Scaling up with social media: luxury brands have a natural advantage.

Jeremiah Owyang recently did a presentation on how companies can scale up with social media technologies.  Do read it.  His starting observation is that customers (let alone prospects) will always outnumber a company's total workforce (let alone the ones formally responsible for customer relationships).  Since social media puts companies in "direct" contact with a growing number of people, they are in danger of counter-productive social media initiatives leaving most customers or prospects frustrated for lack of response from the company to their queries/issues/concerns.

Jeremiah suggest 3 good strategic solutions to this problem:
<<

• Using all the voices in your ecosystem (the Rings of Influence) not just being the only ones to talk.
• Develop more customer to customer technologies that leverage your customers to do your marketing, sales, and support.
• Invest in Social CRM systems, while immature now, they will eventually help companies respond in real time –and maybe even anticipate customer need.

>>

 Reading this, I realised it was confirming my position that luxury goods and services companies are the best suited for an effective social media strategy: their ratio "number of customers/number of employees" is by nature the lowest!  So, they can realistically connect with a large number of customers by involving all their employees for instance.  Luxury brands can be more in control of what is being said about them in the socialsphere than FMCG brands. 

A hint that Burberry is on the right track about social media integration

 In my last post, I wrote that I didn't know of a retailer that is yet offering a fully integrated multi-channels experience.  I have however just discovered that Burberry's own social media site www.artofthetrench.com might indicate that they are on the right track towards this full integration.  The site allows a Facebook account connection (in fact imposes it) before uploading your own trench coat pictures.  This of course does not mean that Burberry will implement this type of integration on its ecommerce site but it's a start.

PS. I am not suggesting that a Facebook account should necessarily give you access to all ecommerce sites! Social media is not just about Facebook for a start, and a social media strategy should not be application dependent anyway.  If the technology might still need to be defined, the goal is clear however: offering an integrated and consistent multi-channels customer experience and follow each customer as a unique individual through all channels.

Loyalty cards are about customer knowledge, next step: integration with social media

Despite its recent loss of market share, Asda continues to argue that its lowest price policy is a better strategy than its main rivals’ loyalty card schemes.  I think they are wrong but not with respect to prices but because of the valuable customer data they are not collecting.  Asda simply does not “know” its loyal customers.

In Retail Week May 28^th 2010 edition, there is an interesting article about customer loyalty: “Loyalty cards: the bedrock of future success?” 

 <<[David Roth (former B&Q marketing director, now chief executive of the Store WPP)] observes: “The world is going to divide between those who can organise and make use of their customer data and the others, who will wake up in five or six years’ time, outmanoeuvred. The person who owns the data, owns the customer.”
But he maintains that loyalty schemes are primarily a means to an end and will not on their own make a retailer successful.  He says: “Gaining customer loyalty is about a lot more than a scheme. The value proposition will be important.”
For all the interest in loyalty and the success of some programmes, they will never be a panacea for retail’s ills and typically cannot answer one vital question. As [James] McCoy (Yougov SixthSense research director) says: “Loyalty schemes can tell you what people are buying - but not what they’re not buying. As well as whatever they are spending at one retailer, they might be spending another £40 a week at Lidl, which you have no idea about. The challenge is to find the data you don’t have.” >>

David Roth and McCoy are absolutely correct.  In the FMCG sector, loyalty schemes will increasingly be a necessity for commercial success but will not be sufficient by themselves to ensure competitive advantage.  Competitive advantage will first come with what is done with the information collected at the till.  Tesco Clubcard is a perfect illustration of this: I am a Tesco customer and I receive at home personalised mail including discount coupons for products that I am likely to buy based on my purchase history.

However, the true Holy Grail of competitive advantage is not in the customers’ purchase history data, it is with the knowledge of what they want but cannot find or afford, what they might buy if they were made aware of it or if it was conditioned differently, what they buy with the competition, etc…  The most valuable customer knowledge will not come from transactions at the till but from engaging with customers to get them to tell what their needs and wants are.  Luxury goods retailers have known this for centuries and have always valued and leveraged the in-store customer knowledge obtained by the salesperson through the conversations with his/her “loyal” customers.

So FMCG retailers will need to engage with the customers registered in their loyalty scheme.  Since they will have to do this through all channels, it will require a holistic approach to customer identification: So this means one account per customer for all channels.  This might seem obvious but I have not yet come across a single retailer (from FMCG to luxury) with such a pervasive integration strategy.  For instance, all retailers with a Facebook page do not integrate the Facebook account with the ecommerce customer account: This means no systematic way of tying up a customer’s comments on Facebook with his/her online (let alone offline) purchase history.

<<Tesco is one of the most advanced of retailers in its ability to mine customer data and use it effectively and, notes Shore Capital analyst Clive Black, has put its scheme at the heart of its business, rather than run it as an add-on.>>

Similarly, in the next few years, retailers will gain competitive advantage from putting social media and all customer interactions at the heart of its business, rather than run it as a an add-on.

How will luxury Brands be creatively different with ecommerce?

Read Fadi Shuman’s (Pod1) very informative article about ecommerce in the luxury market. 

Fadi might be correct that “2010 will be the year that the majority of [the luxury] brands jump on the e-Commerce bandwagon”.  The latest purchase of Net-a-Porter.com by Richemont supports this statement.  But I have yet to be convinced that these same brands have worked out a way to reproduce on the web what made them different on the high street: uniqueness, exclusivity,  high quality, dream-making image, personalized customer services, refined and luxurious stores, best store locations, etc… As Marci Ikeler (Publicis) puts it in her excellent slideshow I referred to in a previous post :

“How do we use the web to tell a luxury story?” Or “How do we recreate the sensorial experience of the brand online?”

 Fadi refers to Faberge and its site with a very exclusive access or the ecommerce pioneer Burberry’s use of social media for an interactive approach around its catwalk shows.   Marci does provide other examples or innovative online initiatives from several luxury brands but we have yet to see the same level of creativity and innovation with their ecommerce. 

I have checked out several (ok not all of them, but let me know if I missed one that contradicts my point and that will be the exception that confirms the rule as we say in France) of the oldest or more recent luxury brands’ ecommerce sites (Cartier, Burberry, Prada, Louis Vuitton, Dior, Dunhill, Gieves and Hawkes ) and all of them failed for me at the first main hurdle, well before making the first purchase!  And this is a key feature of a luxury brand store: the special experience starts with the shop windows and continues throughout your visit of the store through primarily excellent customer service, even if you end up buying nothing.  Before leaving you might have exchanged a lot of valuable information with one (or more) sales staff.  You might have given for example your contact details, your preferences, your sizes (for clothes).   You might have been told specific details about products of interest, what is in stock, what is about to arrive or about to run out, what is very popular, etc…  I am assuming here that you are a new visitor to the store, not yet a customer of the brand. 

Now, what did I mean by stating that the luxury brands failed this first hurdle related to the pre-sale experience?  Well, let’s start with the fact that for most of the sites I visited and browsed the products available to purchase online, my visit has only contributed to the website analytics but the brand does not know I – as a specific person – visited its site.  This is simply because my credentials were to be requested only at the purchasing stage.  Worse, in most cases even though I was willing to provide my details, there was no way to do this without buying something!  Gieves and Hawkes, Dunhill and Louis Vuitton did cater for a pre-sale registration.  However, in both cases the benefits of doing so are limited and lack creativity.  Typical facilities available once registered are:

• Create and share your personal wishlist
• Expedite the check-out process
• Receive special updates and promotions
• Modify your account details at anytime 
• Check the status of orders
• Recording alternative addresses
• View past orders

These are basic services that most non-luxury sector ecommerce sites have been offering for years.  Luxury brands should do much better to create a more personalised and special online experience. 
For instance, once logged in I would expect a personalised experience wherever my web browsing takes me within the brand’s online world.  So my account should follow me around so that I do not need to log in/register again on different pages.  Of course, another benefit could be a personalisation of the content on each page based on my preferences (I have other ideas but wont give them out for free!).

For example, Gieves and Hawkes has a Corporate Blog on its site.  This is good but unfortunately, even though I was logged in on the main site, I would have had to enter my credentials again in order to leave a comment.   This lack of integration is not just about a lack of user friendliness, it does also highlight a lack of or poor multi-channels and multi-media CRM strategy.  In the luxury business, knowing your customers well and your customers to know you well is so vital for competitive advantage that it is starting to defy belief why luxury brands are following on the FMCG brands footsteps rather than lead the way.

Brands need an online social media strategy

Jeremiah Owyang  is right, a Brand should not “throw away” traffic on its corporate site by inviting visitors to join the Brand profile on Twitter or Facebook or other social site without a well thought strategy.  It is a bit like sales associates of a high street shop telling visitors on their way out: “We invite you to visit us at our small corners inside most department stores”.  This might seem to be sending the positive message “we’re present in these locations” but it might lead to the visitors buying at other Brands also located there as well as not coming back to the original store!  The same as sending a visitor of your Brand website to twitter where he/she will receive twits from many other Brands, is likely to lead to another Brand attracting more of his/her attention, and not have him/her visit your site again!

A Brand does typically spend much much more on its own website than on its social networks presence (if it has one) so if not careful, doing so might mean actually losing these visitors as potential active fan of the Brand, to become at best simple passive observers of some Brand-related activity.


However,  I am not convinced by Jeremiah’s matrix on the Evolution of Social Media Integration and Corporate Websites.  Or rather, I do not see it as a “must follow this path” for all Brands.  Let’s just take the last stage for example: “Complete integration between corporate site and social sites”.  I can think of most of the Brands in the luxury goods sector that would not benefit from such an integration.  This would lower the Brand name status too much to the level of just another network relation such as a friend on Facebook.  The Brand would risk losing its exclusive image, its capacity to generate and fulfill dreams.  Luxury Brands would need to maintain this image online and a complete integration with social media would make this difficult. 

Marci Ikeler from Publicis has a very good presentation on slideshare  “Digital strategies for luxury Brands”. 

Digital Strategies for Luxury Brands

View more presentations from Marci Ikeler.

She mentions the successful examples of Gucci on Facebook and MAC on twitter, both of which support the Brand image instead of “cheapening it”.  I noted this statement supporting Jeremiah’s first point: “The most successful luxury digital campaigns are fully integrated with a larger digital strategy and align with the brand’s values”.  But do not confuse this with a complete integration of the Brand’s website and social media!

You must read the chapter 10. Use digital to convey exclusivity (slides 43 to 45).  It shows 2 examples of exclusive social networking, illustrating why complete social mass media integration will not be beneficial for all Brands.

Social Media: overhyped fad or essential tool?

Attended an MBA Association event last night: Social networking for business – overhyped fad or essential tool? Speakers: Mireia Fontbernat, Paul O’Nolan & Paul TannerLocation: Strand Palace Hotel In a few words, the speakers confirmed what I already knew or suspected: No one has a clue where online social media is really taking us (and these 3 speakers were no exception). It is not about having a crystal ball but about having a clear understanding of the effects that these social tools have on our societies, and what their generic objectives are. When the telephone was starting to spread around the world many years ago, one could understand the effect on the society (connect everyone synchronously and speed-up information flows between individuals) and foresee an end-game (everyone being able to call directly anyone else from anywhere). You can't do that for social media today.Maybe it's because it is too soon after the first of these tools were created. But that is my point actually, we need more time to make real sense of it all. In the meantime, if it is important to embrace this online social world, it is no less important to be wary of potential pitfalls. For instance, the more you interact with this world, the more it knows about you. So, for a start, what you need to really keep private, don't put it online (but these pitfalls were not really addressed at the event yesterday either, it was more about what you can effectively do today for your business or for yourself). I think that what can be said today of the effect (benefit!) of social media is that it transfers power of influence to the individuals, and by extension to communities of individuals.Each of us has potentially the power to influence comparable to politicians or journalists. Recently, Ashton Kutcher (Demi Moore's husband) managed to reach 1 million twitter followers before the News network CNN. I am certainly influencing many more people with this blog than through my physical networking. What does this mean to businesses? Well, it can be summarized like this: Your company can choose not to know about its customers through social media, but your customers will certainly learn a lot about you online and it won't always be nice stuff! And that, they did illustrate it well at the event last night. So embrace online social media yes, but not in haste and choose the right tools for the intended audience and purpose.

Getting the right information to your retail customers at the right time, or how to make them loyal to your brand

In these very challenging economical times, retaining your customers is a must to survive now and thrive when things improve. For your customers to repetitively shop in your stores (on the high street or online) means for them one or both of the following conditions:

· It is to them the most practical or ‘lack of choice’ (ex.: “I shop at your supermarket because it is the closest to my home”).
· It is the brand that best fits their needs and/or wants at that moment in time.

You could of course consider the first group of customers as a bonus but they should be nurtured too as the practical reason for their custom could disappear and them with it (like moving house). The key for making either type of customers (“for practicality” or “by choice”) stay with your brand long term, is increasingly to provide them with the right information at the right time and in the right place, and this through all the market channels you make available to them. For instance, when online, a customer is virtually always one-click away to choose a competitor. I am not referring here only to ecommerce situation but to any web browsing situation to obtain information about your brand/company, starting of course with your main informational website.

In retail, you not only need to be consistent between your various channels but you need to integrate them as well. So it is not just about consistency in products and pricing, but also for example about enabling a customer who purchased online to be able to collect and return in store if he/she wishes to. And this type of seamless (to the customer) integration is not just an information systems problem. For instance, the manager of the store where the products purchased online are collected, will not welcome the transaction if the sale isn’t allocated to his store some way or another! So if only your online store gets the sale, you will de facto create internal resistance and unnecessary competition that ultimately could affect the customer (a solution by the way here is to have the sale shared by both channels).

Providing customers with the right information at the right time and in the right place implies understanding their likes and dislikes, their needs and wants. In the luxury goods sector, this knowledge on customers has historically been obtained by the sales associate on the shop floor during the process of a sale. When you buy a £,000+ product or service, you have time to chat about yourself and the reasons for your purchase (and you often want to) but when you are buying a pack of beer, a pair of socks or a bottle of shampoo, you usually don’t want to spend more time than necessary. Well, this is changing and primarily thanks to ecommerce. When you want to buy a shampoo or a pack of beer online, you must first register your name and contact details at the very least, so you have provided the private information that the retailer would not have obtained on the high street – except if you had used a “loyalty” card. So retailers can track customer behaviour online but often fail to do so on the high street which makes it difficult to leverage the integration of the different channels to market. Loyalty card schemes have been thought of the solution but too often fail to deliver the desired outcome because:

- Too many customers don’t bother signing up to the scheme (for various reasons but often simply because they don’t consider the associated discounts significant enough).
- A majority of customers will view it only as a discount scheme (“when I shop here, I might as well use the card and get the discount points as a bonus”) but their repeat visits do not depend on it.
- Most of the competition have a similar scheme so it does not constitute a significant USP (large number of customers end up with all your competitors’ loyalty card in their wallet).

A loyalty scheme needs to be about loyalty, not only about discounted repeat purchases. So this takes us back to the subject of this post: “true” loyalty can be achieved when the customer has access to and is given the right information at the right time about your product and services. “Right” information means as individualized as possible. A customer is really only interested in the products and services that concerns him/her. So for ex, a customer who never drinks alcohol wouldn’t care less about a promotion on wines. And it is not as simple as thinking that such a promotion should target only customers with a history of wine purchases. Our non-drinker customer could easily have once bought a bottle as a one-off gift for a friend.

My point here is that the goal for retailers should be to have reliable and relevant knowledge of their customers in order to provide them in return with the right information at the right time.
This effective knowledge of your customers will of course rely on sales history based information obtained with traditional “loyalty schemes”. But crucially, to obtain a true USP with this knowledge, a retailer will have to find and master other sources of information. Social networks are one such source, with examples being online communities. Examples of retail focused websites taking full advantage of this are the customer reviews based sites like www.toptable.com or www.yelp.com. Retailers need to engage with these indirect sources of customer information and use them as models for implementing social networking solutions directly engaging with their customers (or potential customers).

I will not list here all the possibilities (and I don’t know them all anyway) for retailers to improve their deliveries of effective information to their customers. Obviously, many great ideas are still to come. What is certain is that the retailers that will consider this challenge strategically and be among the first to surpass their customers’ expectations, will lead the pack when the economy recovers.

About The Wisdom of Crowds

In his book “The Wisdom of Crowds – Why the many are smarter than the few”, James Surowiecki makes - indirectly but nonetheless powerfully - a very good case for Knowledge Management or the leverage of individual and collective knowledge. Simply put this way, that the many are smarter than the few is hardly a contentious statement. After all, a croud of say 1000 individuals should be smarter than only 500 of this same croud most of the times. You have more minds available to solve a problem/find an answer. However, what Surowiecki means is that a croud of 1000 can be – with the right conditions – much smarter than the sum of its parts even when it acts/decides in a completely uncoordinated way (meaning each individual acts/decides in isolation from the others). In fact, such a group can be (and Surowiecki gives plenty of examples) smarter than the even best experts in a particular field! The three conditions for this group wisdom to materialise according to Surowiecki, are that it must be diverse, independent and decentralized. On diversity, Surowiecki writes (chapter 2, part III): <<The fact that cognitive diversity matters does not mean that if you assemble a group of diverse but thoroughly uninformed people, their collective wisdom will be smarter than an expert’s. But if you can assemble a diverse group of people who possess varying degrees of knowledge and insight, you’re better off entrusting it with major decisions rather than leaving them in the hands of one or two people, no matter how smart those people are.>>This can be hard to believe but Surowiecki then makes the case for this point very well and I cannot find any reason to disagree with him. On independence, he writes (chapter 3, part I): << First, [independence] keeps the mistakes that people make from becoming correlated.[..] One of the quickest way to make people’s judgments systematically biased is to make them dependent on each other for information. Second independent individuals are more likely to have new information rather than the same old data everyone is already familiar with. The smartest groups , then, are made up of people with diverse perspectives who are able to stay independent of each other. >> I would think that this condition is in theory much less contentious than the first one on diversity. However, the problem with true independence is that in practice, it is rather difficult to obtain. Often, decisions in a croud are made sequentially with each individual influenced by his/her predecessors.Therefore, Surowiecki advises that <<If you want to improve an organization’s or an economy’s decision making, one of the best things you can do is make sure, as much as possible, that decisions are made simultaneously (or close to it) rather than one after the other.>> On decentraization, he writes (chapter 4, part II): << [..] if you set a croud of self-interested, independent people to work in a decentralized way on the same problem, instead of trying to direct their efforts from the top down, their collective solution is likely to be better than any other solution you can come up with. [..] Decentralization’s great strength is that it encourages independence and specialization on the one hand while still allowing people to coordinate their activities and solve difficult problems on the other.>> However, Surowiecki then cautions that : << decentralization’s great weakness is that there’s no guarantee that valuable information which is uncovered in one part of the system will find its way through the rest of the system.>> He then asserts that for a crowd of any kinds to allow << individuals to specialize and to acquire local knowledge [..] while also being able to aggregate that local knowledge and private information into a collective whole, [..] [it] needs to find the right balance between the two imperatives: making individual knowledge globally and collectively useful (as we know it can be), while still allowing it to remain resolutely specific and local. >> Well, well, isn’t this where/when Knowledge Management should come in? In fact, for all intent and purposes, this is a definition of KM I am satisfied to work with in an organizational setting: any intentional and managed changes or activities with a conscious objective to facilitate/enable what is highlighted in blue above. But it then highlights a fundamental reason for organizational KM to have so often failed to deliver: the lack of management recognition that collective knowledge in practice is indeed always valuable, with the potential to be very often correct and effective. Leveraging knowledge is then not just about realizing (and doing something about it) that each employee’s knowledge is valuable (and that’s already hard enough for most senior managements) but that the collective knowledge of the whole or groups of employees is even more valuable. I think that a cultural shift is needed here for this realisation to become the norm rather than the exception. This shift has already started with the ubiquitous nature and global reach of the World Wide Web enabling huge crowds to influence decisions directly or indirectly (eg. Obama’s election). This shift now needs to enter the board rooms en masse. According to Malcolm Gladwell, “the tipping point” (see his book with this title) should be reached when between 10 and 15% of board rooms will have formally acknowledged the value and power of individual and collective knowledge. I can safely predict this will happen even if I cannot say when.

5 real life examples to make the case for KM in a sales environment

”[..] an organization is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people to create value” (Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., former CEO of IBM) Consider the following five simple scenarios based on real situations I have witnessed during my time in the Richemont Group. I must stress that I expect these to be relevant today to a majority of retail Organizations, and not only in the luxury sector: 1. “Reinventing the wheel.” The Logistics Manager of a regional distribution centre believes that he could greatly improve his team’s efficiency during inventories with the use of about 5 barcode readers. He contacts the IT department for advice since the idea will be to interface with the main IT system. When the stock controller is consulted, she decides that barcode readers would be too expensive if they were to be used also for boutique inventories (you would need at least 20 readers). Since laptop PCs are used in boutiques, it is decided that they would also be used for the distribution centre, against its manager’s preference. It then turns out that if laptops are adapted to boutique stocktaking, they are not practical in a warehouse: too heavy to carry around the aisles and with much less autonomy on battery. The Logistics Manager asks the IT Manager if he could find out from his counterparts what has been implemented in other regions. Logistics Managers have very little contact with one another so rarely share ideas and experiences. The IT Manager finds out that in another region, they did implement a cost-effective barcode reader solution and have even used it in some boutiques. A corporate discount is maybe even possible for the readers. By reinventing the wheel we might improve it, but is it worth the costs when all that is needed is a regular wheel? 2. “Knowledge is Power so retain it.” A wealthy American businessman enters a jewellery boutique in Tokyo. He intends to offer a present to his wife for their wedding anniversary in 2 weeks. He happens to be a regular customer at the 5th Avenue boutique in New York and does tell the Japanese sales executive Yukino of this fact. He is presented a selection of items but cannot decide, and then remembers that he had bought a bracelet for his wife two years ago. “My wife loves this bracelet and it would be great for her to have a matching necklace”. “Yes, sir, which bracelet was it?” Yukino ask. “Oh, unfortunately I cannot remember its name. Could you find out for me? I bought it in New York”. “I’m afraid I cannot do this. Would you remember the type of bracelet?” “Are you telling me that you cannot check on your system?” “Yes sir, we only have access to sales made in Japan”. “This is not very useful is it? Could you call the 5th Avenue showroom then?” “Well yes sir, I could try but with the time-difference, we’ll have to wait for this evening. Would you come back tomorrow then?” “I’m not sure to have the time. I’ll call you tomorrow morning and if you have the details I’ll try to find a moment”. In the evening Yukino calls the 5th Avenue showroom and ask for the manager who happens to be on a day off. The assistant-manager is busy with a customer and the sales-executive who picked up the phone does not believe to have the authority to give such confidential information. She takes the details and says that the assistant-manager will call back. Yukino waits until late after closure but no one calls back. The next day, Yukino is lost in apologies for not obtaining the details of the bracelet. “I am not impressed!” the American tells her. “I was really expecting such a prestigious Brand to provide better international services. I have to tell you, I feel like shopping around for something else as a result.” Knowledge is power and even more now than ever. However, if organizational knowledge is retained and not shared, is the organization as a whole really gaining any lasting power from it? 3. “Everybody is replaceable.” The Merchandising Supervisor of a regional distribution company is offered a new position in another country. Her effectiveness and efficiency as well as a great personality have won her a very good reputation with her peers within the Group. She has 10 years of experience in her current job and has progressively put in place a number of techniques and has mastered a couple of specific IT systems. Her manager is however soon concerned: how can she replace her supervisor without affecting the department’s performance? The supervisor leaves in 3 months and her unique assistant only has 1year experience and has had very little involvement in about 50% of the supervisor’s activities. As for the Manager, she would also need to learn quite a lot from before the supervisor’s departure, and of course, she is already very busy with her own tasks. The Manager decides that the supervisor’s specific activities should be shared between herself and the assistant. The supervisor offers to spend long evenings to write up some step-by-step procedures. After a month, the Manager recruits someone who first needs to be trained on relatively simple but time-consuming tasks, in order to free up the assistant for spending time with the supervisor. By the time the supervisor is on her last day, a significant amount of her knowledge has not been passed on or written down. The IT department is even called in to assess if they will be able to help with the usage of one specific piece of software. As a result, in the following months the Merchandising department struggles to maintain a satisfying level of productivity. Everybody is replaceable, yes but at what costs? 4. “This is the way we do things here.” Harrods, the London department store, is redeveloping its jewellery department this summer. A new boutique design of a jewellery Brand with a unit in this department is implemented for the occasion. Unlike before the late 90s, the local retail staffs as well as other departments (e.g. IT) are now involved in the process. However, at that stage it is about adapting the design to the local specific constraints and needs. There is a very tight schedule imposed by Harrods but the deadline is to be met. Along the way, some design details are identified as being impractical. The functional aspect of the design seems to have been overlooked in favour of the aesthetic. For example, the IT equipment required in the retail area is not sufficiently integrated and facilitated. The beauty of a desk with no cable management will be spoiled by the laptop sitting on it and its power cable running from it. In peak times such as Christmas, the 5 or 6 sales executives (instead of 3 or 4) will each need quick access to a laptop but only 3 are catered for in the design. This will result in laptops being used on top of display cabinets so not really aesthetic but customers cannot wait for sales staff to queue up for a PC! The same boutique design is to be used for many boutiques worldwide. Some of the very same functional flaws are reproduced again and again as no feedback from all the actors in the first project was formally obtained. It is reasonable to assume that each department builds on past successes and is expert in its field. However, wouldn’t each project of a particular department benefit from the proactive input of all other stakeholders? 5. “Making mistakes is fine, this is how you learn.” It is the first day of the month and as usual, each regional IT department completes and checks the End of Month process for the Group’s bespoke operational system. In Holland, the IT Manager identifies a problem: the new Group standard stock-valuing module recently implemented generates incorrect totals. He investigates and soon finds the program at fault. While he has his programmer start to work out the exact problem, he sends an email to all his counterparts in the other regions using the same system, to warn them first and also ask if anyone had already detected this problem. He quickly gets an interest from most of them but more importantly receives a response from his Spanish counterpart telling him that they faced a similar issue the month before but thought it was specific to the Spanish version of the bespoke system. The good news is that they corrected the problem and documented it. The bad news, it was written in Spanish. What is then decided due to the urgency for the Deutsch End of Month procedure is for the Spanish and Deutsch programmers to work jointly by phone (in broken-English). After several hours of collaboration, a Deutsch version of the solution is setup and tested and the End of Month procedure can be re-ran and completed 24hrs late. During that time, the system was not available to users for normal operations so the impact to the business was significant. We should note that when it first happened on the Spanish system 30 days earlier, their system was unavailable for 2 days. Learning and innovation depends on a culture encouraging risk-taking and therefore making “mistakes”. However, shouldn’t this imply that we all collectively learn from these “mistakes” and avoid making them twice? These situations all have in common a lack of knowledge sharing. They are all avoidable but the top-management first need to recognize the value of each individual’s knowledge and define and implement a strategy to leverage it.

"The Google Enigma"

I found a very good article with the same title as this post by Nicholas G. Carr on Strategy-business.com (thanks to a post by Bertand Duperrin). Nicholas warns of the hype around Google’s model to foster innovation and the belief that it is the direct reason of its amazing success. But it could very well be more the product of its success instead of the cause as Nicholas writes. Nicholas message is not to ignore Google’s example but to be careful not to assume that the Google way is necessarily the one to follow for all businesses and in all contexts. I would like here to highlight the following two passages, both found in Nicholas’ conclusion. The first one gives the two key examples of Google strategic initiatives that businesses should reflect on seriously and use as benchmarks: “Google’s use of powerful computers to collect and make sense of the operational and customer data flowing through the Internet and other networks provides a window into the future of many industries. And, on a related note, the company has created simple but useful systems for sharing information within and between teams, a challenge that has frustrated many firms.” So, in other words, this is about knowing better your customers to serve them better and about effective and efficient internal knowledge sharing to leverage your human capital (what I’ve been writing about since my first post on this blog!). The second passage is what, according to Nicholas Carr, Google does teach us: “Above all, Google teaches us, through both its successes and its failures, that smart companies — the ones that are not only consistently innovative but consistently profitable — exhibit three qualities. They hire talented people and give them room to excel. They measure progress and results rigorously and make course adjustments quickly. And they remain disciplined in their work and their spending, curbing the instinct to do too much at once.” I don’t think that this is this is the only lesson on strategy we can retain from Google’ success, but I agree with Carr that it all relies first on hiring talented people and then making sure to continuously leverage this human capital.

“Forming an ‘inside-out’ company is the secret to innovation in business”

On the PA Consulting website, I found this very interesting news article dated April 2007. It is about a research by Dr Carsten Sørensen of the London School of Economics (LSE) and PA Consulting Group (PA). This is the part I must highlight: “[..] The research found that IT is the enabler for innovation across the whole business. What we are starting to see is the forming of the ‘inside-out’ company, where interactions and relationships with stakeholders actually shape strategy rather than are subject to it. The research concludes that we are approaching a tipping point, where technology will be cheap enough and intuitive enough to make collaboration as valuable a source of innovation to the business as computation has been a source of efficiency. Technology is changing the way we interact and customers (business and consumer) are demanding a richness of dialogue. [..]” First, I am pleased to see that this confirms what I wrote on the knowledge-driven organization back in 2005, and more recently in Jan 2007. Then this article does correctly make the link between the need for a change in the organizational culture and the introduction of new technologies facilitating collaboration. It is implied that you need both in order to foster value-generating innovation throughout the organization. I spotted the following culture-related change in the article: * Organisations that see their customers and their staff as sources of untapped potential and ideas * unlocking this pool of innovative talent will require collaborative management and not traditional command-and-control-style management * interactions and relationships with stakeholders actually shape strategy rather than are subject to it * senior executives are taking a more facilitative than directorial role, acting as a catalyst or ‘lightning conductor’ for innovation wherever it may evolve * this new outlook on innovation and technology has changed traditional management models towards a new ‘collaborate and control’ model * You do not have direct command-and-control anymore. You are working far more across virtual teams. Teams that are brought together just for specific projects. * The trend towards networks and away from hierarchies and the user empowerment that this entails is changing the way we interact. Executives are seeing a similar phenomenon in business, with users across the organisation demanding that businesses are more reactive to their needs and being willing to take responsibility for improving their working environment. * In order to identify the strategic value of IT it is necessary to employ the technology in developing relationships, listening to customers, and engaging them actively in the production of innovative services Good stuff! The culture change described here is the kind that would do away with the cultural barriers to knowledge sharing I have been repeatedly writing about (mainly here, here, here and here). A few more high-profile articles like this one and I might be able to rest my case...

It was about SOA all along! Chapter 7

[Continuation of my commented reading of Andy Mulholland’s book: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”].

Chapter 7 is about the “typical” barriers to implementing SOA throughout an organization. The authors added this chapter in the 2nd edition following a suggestion by Avrami Tzur (VP of SOA at HP). I will start by saying that I was a bit disappointed with this chapter: it does literally focus on the specific resistance to SOA without considering the probable more generic reasons for this resistance. But maybe it’s me again expecting cultural issues to be mentioned everywhere! At least, this chapter has the merit of existing. I am sure Avrami was far from being the only one noticing the need for addressing this topic after reading the 1st edition of the book.

This chapter deals with the fears and needs of technologists - used to a “develop and control” centralized infrastructure – that are being asked to adapt to SOA and the flexibility, openness and informality that comes with it. These fears and needs would typically raise questions such as:

• How do I know what services are available for me to use?
• How do I know exactly what each service does?
• What happens when a service I am using is changed or upgraded?
• What happens when I have to debug an application based on services?
• How does the new world of services fit and interoperate with existing IT systems? Etc,…

Five rules are then proposed to encourage adoption of SOA:

• Use visibility to reduce fear, build trust
• Put it in writing
• Extend existing management processes to SOA
• Support new pattern of collaboration
• Provide incentives for SOA adoption
  

The authors do introduce these rules as enablers of communication and knowledge sharing. I agree. However, if your organisation has a command and control culture where knowledge sharing is not the norm (I take you back to my 16 traits of such a culture) following these 5 SOA adoption rules won’t be enough. But maybe it could be argued that a “command and control” organisation would not initiate a SOA in the first place (now that could be a topic for a lively debate).

The authors do explain that the << adoption of SOA do reflects an evolution in the skills and systems of a company >> ( I would like to add that it reflects an evolution in the organisational culture as well). This evolution is made of 3 stages: Integration, Architecture and finally Operations. I finally noted that successful SOA adoption will rely on 3 groups of people: the Enterprise Architects or designers, the Providers or builders of services, and the Consumers of these services.

It was about SOA all along! Chapter 6

[Continuation of my commented reading of Andy Mulholland’s book: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”].

Chapter 6 is about “Internal IT” or the effect the SOA transformation can/should have on the internal IT department/functions. With the help of a meeting with all the managers of the fictitious company Vorpal’s IT department, it explains that a SOA does not only support the informal edges of the organisation but also the formal transactional hub. What unifies it all are “the processes that flow through the business” and link “the informal processes at the edge” with “the more formal controlled processes at the hub”. It is therefore important (in order to successfully become a service-oriented organization) to adapt the company’s functional structure. The functions must mirror the key business processes that SOA has formalized.

The authors then suggest a new structure for Vorpal’s IT department. Below are the original (standard) structure followed by a new service-oriented structure:

Old:
End-user support
Development
Infrastructure (CTO)
ERP
Engineering
New:
· Composition (about defining the common services)
· Services Creation (about development of the services)
· Disruptive Innovators (about the creation of new services)
· Consolidation (about the link with the core systems)
· Services Repository (about keeping track of all the services available)

The authors do make it clear that this is only a suggested structure and that each organization would adapt it to suit their needs.

And then reorganizing the IT department around SOA is only a start. The whole organization structure should be reviewed. For example, I can see new cross-functions between sales, marketing and public relations departments: Services to a specific customer group could benefit from having a function (an individual or a team even) pulling resources from these 3 departments to better satisfy these customers no-less specific needs.

It was about SOA all along! Chapter 5

[Continuation of my commented reading of Andy Mulholland’s book: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”].

With the family reunion of the Christmas break, I have only managed to complete Chapter 5. In my defence, it is probably the most important chapter of the book judging from the powerful messages it conveys. The following chapters seem to be only about some of the consequences of taking on the challenge defined in this chapter: “Creating a Program of Service Enablement”. The authors describe such a program in terms of three levels or steps:

1. Designing a Single Service.
2. Designing Systems of Services.
3. Service-Enabling your Enterprise Applications.

According to the authors, no company has yet (at the time of writing) reached level 3! This is probably still true but I wonder if a company like Google that seems to have been implementing step 2 for years now, is not already well into service-enabling its core applications (and maybe they were designed as such from the beginning). In any case, what is implied here is that the first companies to successfully reach (and complete) step 3 are likely to be the success stories in the coming years.

The chapter starts with a wonderful email sent by the CEO of the fictitious company Vorpal. She writes to all the staff to involve them in building a new service-focused culture. The goal is to foster technological innovation throughout the company and “take shadow IT out of the shadows”. Once again, I’m not aware of many CxOs (let alone CEOs) with such an open-mind on new technologies and the courage to initiate and lead the drastic cultural change that a SOA demands. Such forward-looking leadership is indeed a must for a successful SOA implementation.

Chapter 5 describes 5 rules for successful SOA implementation. I want to comment only on the first two:

This chapter’s first rule is about promoting Shadow IT. The authors are quick to note that it is not a new phenomenon. Probably since IT was provided to people to do their work, most of them would work out their own “tools, procedures and workarounds” to increase efficiency at doing their job. Most importantly, this personal or team innovation is done without the IT department (official) involvement and in most cases even without it’s knowledge. This unofficial but productive IT is what the authors define as Shadow IT. I will quote their conclusion on this topic: “Failure to embrace and support Shadow IT in the long run means wasted resources, and inability to maximize the value of your company’s collective candlepower, and lost opportunities”.

The second rule is “Institute a Service Culture”. This is for me the cornerstone of an SOA implementation. The author only give this rule half a page but a lot more is implied. Service-enabling an Organization means adapting its internal culture. “Creating a lifecycle process in which services are made, reported, judged, and finally supported by IT, is essential to maximizing the potential of your homegrown and ecosystem-developed services.” I would add that all this creativity and innovation resulting in productive services must be formally recognized and rewarded. New pay, rewards and even promotion mechanisms will be needed to foster Shadow IT.

Going back to the second level of a Service Enablement Program introduced above, the authors give a brief but useful explanation of how to build a good set of services. In a nutshell, [each service must be] “sufficiently granular to allow for easy reuse; good design is decomposing process steps into a suite of services that can be orchestrated to solve the business need in question, while allowing for recombination.” This implies a potentially large number of services that will then need to be cleverly referenced, tracked and maintained.

The last comment I will make on this chapter refers to its last section (before a set of real life examples) titled “Rethinking Your Architecture”. SOA implementation will eventually (when reaching the level 3) mean a completely new organisational physical structure, and not just limited to IT but hierarchies and departments as well. When embarking seriously on the SOA adventure, you must be ready for significant no-turning-back – sometimes painful - changes that will transform your Organization.

It was about SOA all along! Chapter 4

[Continuation of my commented reading of Andy Mulholland’s book: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”]. Chapter 4 is about how SOA can transform the relationships with your suppliers. I will quote from the book how a Vorpal supplier defines these SOA-driven relationships it has built with it’s customers (p.57). He is responding to one of Vorpal’s manager who noted that the collaborative meeting they just had was unusual in style: “Yes, we’ve noticed [this change] as soon as we created our new services and started doing mass customization for our customers, the relationship changed pretty quickly from a Darwinian struggle to a win-win situation – from conflict to collaboration, if you will – because we’re both going to make a lot of money that way. I like to think of it as negotiation jujitsu – it’s now my job to use your strength to create new business for us instead of just holding the line on price while you pummel me.” With an SOA, suppliers and customers work hand-in-hand to generate value. They help each other out. Another useful quote on the next page is: “[…] don’t just define your suppliers as services – define your own operations as services to them”. You could say that you are helping your suppliers to serve you better. It is then in fact suggested that we should think of our partners and suppliers as members of ‘our’ dynamic ecosystem, where each member contributes directly or indirectly to the growth of all the others. Another good concept given is to see your suppliers as a channel. Your supplier’s customers are potentially new customers for you.

It was about SOA all along! Chapters 2 & 3

[cont. from previous post about my commented reading of Andy Mulholland’s book: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”]. After reading chapters 2 & 3, I realised that I should clarify something important. When I state that my writings on this blog were about SOA all along, I mean that SOA is probably the best value-adding, customer-facing, tangible web-based implementation (that I know) of a knowledge leveraging strategy. What I do not mean is that SOA is the only way to leverage organizational knowledge, nor do I mean that a company-wide change process to establish a knowledge sharing culture must incorporate some degree of SOA in order to be beneficial. Also, SOA is primarily concerned with online services on the Web but of course, not all transactions are online! Having said that, if the technological aspect of SOA might probably not apply in a meaningful sense to all businesses; its associated cultural implications should be relevant to all. SOA first advantage [over most other knowledge leveraging initiatives] is to be directly concerned with increasing/generating sales and this should help catching the attention of CxOs. In chapter 2, a fundamental principle of a SOA is explained: extending IT to the edges of the company. This does not only mean involving the customer-facing collaborators in the creation/evolution of the services to the customers, it means to involve outsiders as well. That is collaborators outside the firewall (to use a technical view) and not on the payroll (well, they could get paid but not with a salary). So, do get this straight: the suggestion is to enable outsiders to “add their own services that create new revenue stream”. The cultural change required to support this is to have your whole company at the service of the people at the edge: the front-line/client-facing collaborators and any trustworthy outsiders with an interest to grow your business (see my knowledge-driven and customer focused organization diagram ) From chapter 3, I will retain in particular the advantages of services (Web 2.0) over traditional Enterprise Applications, with the guiding principle of releasing control to communities of users. The importance of a legal framework also must be noted, in order to secure a service-enabled commercial environment that heavily involve outsiders.

European organizations are failing to effectively create and manage their intellectual capital

[Post written in 2007 about an article on the 2006 gobal MAKE winners (link no longer available) ]

The 2006 Global MAKE Winners have been recognized as leaders in: 

 • creating a corporate knowledge-driven culture 

• developing knowledge workers through senior management leadership 

• delivering knowledge-based products/solutions 

• maximizing enterprise intellectual capital

 • creating an environment for collaborative knowledge sharing 

• creating a learning organization 

• delivering value based on customer knowledge

 • transforming enterprise knowledge into shareholder value 

[..] Successfully managing enterprise knowledge yields big dividends. The 2006 Global MAKE Winners trading on the NYSE/NASDAQ showed a Total Return to Shareholders (TRS) for the tenyear period 1995-2005 of 24.2 % – over twice the average Fortune 500 company median. 

[...] The most visible trends over the past nine annual Global MAKE studies are:

 • A growing number of organizations are taking on ‘Global’ characteristics – especially consulting and professional services firms, financial services, energy and media companies. These ‘Global’ organizations tend to operate as ‘independent’ companies within a Federal structure and without the traditional corporate head office. 

• The capability to innovate and create new products is seen as the competitive edge across a wide range of business sectors. 

• Asian knowledge-driven organizations are competing on an equal knowledge ‘footing’ with their European and North American counterparts. 

• European organizations are failing to effectively create and manage their intellectual capital. Although US companies maintain a lead in this area, Asian businesses are rapidly narrowing the gap and may surpass American firms as regional wealth generators within the next five years. 

I let you draw your own conclusions. If you're a leader of a European Company, I hope you got the message loud and clear. 

Knowledge-sharing for a Retail Manager

In a retail company, who is at the centre of value generation? Undoubtedly the person making the sale: the sales associate (I am talking about markets relying on differentiation, not cost advantages). You would then expect these organizations to focus on facilitating each of these key value generators in generating more and more value. Yesterday, I had a very interesting conversation with a retail boutique (store) Manager. She started on the issue of retention (or the lack of) of knowledge when an experienced member of her team leaves the company. It’s not only that no set formal hand-over process exist, it is more about the lack of a knowledge-transfer process well before an individual decides (or is made to) to leave. I told her that this issue is still encountered by most managers in most organizations (not many executive Boards have given much thought on this HR issue yet). In her case, this lack of knowledge sharing resulted in the loss of valuable customer relationships knowledge and contextual selling experience (selling effectively specific types of product to a particular customer group, in a specific geographical location, her boutique). Our discussion then went on about another aspect of knowledge sharing needs for her team and the retail department. She was concerned that - due to a 6-day rota giving a day off in the week to compensate for a Saturday duty - too often one member of her team misses her weekly review meeting. She then has to remember to whom she has to repeat some important information. We both agreed the solution would be an online intranet where meeting summaries and other departmental information could be posted for all sales-associates to read. Not rocket science you might say (indeed many organisations provide such tools) but most Knowledge leveraging solutions do not have to be technically complex at all in order to deliver noticeable benefits. In the context of this retail Manager, this simple intranet would be the solution. She then realised that this shared tool could also be used by sales-associates from different boutiques to exchange experiences, ask each other questions, debate on some common topics. Such interaction between sales teams is needed to learn from each other. In differentiation-focused markets, internal competition is entertained between sales-associates, between sales teams, between distribution subsidiaries and this even for the same Brand. This is fine and usually generates value. However, the fine line not to cross is that this competition should not be at the expense of the customer, and therefore at the expense of the company’s overall performance and the Brand’s image. Internal competition is typically a key reason for lack of knowledge sharing within a sales force. What are the potential costs of an experienced sales-associate leaving the company without a formalized and extensive transfer of his/her specific & valuable knowledge? Some of his/her best “loyal” customers will automatically follow him/her to the competition. Other customers might notice a significant difference in the service they receive from his/her colleagues and decide to at best, go to another sales team within the same company, or at worse, finally go to the competition. We could also face a drop in turnover on subsequent sales made to some of his/her usual customers remaining loyal to the Brand. This is because their usual sales-associate would have better known how to satisfy these customers and often entice them into buying more as a result. What are the potential costs of sales-associates not informed on time or misinformed? This is now related to the other knowledge-sharing issue the retail manager told me about. The possible consequences of sales-associates not informed properly are numerous. Some examples are: Not knowing about the arrival of a VIP, not knowing of the arrival in stock of a new collection, not knowing of an important security concern, or not knowing about a local event that should draw more traffic in the shop. I have already identified above a relatively simple and “cheap” solution to this problem. What about a solution to the “lack of knowledge-transfer between sales-associates” problem? An idea is that managers could establish “mentor/apprentice” relationships between pairs of sales-associates. The mentors’ performance (and recognition, and reward) would be dependant on their apprentice’s achievements nearly as much as on their own. In this way, the experienced sales-associate is encouraged to share his/her knowledge and customers with a “junior” sales-associate, so that if he leaves the company, there is a natural and effective hand-over. Other operational benefits can be identified such as the apprentice “covering” for the mentor when the latter is away (day off, holidays, sick leave, etc…). The mentor benefits by having his/her apprentice handling the sales for his/her customers during that time. The apprentice benefits by “holding the fort” and being put to the test. The company benefits: · By maximizing the chances to satisfy the mentor’s customers in his absence, therefore offering continuity in level of service. · By speeding up the learning of junior staff, therefore resulting in a more experienced sales-force overall. · By increasing revenue at relatively low cost, therefore increasing profits as well. In other words, a win/win solution. Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Knowledge-driven, not simply customer-driven

There are numerous hurdles/blocks for converting an organization to become “knowledge-driven”; but if we look at the fundamentals for commercial success, we see that it is the right way to go to efficiently leverage organizational resources (mostly the human part) and sustain competitive advantage through creativity and innovation.

Ok some of you might be thinking: surely “customer-driven” is the way to go, knowledge being “only” a mean to an end. There is some truth in this view. Indeed the customer’s satisfaction is often considered as the ultimate objective for all corporate projects and operational activities. It is also correct that organizational knowledge is to be used to facilitate this endeavour. However, is satisfying the customers really the drive for share-holders? No, they are driven by increased market share, increased profits and revenue and increased growth potential/forecast. 

Now, you might say: hold on, if you don’t satisfy your customers you wont get these increases! Yes and No. This view actually supports my first point: that a satisfied customer is a mean to an end, not the end of the means (if I can put it this way). 

Furthermore, being customer-driven often leads to a short-term view: it is about “pleasing them enough to enable us to make our sales target for the month [or the year]”. The long-term repeat business isn’t necessarily cared for. 

For long-term competitive advantage and growth, what is instead needed is to view the customers not “simply” as purchasers of goods and services but as “collaborators”. 

The customer participates (directly or indirectly) in as many stages of the product cycle as possible. The idea is to build a long-term partnership between the organization and its customers. The message to the customer becomes “we are partners/collaborators in this on-going endeavour to please you while at the same time growing our business”. This approach aims at more than satisfying the customer, therefore at delivering above his/her expectations. To achieve this, the organization needs to know well its customers (who they are, their cultural/social background, what they like/want, where/how they live, where/how they travel, etc…). 

Similarly (and this is where it gets really interesting) the customer needs to know well the organization (its products/services – past, present and future; its mission/goals; its history; its point of sales network – incl. of course its website; its successes and - yes why not – its failures; and lastly but certainly not least, its people). Knowledge is then at the centre of this collaborative relationship, hence the knowledge-driven approach.

Now, before enabling your customers to “know” your organization well, the organization must first know itself well. An organizational culture valuing knowledge-sharing is needed. Then, in order to sustain such a collaborative relationship with your customers, your organization will require continuous innovation, and not just in the product design department! Innovation must be encouraged in all functions. Everyone without exception can be creative/innovative. Innovation is fuelled by sharing knowledge/experience and by effective collaboration across departments and borders. This is where Knowledge Leveraging (or the so-called Knowledge Management) comes in... 

Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

I am Time Magazine's “Person of the Year” (*) !

(*) As millions of other web 2.0 enthusiasts. Yes, Time Magazine chose all the bloggers, the wikis’users, the online Forum members and other Web-based collaborators as their Person of the Year 2006 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/ 0,9171,1569514,00.html?aid=434&from=o&amp;amp;to=http%3A//www.time.com/time/magazine/article/ 0%2C9171%2C1569514%2C00.html ). This is a fantastic recognition of this exponentially growing movement unleashing a power for the individual equalling that of political leaders! This power relies on a core principle: a Worldwide reach. I particularly love the conclusion of the article: “Web 2.0 is a massive social experiment, and like any experiment worth trying, it could fail. There's no road map for how an organism that's not a bacterium lives and works together on this planet in numbers in excess of 6 billion. But 2006 gave us some ideas. This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. It's a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who's out there looking back at them. Go on. Tell us you're not just a little bit curious.” My question now is what should this mean for Organizations? The answer must depend on what aspect of the Organization we are considering: internal or external. Externally, this “new kind of international understanding” will mean new ways for Organizations to reach their customers. However, not simply to communicate but to collaborate with them. Customers will increasingly expect and value being involved throughout the product life cycle, from the idea generation to the after-sales services. Internally, Organizations will need to quickly realise that many of their collaborators are also “Person of the Year”. They will expect similar collaborative facilities within the Organization to the ones they use at home. Of course, internally you need a higher degree of control than on the Web for security and confidentiality, with user access rights to sensitive information. However, it is also clear that efficiently and effectively connecting all the brains working in an Organization can generate value. How many of us have experienced the annoying realization that a collaborator had the answer to a problem that at the time required external help, simply because you had no easy way of finding the answer internally (in other words, reinventing the wheel). Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com