By Thierry de Baillon
This article has been cross-posted with ecollab blog carnival.
Version française ici.
Much has been told and written about the capital importance of knowledge in organizations, and the rise of networks-enabled enterprise emphasizes even more the role of informal learning and knowledge sharing in human interactions in the workplace. Enterprise 2.0 is neither about technology nor about people, Enterprise 2.0 is about capturing and harnessing the knowledge flows which circulate inside and across organizations. But “capturing” knowledge is somehow like seizing the air we breathe. I f knowledge were an animal, it would definitely be a cat. Both Cheshire and Schrödinger’s cats.
Knowledge as Cheshire cat
As innocuous as the word seems, defining ‘knowledge’, particularly in relation to ‘information’, is no easy task. Furthermore, English language only has one word where French, for example, has two: “savoir” and “connaissance”. “Savoir” encompasses every human symbolic production (whether it be concepts, data, methods, philosophies…) and is independent from any being. “Connaissance”, on the other side, relates to the appropriation of knowledge by the human being. It is a never-ending process of understanding in the spiritual sense of it (see for instance, in French, these articles from Florence Meichel or René Barbier). Most of modern definitions of knowledge assume its social nature, embedding value into context.
The same piece of information won’t have the same meaning and importance if delivered or learned in different contexts. The way we learn this information is by itself part of its contextual inheritance, making look knowledge like the Cheshire’s cat: whenever you think you are able to formalize it, it has already taken a different meaning in another context, leaving you with dead, barely usable, information. Every Knowledge Manager knows how difficult reusability of formalized knowledge is.
An idealistic vision of a network-based company would allow for free flow of knowledge without any formalization. Nevertheless, the need for formalizing informal learning, as way of capturing informal knowledge, is quite mandatory in our organizations, notably in regard to HR issues. As Jon Husband recently pointed out:
there’s also ongoing dissonance or competition between the methods behind structured and defined organizational forms and activities, and the growing world of hyperlinked flows in which knowledge and meaning are built layer by layer, exchange by exchange
Organizational structures, job requirements and training valuation require a way to measure informal learning, thus to somehow formalize it. Rather than chasing the utopian goal to formalize knowledge, companies are in fact able to formalize and measure its outcome (think about Cheshire cat’s smile): increased ability to solve problems, coaching or mentoring assignments,…
Knowledge as Schrödinger’s cat
Furthermore, thinking of knowledge as a dual, formal versus informal, statement is a mere illusion. Any discrete piece of knowledge is paradoxically at the same time both a formal and informal artifact and, like in the Schrödinger’s cat paradox, we cannot assert anything before we actually use it. Every parent knows that acquisition of the most ever formalized knowledge by children is in fact conditioned by the relationship they maintain with their teachers.
Web 2.0 technologies allow us to formalize the informal, allowing us to tag, comment, recommend documents or contributions, adding them an interactive, tangible contextual layer. At the opposite, patents are among the most formal pieces of knowledge. But the use of properly designed SNA tools unveils their hidden informal nature. By uncovering citations, comments, and referencing and patterns of influence among clusters of linked patents and examinations, network analysis highlights intangible relationships. By changing our view on knowledge, we are able to consider it as formal or as informal, switching from an artifact to another.
Design is another great example of this “artifact switching”, which incarnates informal information gathered from customers, about their behaviors, conversations and wishes, into real-life formal products. This paradoxical co-existence, while difficult to leverage, is what ultimately keeps knowledge alive and useful.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
A small conversation with Olivier Blanchard (@thebrandbuilder ) on Twitter left me with an interesting question: what drives us into the need and will to change long time cultural habits (the kind of paper we are writing on), if not fancying novelty? My take is that setting our mind in a different environment not only enables a different perception of our surrounding, even if this environment is as trivial as a sheet of paper, but also changes our very way of thinking, in this case helping us fostering new ideas. Typically, it means emergence.
Technology always has deeply influenced our lives and behaviors. The wheel had revolutionized our geographical influence, electricity allowed us to extend our physical abilities, all of this because some people shifted their thinking from the primary destination of these technologies to new uses, empowering their real potential. Innovation always has been a matter of shifting the way we look at current objects, behaviors, usages or processes, finding and leveraging new patterns from the existing.
2.0 technologies are already changing the way we are using the Web, the way we are connecting, conversing and interacting with each other. We discovered that these conversations are a totally new way to learn, to collaborate and to exchange knowledge, but most of our initiatives are still about harnessing these technologies into existing models. To go further, really unleash their potential and embrace the systemic changes they are allowing, we all need a shift.
One of the current trends in Enterprise 2.0 frameworks is the use of social tools to optimize business processes, to fit them into the existing, or to replace them when (and only when) they fall short. This, of course, will minimize failure cases, will speed up business efficiency and facilitate adoption in organizations. But…. where is the shift? Our process driven businesses are no more than thirty years old, and were born from a misunderstanding of Japanese heterarchic and consensual social culture. A process-oriented approach to Enterprise 2.0 won’t allow place for the most powerful aspects of what the Social Web emphasizes: self-organization, non deterministic outcome, unconstrained trust, informal knowledge capture, borderless ecosystems, etc.
We have no tangible, rational proof that the process driven organization is the best model for today businesses, apart from “it works better than before” statements. One of the main reasons why companies are not ready to shift to another, networked, model is risk avoidance. While sustainability, and the gain of new competitive advantages, are crucial for any business, risk avoidance is a management and delivery model which literally turns its back to the non-linear complex world we are living in, and are in fine unsustainable. The very nature of CAS makes them unsuitable for complicated rules and determinist mechanisms, and complexity must instead be embraced with simple, quickly reconfigurable rules.
Marketing, too, needs a shift to truly take into account and take advantage from new customers’ behaviors. A drastic change happened since Peter Drucker wrote that marketing and innovation are the two basic functions of enterprise; both are now tightly connected through direct unbiased interactions with customers. The rise of Social CRM tools allow marketers to get insights from consumers and exchange knowledge to build better customer experiences. This dive into the Social Web and into the conversations blooming everywhere is of course a gold mine for today’s marketing. But if the data those conversations convey is capital for sales or the customer relations department, the weak signals embedded into those interactions are even more important for innovation and for every core business activity. By allowing putting the customer’s voice at the center of organizations, Social CRMs are true design thinking tools. Here lies their real power. To harness it, marketers, from being an interface between businesses and customers, must shift to become real ‘trends amplifiers’, and get ready for a role convergence with innovators, leaving data crunching and mining to an evolving sales department.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
As time goes by, I see more and more surveys and positive case studies about Enterprise 2.0 adoption. This is good, but not so much. Most of the time, use of technologies such as instant messaging or web conferencing is viewed as concrete steps toward Enterprise 2.0 adoption. But is there any behavioral difference between meeting up face to face with someone and talking via IP networks? Barely any; this helps saving fossil fuels for our planet’s health and sets up a hypothetical technological ground for some later adoption. Not that much to jump for joy about.
Monitoring Enterprise 2.0 adoption should instead focus on communities, networks, and flows of knowledge, These are the real bricks on which to measure change, with a lot of precautions nevertheless.
Communities of practice exist for some time now in big organizations. They gather people with similar or related roles in a company, and are built around practical cases sharing, knowledge emergence and collaborative problem solving. While this is a great move toward new modes of collaboration and new, tacit, knowledge capture, these communities are often heavily structured and managed, just to insure that they “work”. Regular fixed-date gatherings, mandatory outcome, fixed agenda and assigned roles are among common practices. In other words, keeping control on the internal working of communities of practice allow organizations to fit roles, responsibilities and (collaborative) productivity all together.
But communities are inherently dynamic and have fuzzy boundaries. Networks, which may both encompass or be nested inside them, are often unpredictable, uncontrollable, activate and dissolve on purpose, instill passion and disruption into communities. In networks relies the real power of communities. Without purposely enabling them and fully fostering their capabilities, which means giving up control and deeply changing the way we think about work, online communities are, and ever will, only be technology assisted para-hierarchical structures. Communities are the bodies, while networks are the souls of the collaborative enterprise. Without a real cultural change, ‘change toward Enterprise 2.0 adoption’ merely means creating Zombies 2.0. Is your company into ‘socialwashing’?
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
Albeit time is a critical dimension in today’s every business, it is curiously absent from most discussion around Enterprise 2.0. Adoption time scale is an issue we will eventually empirically solve as more and more successful case studies are publicized. Just don’t put too much expectation on this data beyond “fail fast and often”, as Dion Hinchcliffe stated it, since adoption can merely be measured on an individual basis, and each case is unique. But beyond that, even more cruelly absent from the debates going on are operational time scales.
It’s all in the process. Really?
Reducing time consumption in complicated tasks’ chains is one of the main objectives of the sophisticated processes which drive our organizations. (Repeatability and industrialization of production is the other one) To achieve productivity and efficiency improvements, they release the burden of “reinventing the wheel” by minimizing the number, and complexity, of decision which have to take place along the chain.
Recent technologies, like SAP’s Gravity or Thingamy, suggest that BPM can be efficiently improved through collaborative work, which opens a new path to Enterprise 2.0 (I won’t discuss here my personal view on the discrepancy between collaborative enterprise and process based organizations). But even if considered from an integrated-to-the-workflow angle, this approach doesn’t take into account the time factor: how long will it take to optimize a process in a collaborative way? To what extend is “how long” acceptable? When is the result of collaborative work stated satisfactory enough to be considered as an outcome?
Thinking of Enterprise 2.0 from a process perspective doesn’t free us from the major shortcoming of all E2.0 frameworks so far: making decisions is one of the main tasks of organizations. This takes time, and we lack methods to understand, leverage and quantify collaborative decision making’s time scales.
Complexity at work
Processes helped shaping big, complicated organizations from the industrial era, but cannot encompass the complexity of our hyperlinked economy. Industrialization has reached a tipping point beyond which traditional productivity funnels must be rethought. Of course, admitting that organizations are complex adaptive systems brings new, and sometimes overwhelming, challenges, but it also highlights some aspects diretcly relevant to the time issue.
Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are self-similar and embedded, which means that communities and collaborative teams are CAS themselves, and their time scale is independent from the global time scale (of the process, of the company…).
CAS are, well, adaptive, which means that the definition of an absolute time scale is out of reach. Time in execution depends on initial factors, so setting fixed time rules for a collaborative work to provide an outcome seems irrelevant. Timeframes are relative to the environment in which they are measured.
CAS are non-linear, which trumps any attempt to measure time and set it as a process variable in a ‘traditional’ way. Statements like ‘you have two days to come to a consensus and find an answer’ are irrelevant. Instead, several time states, several thinking processes, can cohabit in a collaborative initiative.
Time-relative processes
We need to think differently here. Complexity and quantum theories allow us to encompass time, not as an absolute forward mechanism, but as a probabilistic one. While we cannot quantify the time needed to take a decision, we can measure the percentage of consensual adoption of a collaborative decision. Setting thresholds to this percentage would allow for triggering the next task or process, without compromising the global performance of enterprise.
Instead of being dependent on fixed task-based rules, and to be able to address the operational time scales concern Enterprise 2.0 is facing, my bet is that we will see the emergence of new relative time-based processes, to harness the true power of networked teams and communities. I hope you will add your view on this crucial issue.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
This post was cross-posted on ecollab carnival blog, as part of a collaborative thinking about the future of the training department.
Productivity: The amount of output per unit of input (labor, equipment, and capital).
Enterprise has for long understood, and applied, that training and education are an important part of its hunt for competitive advantages. At operational level, first, training allows for better adequacy between employees, their role, and the hierarchy- and process-based ‘mechanics’ of Enterprise. At competitive level, then, acquisition of new knowledge is for companies both a way to keep best talents in house and a way to setup an innovation friendly ecosystem. In both cases, education and learning have taken a privileged position in professional environments, and is now openly recognized as an important productivity source.
It is quite striking to see how much this concept, rationalized, statutory, acquisition of formal and explicit knowledge in order to maximize individual productivity, is now spread across our whole society, bridging more and more closely business and education worlds, notably with generalization of internship requirements. This concept, however, ceases today to be legitimate.
While apparently justified by security and… productivity concerns, present trend of blocking access to main social networks rather looks like a desperate attempt in denying actual cultural and societal evolution. How could we otherwise explain such practices, as more than 40% of employees will use a mobile terminal to priority access the internet in two years from now? Whether they want it or not, companies will soon face a real organizational dilemma: to witness a drastic individual productivity dropout, for letting employees freely access the social web, or to provide them internally with an environment as much attractive as the one they can find outside. As the ideal enterprise will stay, for long, an almost unreachable ideal, other solutions have to be considered for a vast majority of companies. Finding the most relevant one? This seems quite an evidence for most of us: we have to recognize the importance of knowledge informal acquisition, and to include this activity in the general framework of individual listening and self-training task.
The growing importance of informal knowledge, and its necessary integration into professional education, doesn’t limit itself to external influence. Whether they wish it or not, companies are today involved into collaborative initiatives which question the very foundations of individual productivity. It will have to be more and more transferred to the community, one of its natural functions being training through implicit knowledge sharing.
From being considered today as a source for productivity, in our hierarchy and process-based structures, training will very logically and quickly become one of its critical components. This will ultimately modify existing relations between knowledge, innovation and production. Concretely, and naturally, social learning will pave the way for Enterprise 2.0.
By Thierry de Baillon
English version here.
Ce billet est cross-publié sur le blog carnival ecollab dans le cadre d’une réflexion collective sur l’avenir de la formation en entreprise.
Productivité : rapport entre la production d’un bien ou d’un service et l’ensemble des intrants nécessaires à sa production (travail, équipement et capitaux).
L’entreprise a depuis longtemps compris, et intégré, l’importance de la formation dans sa recherche permanente d’avantages compétitifs. Dans sa dimension opérationnelle, tout d’abord, l’apprentissage permettant une meilleure adéquation entre les employés, le rôle qu’ils occupent, et la « mécanique » hiérarchique et procédurale de l’entreprise. Dans sa dimension compétitive, ensuite, l’acquisition de nouveaux savoirs étant pour l’entreprise à la fois un moyen de retenir les talents et celui de mettre en place un écosystème propice à l’innovation. Dans les deux cas, l’apprentissage a acquis une place privilégiée dans l’univers professionnel, et est ouvertement reconnue comme source importante de productivité.
Il est d’ailleurs frappant de voir à quel point cette notion, celle de l’acquisition raisonnée d’un savoir explicite et formalisé, statufié, en vue de maximiser la productivité individuelle, trouve un écho dans la société toute entière, établissant des passerelles de plus en plus étroites avec le monde de l’éducation, notamment à travers la pratique généralisée des stages. Une notion qui, pourtant, cesse aujourd’hui d’être légitime.
En s’appuyant en apparence sur des raisons de sécurité et… de productivité, la tendance actuelle des entreprises à bloquer l’accès aux grands réseaux sociaux apparaît davantage comme une tentative désespérée de nier les changements sociétaux en cours. Alors que 40% des employés accèderont prioritairement à l’internet via un terminal mobile d’ici deux ans, comment expliquer autrement des mesures aussi dérisoires ? Qu’elles le veuillent ou non, les entreprises devront faire face à un véritable dilemme organisationnel : laisser s’effondrer la productivité individuelle, en autorisant leurs employés à accéder librement au web social, ou leur offrir en interne un environnement de travail aussi attractif que ce qu’ils trouvent à l’extérieur. Cette entreprise parfaite restant, et ce pour de longues années encore, un idéal difficilement accessible, d’autres solutions doivent être envisagées pour la majorité des entreprises. La plus pertinente ? Elle va de soi pour bon nombre d’entre nous : il s’agit de reconnaître l’importance de l’acquisition informelle du savoir, et d’inclure cette activité dans le cadre d’un travail de veille et d’auto-formation de l’individu.
L’importance croissante du savoir implicite, et sa nécessaire intégration à l’apprentissage, ne s’arrête pas à l’influence extérieure. Qu’elles le souhaitent ou non, les entreprises sont aujourd’hui entraînées dans une démarche collaborative qui remet en question les fondements même de la productivité individuelle. Celle-ci devra, de plus en plus, être déléguée à la communauté, dont l’une des fonctions naturelles est l’apprentissage par le biais du partage de savoir implicite.
Aujourd’hui considéré, dans nos structures hiérarchiques à base de processus, comme source de productivité, l’apprentissage va très logiquement et rapidement en devenir une des composantes essentielles, modifiant ainsi les rapports aujourd’hui en place entre savoir, innovation et production. De façon concrète et naturelle, le social learning ouvrira de fait la voie à l’Entreprise 2.0.
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
English version here.
Parmi les mots à la mode les plus (mal) utilisés en entreprise se trouvent, vous l’auriez deviné, les mots “communautés” et “réseaux”. Un des effets collatéraux du Marketing 2.0 est, au-delà de la concrétisation d’un nouveau mode de relation entre marques et clients, de faire prendre conscience aux directions générales du potentiel que recèle le travail collaboratif.
De fait, les entreprises, notamment les plus grosses, ont déjà mis en place des communautés internes depuis quelques années, souvent sans réellement comprendre la manière d’énergiser et de mettre à profit leur force, mais des expressions sans queue ni tête telles que « un Facebook pour l’entreprise » commencent aujourd’hui à faire leur chemin dans les esprits et les discours des top managers. Les vendeurs de plateformes sociales ne sont pas en reste : la promesse de Socialtext est « Social Networking with Enterprise 2.0 Collaboration » (le réseautage social allié à la collaboration de l’Enterprise 2.0) ; Jive Software présente son produit phare SBS comme « robust social networking software for employee communities » (un robuste logiciel de réseautage social pour les communautés d’employés).
La technologie elle-même, en introduisant de plus en plus de possibilités d’interaction en temps réel dans les plateformes, contribue à brouiller encore d’avantage les lignes entre communautés et réseaux.
Les deux concepts ont leur place dans l’entreprise connectée. Non seulement la compréhension de ce qui les différencie est une des clefs du succès dans la mise en place d’initiatives socio-collaboratives, mais s’appuyer sur leur complémentarité, nous fournit un cadre et des briques utiles pour aborder l’écosystème interne de l’Entreprise 2.0.
|
Communautés
|
Réseaux
|
| Structure |
Stable |
Floue et adaptative |
| Périmètre |
Conservatif – Prémimètre prédéfini |
Disruptif – Périmètre global |
| Objectifs |
Collaboration dans le temps |
Spécifiques |
| Gouvernance |
Leadership managé |
Leadership organique |
Niveau d’intégration dans les flux existants
|
Service/ Rôle |
Projet / Tâche |
Mode d’interaction
|
Essentiellement asynchronous |
Temps réel |
| Adoption |
Graduelle, basée sur des usages |
Spontanée, basée sur l’affinité |
Plutôt que se combattre l’un l’autre, communautés et réseaux peuvent, bien que servant des objectifs différents, élever le niveau du « travail connecté » en entreprise. La nature fluide et hautement interactive des réseaux leur permet d’adresser des questions qui sortent du cadre d’une communauté unique. Il existe une vaste littérature sur le besoin, ou l’absence de besoin, d’intégrer la production communautaire au sein des processus business existants. Je pense quant à moi que le fait de travailler dans un environnement connecté conduira fatalement au remplacement des processus actuels par de nouveaux mécanismes adaptatifs axés sur l’individu et ses compétences, et cette vision peut déjà être mise à profit : correctement guidés (et compris, ce qui signifie qu’ils ne doivent pas être confondus avec les communautés), les réseaux en ont la puissance nécessaire.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
It is quite striking to see how much the mass production era still shapes a lot of our behaviors, whether in our relationships to brands or in Enterprise world. From a customer point of view, while conversing more and more with brands around what I consider as a symbolic transaction, we are still mostly considering companies as products and services manufacturers and distributors.
In parallel, “work as value” is still a dominant paradigm in a lot of companies, which, at same time, are trying to implement 2.0, socio-collaborative, tools and platforms to foster knowledge emergence and capitalization. This is strikingly strong in countries like France, where our President said “travailler plus pour gagner plus” (working more to earn more) less than two years ago. Let’s face this, every effort to facilitate Enterprise 2.0 adoption has to take into account, not only structural resistance, but cultural artifacts from a past era.
Most employees have quite effortlessly switched paradigm, from “work as value” to “work as creation of value”, as it relates both to their day-to-day experience as customers and to their expectations in Enterprise world, but managers are facing a bigger challenge, as they are less and less connected with a traditional (pre knowledge economy era) role of managing teams, and expected to consider management as transformation of value. As obvious as this might be, seem from our Enterprise 2.0 heralds’ seats, we have to keep in mind that organizational and behavioral gap: from gatekeepers of business processes, managers must now dynamically harness existing knowledge to transform it into competitive advantages for their company; a tough challenge for most.
Furthermore, while bringing more agility, adoption of collaborative tools and platforms, whether used in the existing framework of business processes or not, allows for a new type of leadership, combining knowledge fostering with social connections facilitation. Managers will now have to catalyze groups and communities activity, involve them in decision-making as well as in maintaining their inner state of equilibrium, acting as the strange attractors of a complex internal ecosystem.
From their real adoption of what is clearly a totally new role, a role which requires more qualities than ever, will depend success or failure of many companies in this new socio-collaborative economy.
By Thierry de Baillon
Version française ici.
Twitter was bruising yesterday about Salesforce announcement of its new application, Chatter. With a product introduced as a “Facebook for the Enterprise” by a representative of the company, Salesforce just confirmed what is becoming an important trend in Enterprise platforms: real-time collaboration.
For a long time, the only asynchronous tool used by companies was email, and one of the challenges of Enterprise 2.0 adoption was in helping people getting used of new asynchronous tools like wikis, blogs, bookmarking or tagging platforms, placing them in conditions to deal with knowledge exchange and serendipity values. In parallel, generalization of the Blackberry is putting email back into pseudo-synchronous mode, instant messaging applications penetration rate in companies is about 40%, according to Gartner, and Google Wave is pointing another real-time head into the game. The point, of course, is no more about discussing whether synchronous tools will be part or not of our new toolboxes. They will, for sure, but are they worth the hype?
The Facebook analogy used by Salesforce is indeed indicative of the direction main platform vendors are today heading to; something like “hey, Facebook works as hell, wouldn’t you like to be able to have your employees sharing, interacting, poking each other on business matters? 230 milliions users cannot be wrong”. But is really the Social Web a similar playground as Enterprise? Definitely not. Bertrand Duperrin recently insightfully sketched the differences between managing communities and managing business. While both worlds aim to drive flawlessly working communities, companies need a lot more.
Furthermore, these new tools will put emphasis on time as a critical material, weighting in most process-based tasks. While searching increased productivity along these processes, with the help of real-time facilitators, executives will put further pressure on actual organizations, avoiding to face the necessary cultural shift which has yet to happen. Platform vendors’ “real-time” pitch is with no doubt good for (their) business, as executives will certainly jump in the bandwagon, not for Enterprise 2.0.
This new trend will oblige us to be even more cautious when implementing social tools, as we now must deploy two different layers of interaction, and that, along with leadership, decision-making, knowledge and information, time is the new dimension we have to deal with.
