technology, and gives it its meaning and usefulness. Enterprise 2.0 makes no exception; wikis, for example, are a more than 15 years old technology, and some companies have developed a true collaborative, adaptive and customer-centric structure without the help of any 2.0 or social technology.
Vendors pitch ahead
… co-workers come together to swarm on problems, seize opportunities, and make the important outcomes happen. They easily share what they are learning and doing in real time, to keep the wheels of innovation turning.
This glorious sentence was picked on Jive Software’s website. I have nothing against Jive, I instead think they are developing one of the most innovative and interesting platform of its kind. But this sentence is typical of a discourse indistinctly mixing important behavioral concepts with marketing babble, typical of a trend toward technology-driven transformation.
Examples abound. BlueKiwi allows you to “engage with your influencers”, although influence is for now such a vague and loose notion than nobody can precisely define what an influencer might be. IBM’s Lotus Connections call Communities what should in fact be called Groups, blurring further the concept of workplace collaboration. Microsoft SharePoint 2010 tackles trust as it “provides trusted access to the right information to the right people at the right time”. And I could go on endlessly…
An unavoidable wreck
Technology moves fast. Really fast. Reframing for the social enterprise takes a lot of time convincing, mentoring, changing people mindset to foster interaction and build trusted relationships among people who mostly don’t trust each other as I wrote in my last post. The fast pace of technological innovation doesn’t leave vendors enough time to align their solutions with organizational problems. Considering that new behaviors are enabled by technology will lead to an unavoidable wreck between vendors’ promises and actual companies needs. Today, as IT companies and departments take over the place, there is no more room for pilots, cultural change and bottom line uncertainty in Enterprise 2.0’s bandwagon…
Let us stop believing (and saying) that technology enables collaborative and innovative behaviors, and focus instead on the fact that it can at best support them.
Integration into existing hierarchies and systems, spontaneous customer adhesion and socialization of business-as-usual are a smoke screen, which hides both the difficult rise of new and emergent ways to drive business and the richness of human mind’s resources. We don’t need more social platforms, we need more human companies.
By Thierry de Baillon
English version here.
Il faut se rendre à l’évidence : nous, êtres humains, sommes égoïstes, individualistes et de manière évidente accrochés à tout privilège que le pouvoir permet d’acquérir. La bonne volonté et le partage avec nos pairs suivent le principe de Nielsen, et la plupart d’entre nous n’imaginent même pas que l’on puisse se comporter autrement, à moins d’y être obligés. Le Web social montre la voie à de nouvelles manières de faciliter l’échange de savoir, tant à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur de nos organisations, mais les comportements collaboratifs, indispensables à l’éclosion de modes de travail en accord avec la nouvelle économie en réseau qui est en train de se dessiner, ne sont présents (voire même imaginables) que chez bien peu d’entre nous.
Communautés et confiance : la dure réalité
Dans ce contexte, les piliers de la collaboration efficace et créative que sont les communautés connectées et la confiance, risquent d’être bien plus difficile à mettre en œuvre que ne le proclament les apôtres de l’Entreprise 2.0. Le développement et l’accompagnement des communautés est un sujet à la mode, mais quelle réalité recouvre-t-il vraiment ? Qui dit communauté dit passion, et la passion signifie avant tout vouloir apprendre de ses pairs. Aucune vraie communauté ne peut exister sans passion. Des milliers de pages Facebook sont créées chaque jour au nom de la promesse presque toujours fallacieuse de construire des communautés. La page de Coca-Cola a environ quinze millions de fans, mais existe-t-il une seule raison d’appeler ce rassemblement une «communauté» ? Une quelconque interaction en profondeur ou, disons le mot, une quelconque collaboration y est-elle à l’œuvre ?
Version interne, cela ne fonctionne guère mieux. Au niveau de l’entreprise, la plupart du travail collaboratif est, en fait, du travail d’équipe, au sein duquel la coopération est alignée sur les tâches, de façon linéaire et prévisible. Les communautés de pratiques, qui développent avec le temps de véritables comportements collaboratifs et adaptatifs, reposent bien plus sur la passion, la patience et l’implication que sur les technologies 2.0. Elles fonctionnent généralement bien en ligne lorsqu’elles fonctionnent bien hors ligne. De plus, bien des exemples «réussis» d’initiatives autour de l’Entreprise 2.0 ne présentent comme preuve de cette réussite que les nombre de connections enregistrées et le nombre de «communautés» créées. Socialwashing à tous les étages.
La véritable collaboration requiert non seulement le développement d’un environnement collectif favorable, mais aussi de la confiance. Le problème est que la confiance est une qualité en voie de disparition. Les marques ne peuvent prétendre ignorer que les clients leur font chaque année de moins en moins confiance, et que cette érosion de la confiance s’exprime partout, y compris sur les médias sociaux. Dans les entreprises, le niveau de confiance est encore plus bas. Le micro-management, l’évaluation continue basée sur la performance dans des environnements de travail prédéfinis, la pression hiérarchique et économique, ont gravement endommagée la confiance parmi les employés. Dans la plupart des cas, la collaboration est une fumisterie.
Adoption ne vaut pas diffusion
Malgré tout, l’entreprise réellement collaborative est sans l’ombre d’un doute le modèle organisationnel le mieux adapté pour faire face à la complexité grandissante de nos environnements économiques, comme pour doter les écosystèmes de nos entreprises d’avantages compétitifs durables. Plus que jamais, les organisations doivent changer leur mode de pensée. Les travailleurs du savoir doivent continuellement pouvoir disposer de nouvelles ressources, tandis que travail et apprentissage doivent se fondre en un flux continu. Mais, alors que si peu d’entreprises sont suffisamment mûres pour accepter et adopter cette complexité et ainsi redéfinir le travail en termes de flux fluide et collaboratif, comment pouvons-nous aider et accompagner les autres ?
Bertrand Duperrin propose l’introduction de routines sociales dans le workflow quotidien des employés. Un tel modèle facilite l’adoption de pratiques collaboratives, mais ne tient compte ni des relations réelles entre les membres d’une entreprise et du manque sous-jacent de confiance, ni d’un des défauts majeurs des processus business : les «socialiser» permet plus facilement de prendre en compte les opérations floues ou incertaines, une approche voisine de celle des Barely Repeatable Processes de Thingamy, mais ne fonctionne pas correctement lorsque l’issue elle-même est incertaine. Les processus fonctionnent lorsque le résultat en est prévisible, ce qui est de moins en moins le cas.
Gil Yehuda vient de proposer un autre modèle, en proposant la mise en place d’une dynamique collaborative aux côtés des modèles traditionnels de management, basés sur la hiérarchie et les récompenses. C’est une vision très intéressante mais je crois que le développement de mécanismes collaboratifs modifiera profondément la structure des organisations, et que la coexistence des modèles n’est pas viable de la manière dont il le propose. Ce dont nous avons besoin n’est pas de forcer l’adoption de nouvelles pratiques dans des structures conservatrices, mais de faciliter leur diffusion, par l’utilisation et la modification de mécanismes existants, quoique latents, pour permettre l’émergence de nouvelles pratiques.
Redéfinir le client en interne
J’ai récemment écrit sur le nouveau type de relations que les entreprises peuvent (et doivent) construire avec leurs clients et leurs non clients. Ces relations ne sont pas basées sur une transaction, mais reposent sur la valeur que les entreprises peuvent créer en aidant les clients à résoudre les problèmes qu’ils rencontrent dans leur vie quotidienne, en leur proposant de meilleurs produits et services. Le Web social facilite cette logique à dominante service, permettant de recueillir davantage d’informations à partir des interactions entre les individus (c’est ce à quoi s’emploie le CRM Social). La mise en place de ce type de relation est un pré-requis de la collaboration, dont le but ultime est la co-création de valeur. Je ne parle pas là de communication ou de pseudo marketing des médias sociaux, mais d’un changement des fondamentaux de l’économie et du marketing. Le manque de confiance, et l’inconsistance des soi-disant «communautés de marque» ne posent pas de problème dans ce contexte. Pourquoi ne pas appliquer le même modèle en entreprise ?
Les «clients» ont toujours été une réalité interne. Mais les entreprises en ont aujourd’hui une perception périmée, la plupart des interactions internes étant orientées vers la vente de services ou le push des décisions du management vers les équipes. Plutôt que d’aider leurs clients à faire ce qu’ils ont à faire en entretenant une interaction constante, beaucoup de fonctions support les mettent au bout d’un entonnoir orienté processus. Par exemple, la DSI formalise en vain ses relations avec ses clients internes à travers la gestion des exigences, malgré leur inaptitude avérée à résoudre des problèmes réels en temps réel. Redéfinir le client interne en suivant une logique orientée service permettrait de jeter les bases organisationnelles de la collaboration. La plupart des services en bénéficierait; les Ressources Humaines, par exemple, pourrait mettre en place un vrai développement de carrière, au-delà des référentiels métiers et fonctions.
Au niveau individuel, la même définition du «client» (celui qui est impacté par nos actions et nos propositions) et un comportement identique généreraient une nouvelle forme de relations, et favoriseraient un changement de mentalité favorable à la collaboration. Que se passerait-il si les managers considéraient leurs équipes comme des clients ? Faciliter la tâche de ses subordonnés et observer la manière dont ils les gèrent… Comme me le faisait remarquer Olivier Blanchard, cela ressemble à de bonnes pratiques de leadership. Bien sûr, mais tandis que nous savons comment nous comporter envers nos clients, qui sait exactement ce qu’est un leader ?
Je crois que l’application en interne de ce que nous apprenons à faire vis-à-vis de nos clients externes fournit une solution concrète à la préparation du changement vers une entreprise collaborative, pour la grande majorité des entreprises pour qui la collaboration est une fumisterie. Je ne propose pas de modèle, juste un appel au passage à l’acte. Pour faciliter la diffusion de pratiques collaboratives, redéfinissons le client interne, et tenons en compte de la même manière que nous devons à présent tenir compte des clients de nos marques.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
Let us face it; we, as humans, are selfish, individualists, and undoubtedly clinging to any privileges associated with power. Goodwill and sharing among peers follow Nielsen’s principle, and most of us wouldn’t even imagine acting differently unless obliged to. The social Web is opening a path to new ways of fostering knowledge flows inside and outside our organizations, but the need for collaborative behaviors to unlock models of work suitable to the new hyperlinked economy taking shape nowadays is only fulfilled (or even reachable) by few.
Communities and trust: a reality check
In this context, the pillars of efficient and creative collaboration, connected communities and trust, might be far more difficult to leverage than heralded by Enterprise 2.0 enthusiasts. Developing and nurturing communities is a hot topic, but which reality does it uncover? Communities are about passion, and passion is first about learning from your peers. No real community is ever thinkable without that. Thousands of Facebook pages are created every day on the mostly false promise to build communities. Coca-Cola’s page has almost fifteen millions fans but is there a reason to call this gathering a “community”? Is there any in-depth interaction or, let’s say it, collaboration, involved?
The internal version doesn’t behave better. At organizational level, most collaborative work is, in fact, teamwork, where cooperation is aligned along tasks in a linear and predictable way. Communities of practice, which develop truly collaborative and adaptive behaviors along time, rely much more on passion, patience and involvement than on 2.0 technologies to grow and operate. They usually perform well online because they already do offline. Beyond that, many “successful” Enterprise 2.0 case studies do not offer any reality check apart from the number of connections recorded and number of “communities” created. Socialwashing is the new rule of thumb.
Besides nurturing a favorable collective environment, true collaboration requires trust. The problem here is that trust is an endangered quality. Brands cannot ignore that customers are less and less confident every year, and that erosion of trust shows up everywhere, social media space included. Trust inside organizations scores even lower. Micro-management, continuous performance-based evaluation measured against predefined work conditions, hierarchical and economical pressure, have impaired trust among employees in many companies. In a vast majority of circumstances, collaboration is a crock.
Adoption is not diffusion
However, there is no doubt a truly collaborative enterprise is the best-suited organizational model to tackle the increasing complexity of our economical environments, to leverage the power of companies’ ecosystems toward sustainable competitive advantages. More than ever, organizations need a shift. Knowledge workers need to continually have new resources at their disposal, while work and learning must now blend in a continuous stream. But since so few are mature enough to embrace this complexity and allow for redefining work as a fluid, collaborative flow, how can we help and coach the others?
Bertrand Duperrin proposes to introduce social routines in employees’ daily workflows. Such a framework facilitates adoption of collaborative practices, but neither does it question the actual relationships existing among members of a company and the underlying lack of trust, not does it address one of the main shortcomings of business processes: socializing them helps dealing with fuzzy operations, an approach somehow similar to Thingamy’s Barely Repeatable Processes, but does not perform well with uncertain outcomes. Processes need predictable outcomes, which are less and less available.
Gil Yehuda just proposed another framework, asserting that collaborative dynamics could (and should) take place aside traditional management models, hierarchy- and incentives-based forces. He has strong points here, but I believe that enabling collaborative mechanisms would deeply modify the organizational structure, and that their coexistence isn’t sustainable the way he exposes it. What we need is not forcing adoption in conservative structures, but facilitating diffusion, by the use and modification of some existing, but latent, mechanisms, to allow emergence of new ones.
Redefining the internal customer
I recently wrote about the way companies can (and have to) build new relationships with their customers and non-customers. These relationships are not transaction-based, but rely on the value companies can create on helping customers solve their daily problems by making better products and services proposals. The social web facilitates this service-dominant logic, allowing getting better insight from people’s interactions (this is what SocialCRM is about). Establishing this kind of relationships is a necessary prequel to collaboration, which ultimate goal is the co-creation of value. I am not talking about communication or funky social media marketing here, but about a shift in economic and marketing fundamentals. Lack of trust, and the inconsistence of so-called “brand communities” is not an issue in this context. Why couldn’t we apply the same framework into enterprise?
“Customers” always had an internal reality. But companies always work on an outdated definition, most internal interactions being oriented toward selling services or pushing decisions from management to teams. Rather than helping their customers getting their job done through continuous interaction, many support functions put them at the end of process-based funnels. For example, the IT department hopelessly formalizes its relationships with internal customers through requirements, despite their inability to address real-world problems in real-time. Redefining the internal customer according to a service-dominant logic would set up the organizational scene for collaboration. Most departments would benefit from it; HR, for instance, would leverage true career development, beyond roles and job descriptions.
At individual level, the same definition of “customer” (those who are impacted by our acting and proposals) and the very same behaviors would enable a new kind of relationships, and foster a shift toward a collaborative mindset. What if managers consider their teams as customers? Facilitating subordinates’ tasks and listening to the way they deal with them… As Olivier Blanchard pointed out to me, this sounds like good leadership practice. Sure, but while we know how to deal with customers, who knows what a leader exactly is?
I believe that applying internally what we are learning to do with external customers provides a real-life solution to help preparing the shift toward a collaborative enterprise, for the vast majority of organizations in which collaboration is a crock. There is no framework here, just a practical call to action. To facilitate the rise of collaboration, let us redefine the internal customer, and deal with him the same way we now have to deal with our brands’ customers.
