"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.

What should Web 2.0 mean for Luxury Brands ecommerce strategies?

[NOTE: I had written this article back in 2006 but could not publish it then. I can now do so and it is still very much relevant 16 months later!] 

It is bizarre how an acronym so widely used as “Web 2.0” can lack an unanimous definition. What most experts tend to agree on however is that Web 2.0 is made up of at least two key concepts (as noted by the journalist Phil Muncaster in ITWeek 02/Oct/06 issue- http://www.itweek.co.uk/ ): “Improved user experience and collaboration. The democratisation of information.” The latter concept refers to the fact that information becomes ubiquitous and relatively easily and cheaply accessible by potentially anyone.

Democratisation also implies virtually no control over this “open” information. Companies cannot control what is said about them and about their products. They cannot even hope to read all this information relevant to them due to the shear amount involved. The former concept is I believe even more specific to the Web 2.0. It relates to the fact that the web users are increasingly expecting a positive and memorable experience while visiting a site. By “experience” is meant: as user-friendly as possible, as interactive as possible and as unique as possible. In the case of ecommerce sites, this will be on top of the Web 1.0 criteria such as reliability, overall performance, competitive product prices and efficient and effective integration with back-end delivery and CRM systems. As Phil Muncaster concludes in his article: “So whether you believe all the hype or not, Web 2.0 is changing the way users behave, retailers react and enterprises interact with their staff and business partners. Those who fail to embrace it will probably be left out”. 

So then what does this new environment entails for the luxury products companies launching ecommerce initiatives? 

As for all other companies, it means both an opportunity and a challenge. An opportunity since the Web 2.0 should enable companies to better satisfy their customers by being more in tune with what they expect and desire. A challenge because of the relative difficulty to get it right first time using emerging Web 2.0 technologies (such as Ajax, Mashup) and because of the growing concerns for the Web security and privacy issues. 

I would however infer that the luxury market companies are particularly well positioned to seize the opportunity and take on the challenge. The reason is that these companies are already by nature in the business of providing customer-centred, differentiating, memorable, even unique experiences to their customers. I believe you can make a parallel between: 

· The individualized experience expected when we enter a Cartier, Louis Vuitton or Gucci boutique compared with the standardized experience expected in a Tesco or Wal-Mart superstore; and 

· our expected experience on the Web 2.0 compared with the original Web 1.0. 

Ecommerce customers of luxury companies will expect and value a Web experience as differentiating as purchasing in their high street shops. Therefore, these companies’ ecommerce websites must be highly innovative and take full advantage of the Web 2.0 context. This is totally in line with the following statement I made in my earlier post “Customers increasingly demand more personalized products and services” in Dec/05 : “This new competitive environment indicates that luxury Brands should focus on bridging the gap between them and their customers through co-creation of value with the customers”. 

The basic principle is to build this personalized experience through collaboration with the customers, which happens to be the other Web 2.0 key characteristic! 

Luxury goods companies need to first realize that they must and can be as exclusive on the Web as on the high street. They then need to engage in a sincere and continuous collaborative process with their customers to not only deliver what they seek, but to surpass their expectation.

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.

It was about SOA all along!

I was recently introduced to Andy Mulholland by a mutual friend. After reading some recent articles on his blog I quickly realized I had to read his latest book about Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) titled: “Mashup Corporations. The End of Business as Usual”. I ordered it on the famous mashup-rich website Amazon and started reading it yesterday. After only reading up to the end of the Introduction chapter, it suddenly stroke me: All my thoughts and ideas that initiated the articles on this blog since its creation in 2005 were calling for, relating to or assuming SOA! And the most amazing is that I never even mentioned SOA. My understanding of SOA was that it was a modern method to organize the IT infrastructure for a more flexible applications delivery. So, I had the technologist view (sorry but I’m an IT guy after all) and was missing completely the point. SOA is not just about delivering services and the IT infrastructure, it is first about the adoption of new business models and a conducive corporate culture. Business models! Corporate culture! To those of you who have been in touch with my blog for a while, aren’t these recurring topics in my writings? Oh boy, how this realization got me excited! So, I decided that I will keep posting about my reading of Andy’s book, and how it will surely make my understanding of the leveraging of organizational knowledge evolve to another level. I will stick here to this enlightening Introduction. It gives “five kinds of relationships upon which SOA will make the most impact” and the associated questions it will attempt to answer are: << How can you harness the ideas and energy of [innovators] eager to help [from inside or outside the company]? How can you bring your customers closer to your core business processes? How can you create a win-win relationship with your suppliers instead of an adversarial one? How can [IT enable] innovation to break new ground while protecting critical data? How can you best structure your IT resources to reflect the needs and new capabilities of SOA? >> The virtuous process of Human Capital Formation is concerned with the first question. My article on this process was focusing on the employees, but it could be adapted to cater for the contribution of people outside the company (I might do this when I have time). The second question relates to one of the most important concept I have written about on my blog: Organize the whole company around the customer-facing functions in order to be closer to the customers and therefore satisfy them better. See “knowledge-driven not simply customer-driven”, and “becoming a knowledge-driven organization in response to more knowledgeable customers in the luxury market” and also a more specific case “knowledge-sharing for a Retail Manager”. The third question is about the collaborative playing field of the Knowledge Economy where companies must collaborate with in fact not only their suppliers and customers, but even increasingly with their competitors. I will leave the last two questions more concerned with the company’s IT function/department for now. Of course, with my experience there is a lot I could say about it, but this blog was initially avoiding this subject and no doubt I will be drawn into it in later chapters. Let's read on...

The Age of Collaboration

Read the following article in CIO Today: http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0020006F2KP6&page=1 It starts with this unfortunately correct quote from an Accenture executive:

  << When it comes to collaboration, many companies have a long way to go. "We are early in the cycle, maybe the second inning," says David Smith, head of the human performance practice in North America for Accenture, a global consulting and technology services firm. "Companies are beginning to attack it. Very few are getting it right." >>

The Age of Collaboration as the article defines it below is a direct consequence of the Knowledge Economy, considering Knowledge as the most important asset: 

  <<[…] The 21st century is likely to be the age of collaboration because many of today's problems are complex, often demanding cross-disciplinary expertise. Collaborative technologies are also in demand by companies that have global staffs and greater numbers of employees who telecommute. Supply chains demand collaboration among dozens of companies. Some technical problems are so expensive to tackle that even competitors collaborate. For example, IBM, Samsung Electronics and Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing cooperatively develop semiconductor manufacturing processes. ST Microelectronics and others recently joined them. Finally, there's evidence of a societal shift toward collaboration as more workers network around the clock via cell phone and computer. In the July-August 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review, authors Neil Howe and William Strauss discuss the effects of generational differences on this trend. Those born between 1982 and 2005 -- the first generation to grow up with mobile digital technology -- expect nonstop interaction and cooperation with peers. "They will tend to treat co-workers as partners rather than rivals ... and use information to empower groups rather than individuals," the authors write. […] >> 

And the article concludes with this short but to the point warning: 

  <<[…] In the years ahead, the winning organizations will be those that learn to be collaborative and share employees' knowledge. >> 

How many of these articles will be needed for the majority of leaders to finally understand the importance of a knowledge-sharing culture for their organizations? The ones who wait for their competitors to try it first will regret it. 

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

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. 

Sarkozy’s goal-driven government structure

Nicolas Sarkozy, the newly elected French President, is completely rearranging the Cabinet as it has never been done before. He is grouping departments together under the same boss (minister) that never worked together. He is also breaking up departments for the first time. The central principle is a very clever one: The Cabinet’s departments are formed on the basis of their main goal and purpose, no longer on the basis of their functional relationships. For example, the goal of transforming France into a “Green” country requires departments such as “Environment” and “Energy” to be joined together (the “Energy” would have usually been managed by the Economy and Finance” dept). Another example is to remove the management of visas from the Interior department, and associate it with the dept responsible for “Integration” and “National Identity” to form a new dept for Immigration. The goal here is clearly to have a more holistic approach to the issues related to immigration. Whether or not we agree on these political goals is not my interest here. I am however intrigued by the implications of these drastic departmental changes for the civil servants affected. The media have already reported a lot of mostly worried comments from some managers, and the point in common I could identify was anticipated problems due to cultural differences! Here we go again with the importance of Organizational Culture but this time in the Public sector. Another significant impact due to some redundancy in activities will be a reduction in the workforce. The most telling case is the one affecting the separation of the “Labor” dept from the “Economy & Finance”, and its association with the “Social Relations” dept. In the Labor dept, you typically find the ones who came out of the French civil servants schools with the top marks. They are usually very good in math, very rigorous and methodical. In the Social Relations dept, it could hardly be more the opposite! They usually graduated with the lowest marks, have more “artistic” mindsets (rather than scientific) and have better communication skills. Both sides clearly have no idea how they are going to work together! Nicolas Sarkozy’s idea here is to give them a common goal of improving labor issues, with the realisation that it will require a combination of economic and social changes. For example, one of the objectives announced is to level the salaries between men and women within two years (today in France, men can be paid up to 40% more than women for the same job)! It will be very interesting to see how all these departments learn how to work together. These collaborations will need to be rapidly effective and efficient for the new Government to meet its objectives and convince the French people that it is on the right track. I wonder if someone will think of calling on the services of Knowledge Management consultants. I now come to the point I really wanted to make here: does this goal-based organizational approach make sense for a private company? We could start with an example: consider the strategic goal to “set a rate of annual increase of say +20% for retail customer loyalty”. For simplification, that is the number of existing customers purchasing at least once each year (I am assuming a luxury goods industry here). Typically, such an objective would be given to the Retail department. Some other departments such as Marketing might also be made aware of it and asked to assist. Now, what would it mean to adopt Sarkozy’s approach? You would need to think out of the box and regroup together under the same leader various departments or teams (parts of departments). I can suggest the following list for this example (but this exercise is very context-dependant, so each situation can demand a different organization) :

• The Retail department
• The part of the Customer Service department (After-sales services) specifically dealing with Retail customers (as opposed to wholesale).
• The part of the marketing department focusing on the retail market.
• The Public Relations department.
• The Press department.

Possibly, you could even include individuals or teams from some of the shared services departments that usually devote most of their time for Retail matters. I can think possibly of:

• Information Systems (IS) support professionals. For example, the team supporting the CRM application, a key tool for such a customer-focused objective.

For the shared services, the question to ask is: “will the individuals or teams concerned add more value by being integrated into this new “Super Retail dept” or by remaining closely linked with all the other teams within their respective department?” You should really consider this from a Knowledge sharing point of view. For an IS support Analyst to report to the Retail Director would undoubtedly facilitate his/her understanding of the business needs and deliver tailored support. However, from this point on, he/she ceases to be a shared resource and the cooperation with the rest of the IS department is then seen as secondary. In other words, this makes sense if the workload generated by the Retail department’s IS requests justify this IS Analyst to be full-time focusing on them. So then, supposing a Company implements this goal-driven organization, isn’t there a risk to have to re-organize too often when the strategy changes? Yes, but I don’t see this as a risk if this process of reorganization becomes engrained in the Company’s culture. The whole Organization must be built on principles of flexibility: flexible structure, flexible processes, flexible roles. This implies in turn a knowledge-sharing culture. Employees need to be used to share knowledge across departmental boundaries. In fact, there should be no internal boundaries when it comes to knowledge sharing (except for what needs to remain confidential). Such flexibility of course wouldn't typically suit more an Organization operating in a fast-moving/fast-changing market, but it could be argued that all markets are changing increasingly faster in this flatter World. Peter-Anthony Glick

http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

“Knowledge management strategies that create value”

I found a very good article with the same name as this post on the Accenture site. It was written in 1999 by Leigh P. Donoghue, Jeanne G. Harris and Bruce E. Weitzman.
(Accenture.com article) It presents a rather visionary KM approach considering it is now about 8 years old.

The article starts with this statement I totally agree with: “There is no one-size-fits-all way to effectively tap a firm's intellectual capital. To create value, companies must focus on how knowledge is used to build critical capabilities”. I would add that the more pervasive a Company’s organizational culture is, the more this is true. So many technological solutions have been presented as THE knowledge-sharing solution, and nearly as many have failed.

“[…] Knowledge management is complex and multifaceted; it encompasses everything the organization does to make knowledge available to the business, such as embedding key information in systems and processes, applying incentives to motivate employees and forging alliances to infuse the business with new knowledge. Effective knowledge management requires a combination of many organizational elements—technology, human resource practices, organizational structure and culture—in order to ensure that the right knowledge is brought to bear at the right time”. Well, this is what I (and many other KMers) have been writing for some time now. You cannot count on technology alone, or on a structural change alone, or on a new reward and recognition mechanism alone, to instigate a deep, long-lasting and effective leveraging of an Organization’s Knowledge. You need a holistic approach with both top-down leadership and bottom-up initiatives, being aware along the way that different core processes will require different KM solutions. The authors then present a framework created and used by the Accenture Institute for Strategic Change. Its aim is to associate “specific knowledge-management strategies with specific challenges that companies face”.





Well, my first impression of this framework presented this way was: whow! That looks simple (if not simplistic). I was reassured a bit when reading two paragraphs down that “[..]It is important to note that there are no hard-and-fast connections between a certain core process and a work model, because the same process can be performed in different ways”. In other words, you cannot actually plot core processes on the table above to build a model to fit all companies. This would also contradict the initial statement that there is no one-size-fit-all solution. So this is where the Accenture consultant comes in. The way the work is performed in the organization must be defined in order to select the right KM approach.



In the above diagram, the authors show how an Organization’s work processes can be aligned with a specific KM model.

I think this framework is approaching the issue in the correct manner, i.e. holistically and with a good deal of flexibility in order to adapt to any organizational context. However, there is a level of flexibility that I believe is missing. It could be that it was omitted by the authors in this rather short presentation. Nevertheless, I can only judge on what is given here. The flexibility that seems to be lacking is the consideration that within a specific work process, say Retail operations, you can be faced with a rather more complex context than what is assumed with the different diagrams given in this article. In the example above, the authors have assumed that Retail operations would be aligned to the Transactional Model. The authors define this model as the one “in which there is a low degree of both interdependence and complexity. Work is typically routine, highly reliant on formal rules, procedures and training, and depends on a workforce that exercises little discretion”.

Indeed, Retail relies on direct transactions with the end-customer. However, the definition above is valid in a mass-market context with low value, low margin, high quantity and relatively low product differentiation. Take instead the luxury market context (and I choose this example because I have 14 years of experience in it) with high value, high margin, low quantity and very high product differentiation. Within the Retail operations of a luxury products (and/or services) organization, you will find:

* A rather low degree of interdependence, so the Transaction model still fits for this dimension.

* There is relatively high degree of complexity. In the jewellery business for example, the expertise in gemmology of the sales-associate can represent the key added-value for the customer in search of a diamond necklace. Experience in how to satisfy very demanding and difficult customers is typically what can make a good sales-associate very good.

* Work is not “routine” to the same degree as in a mass market since each transactions can differ greatly due to the uniqueness of the product sold, the customer’s varying requirements and behaviours and the sales-associate varying level of expertise and experience.

* Work relies on formal rules and procedures but not exclusively. There is also a significant degree of informal relationships between sales-associates or between them and their customers, with whom they build strong relationships over time. Often, a sale is made as a result of this informality.

* Work does initially rely on training - especially for Brand and product knowledge as well as sale-techniques – but the best performers among sales-associates rely even more on their intuitions and experience.

* Work does depend on a workforce capable of making decision on their own, such as proactively contacting customers, deciding on which products to suggest to a customer, or offering/accepting a discount in a responsible manner.

The Expert model would therefore come to the rescue in this context but not as a replacement of the Transaction model. I am suggesting here that a combination of both models is needed to map a luxury business’ Retail operations. In this Retail context, there is still a degree of “routinization” and automation, and there is a definite “productization”. However, there is also a significant need for experienced hiring and capability protection. Capability/skill development is also a concern. (Apprenticeships used to be commonplace in luxury retail businesses some 20/30 years ago, but was replaced by a more individualistic and internal competition-oriented approach. I foresee that it will come back as a result of more knowledge-conscious management – read my earlier post on the subject: http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com/2007/03/knowledge-sharing-for-retail-manager.html).

Now what would such a mix of these two models mean in terms of practical solutions? The authors do not provide (for obvious reasons) the list of KM solutions they would implement for each model. However, I can guess one here.

The degree of “routinization” involved in luxury retail operations would demand solutions delivering just-in-time information (as opposed to just-in-case) to the sales staff. This could be in the form of a CRM tool providing a sales-associate specific information about an unfamiliar but regular customer sitting in front of him/her. It could provide the list of all the products the customer purchased so as to enable the sales-associate to suggest matching products among new or older collections. It could also have the anniversary dates such as the customer’s or his/her partner’s birthday, or their wedding date; for the sales-associate to wish him/her and suggest suitable gift ideas. All this customer-specific information is valuable but it can really create significant value when it is associated with context-sensitive information – in effect, offering expert knowledge. This is where our authors’ Expert model comes in: In the situation above, our sales-associate would benefit from the relevant knowledge of a more experienced colleague. More experienced here does not necessarily mean more seniority; it can mean better specific knowledge about the customer being served, or even about the customer’s cultural background. What is needed is therefore an apprenticeship-like solution associated (or better integrated) with the CRM tool. For example, the sales-associate could be informed that the customer is of Indian origin and Hindu, with the “warning” that between August and October, all Hindus purchase gifts (and in particular luxury products) to offer on Diwali (their annual “festival of lights”). The sales-associate could happily then suggest: “Oh Diwali is coming soon isn’t it? Please let me show you this brand new collection of jewellery that should look stunning when worn with a sari” (typical Indian dress).

I have here mixed the Expert and Transaction models but I am sure similar combinations will be needed in other contexts, sometimes involving 3 or even all 4 models. Graphically, this means to allow a work process to be plotted in the middle so as to overlap 2 or more models. The Process mapping diagram shown above seems to allow this (“customer service” work process overlaps the Integration and Transaction models) but it is not clear if it was really intentional (probably they worked it out themselves since then). In any case, it was a promising framework and I would love to learn of its implementation successes.

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

“Break the Mould”

Check out this useful article in a Computing Business issue: http:// www.computingbusiness.co.uk link no longer available   .

I agree with most of what it says but I would like to highlight the following extracts: ‘Stop benchmarking the competition,’ says John Riker at the Value Innovation Network. ‘Instead, pursue a quantum leap in value to dominate the market.’ […] ‘To create a quantum leap in value, companies need to direct all their talent to explore the market. The key to this process is to open up the entire organisation to seek growth opportunities. Most firms sit on a gold mine of talented and capable people, yet few tap into them in developing strategy. By bringing together a diverse team of employees from across functions, levels and geographies, an organisation can foster new ways of thinking and a wider business perspective,’ says Riker. 

Now the only efficient way you can direct all an organisation’s talents to any task such as exploring the market for opportunities, is by implementing a corporate culture, internal processes and an infrastructure compatible with knowledge-sharing. Collaborators will actively participate only if: · They feel safe in spending time on such task (instead of focusing only on their job description). In fact, they should be encouraged by their line manager. · They are formally recognized and rewarded when producing good ideas. · They have access to tools facilitating collaboration and sharing of experience/knowledge (this enables cross-functional team efforts and helps to prevent duplication of efforts).

“Strategy formulation must consider both a company’s traditional market, and all alternative markets. Until you expand your definition of your market you will not be able to expand the possibilities of your offer.”[…] ‘Through a qualitative process of market exploration, companies can begin to look at their industry and business through a new set of lenses. They learn about their customers’ dreams and hates, their aspirations and irritations. This rich image of the wider market translates into breakthrough ideas for new market space,’ he says. Re-inventing the wheel. ‘It requires immense leadership and courage to abandon the ritual comfort of traditional strategy development and embark on this process,’ says Riker. ‘But given the unrelenting pressure of competition, the need to introduce unconventional thinking will become imperative for all firms seeking to create successful growth strategies. 

In developing an innovative strategy, it is worth looking externally and reviewing competitors’ ideas. Each year, millions of pounds are wasted on research into technologies that has already been disclosed. There is a multitude of intellectual property being generated internationally, according to technology broker John Allies, most of which is never used and most of which is relatively easy to gain access to, provided you know where to look and who to talk to. ‘If you are looking for a solution, why pour money into research when someone might already have cracked the problem?’ he asks. >>

Yes, yes and yes! Even more so when that “someone” is likely to be a colleague of yours somewhere in your organization! It is really amazing how much all these arguments that sound so common sense are still not considered in most organizations. For the right individual(s) with the right knowledge to be involved at the right time for a particular issue/project/idea, what is first required is an organizational culture encouraging knowledge sharing. It is not a problem of technology since collaboration tools exist in the many now, and some are even virtually free. 

 In fact, even without specific knowledge-sharing tools, it is still possible (but time-consuming) to find a colleague with appropriate knowledge using “standard” tools such as organizational charts, corporate intranets and address books, and projects documentation. However, too often you don’t even bother searching. Why? Because you work in an organization where it is not natural to ask for such ad-hoc cross-hierarchical/cross-departmental/cross-border assistance. Even if you find someone willing to transfer his/her knowledge, he/she will probably feel the need to request management permission to invest time on your request. This would then immediately formalize and complicate a process that should really remain casual, flexible and simple: sharing knowledge and experience. 

 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

The virtuous cycle of the Gift Economy

«Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.»

Leo Tolstoy (1828 - 1910)

You all must read Dave Pollard’s latest post “The virtuous cycle of the Gift Economy” (http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/12/06.html#a1718 ). It did make me realise that I already intuitively knew this but it just needed to rise from my sub-conscience. It did! This virtuous cycle looks great but I believe that a more realistic state would be somewhere in between the Capitalist and the Gift Economies. These two as defined in Dave’s diagram are extremes and as such should be avoided. Our current world tends to gravitate closer to the capitalist end of the spectrum so we need to collectively push in the other direction. However, I don’t see the World moving all the way to a “complete” Gift Economy. I am not sure that it would be such a great World to leave in anyway. If all hierarchies were to disappear and everyone would share most of what they need/want and purchase only what they need and cannot obtain in any other way, some would quickly seize opportunities for taking advantages and build monopolies by controlling the production of what must be purchased. Another potential flaw of the extreme Gift Economy model is the relative loose definition of an individual’s “needs”. What is seen as non-essential for some will be seen as essential for others. This is already the case in our mostly capitalist economy of course, but it is regulated by each individual’s purchasing power. I cannot afford a large home with a swimming pool therefore it wont even appear in my list of short-term needs, but I can still work towards it because I would love to swim every morning. In a Gift Economy, you could ideally imagine that I would team up with 10 neighbours and finance our shared swimming pool (or better build it ourselves!). Two problems: 1) not exactly the same level of privacy and convenience; and 2) I might struggle to find the necessary number of neighbours with the same “need”. Therefore, I might find myself force to still work enough to be able to afford my pool. Now, if you assume that most people will face a similar issue for a specific need within the communities (virtual or not) they are part of, wouldn’t we end up with a capitalist-like spiral again? Having said that, we should still steer the Economy away from the all-encompassing Capitalism. How can each one of us contribute to this effort? By “simply” doing more things ourselves (I will start by sorting out this annoying faulty living-room light switch myself). It also means engaging in more value-adding social networks. Two other recent blogs from Dave illustrates what this mean. First, a social network diagram: http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/12/01.html Then a list of examples of SNAs (social networking applications) sorted by function: http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/12/05.html I will use more of these tools myself and will promote their use around me and see what happens. Peter-Anthony Glick

http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Traditional strategies to improve efficiency are failing in the Knowledge Economy.

It is really amazing and sad (and frustrating for some of us who can see the light) how much Company Boards concerned with cutting costs while sustaining growth can repetitively miss the most effective way to do this in the Knowledge Economy we leave in: leveraging the organizational Knowledge through the development of a knowledge-sharing culture to foster creativity and innovation. Traditional means of cost cutting are increasingly reaching their limits and sometimes even become counter-productive. For instance, the still somewhat popular engineering tools designed to map, understand and control organizational processes – to eventually simplify/standardise them to cut costs and improve efficiency - are all failing to meet their objectives. They at best provide a partial understanding of what is really going on, and at worse end up being themselves more complex and costly to manage than what they are supposed to represent. The key problem of these tools is that they miss a vital part of organizational processes: the human aspects (social, political, hierarchical, geographical, knowledge, skills, competences, etc…). Another example of a management tool usually not adapted to the Knowledge Economy is MBO or Management By Objectives. When managers’ performance is evaluated solely on annual objectives, they will naturally tend to focus their attention and efforts on these objectives and not be concerned with anyone else’s. In other words, MBO can have adverse effects on collaboration. Of course, there are ways to alleviate this problem such as including a knowledge-related objective for each manager. Assuming it is measurable, this objective would however probably drive the only knowledge-related activity a manager will carry out effectively, so not vey productive from a KM point of view. Cost-cutting is still too often synonymous of redundancies, recruitment freeze, modest salary increase, low (or no) bonuses, etc… Of course, who is making the most sacrifices and suffers the most: the workforce (the human capital). The problem with this is that it affects negatively what is increasingly the most important asset to an organization: its people knowledge and experience. Instead of sending the message that their very existence is a reason for lower margins, they should be asked and given the suitable environment to actively and creatively work out ways to cut costs and/or increase efficiency/effectiveness with same resources. A suitable environment means enabling a knowledge sharing culture. Peter-Anthony Glick http://leveragingknowledge.blogspot.com

Becoming a Knowledge-driven Organization in response to more knowledgeable customers in the luxury market

Customers increasingly demand more personalized products and services. When the chosen product is relatively standard (mass-produced) they demand a personalized service around it. When the service is relatively standard (non-differentiating) they demand the resulting experience(s) to be unique. 

In the World of luxury, this will not sound particularly new and challenging. For instance, the Richemont Group “Maisons” (French term used to represent the Brands owned by the Group) have been aiming to provide personalized product and services since their creation. However, even for them the context and the rules of competition are changing. Richemont customers, as much as for any other organization, do have increasingly access to more specific on-demand and interactive information. 

Customers are more knowledgeable about luxury products and services and about our competitor’s products and services. As a direct result, they have also more choice, or more precisely, they are more aware of having a choice. Of course, one key medium at the origin of this phenomenon is the World Wide Web. 

It is now common for Cartier customers to download from a non-official web site a detailed product spec-sheet; and bring a printed copy to a Cartier boutique in order to be shown the product. 

Another illustration is the frustration of Panerai Management faced with a totally legal web site selling bracelets for Panerai watches. 

Even more worrying is the fast growing so-called “grey market” for watches, already a significant problem in North-America (these are genuine Richemont watches bought by wholesale accounts to be diverted onto a parallel network to be sold – usually on the Web - at discounted retail prices). 

Traditional luxury companies will also face new types of competition. One of the most successful among wealthy people is fractional ownership. This is based on the old concept of time-sharing: Luxury products such as yachts, private jets, upmarket properties or luxury cars are shared by individuals who probably could afford to buy them outright, but find it much more cost-effective not to do so. 

What should be a concern for the traditional luxury brands is that this concept is starting to be available for fashion products as well such as ladies bags (http://www.bagborroworsteal.com/). Furthermore, existing or potential customers can easily share experiences and opinions on a specific luxury product and its related services, therefore at best, entering a point of sale with more pertinent knowledge; or at worse, deciding to opt for the competition before a sales-executive even had a chance to promote his products. For instance, there are very successful independent websites dedicated to luxury watches and watch-making where existing and potential owners of these wonderful time pieces can share related information. 

Jaeger-Le-Coultre benefits from such a website exclusively focusing on its products. It includes a Forum where customers, dealers and even JLC employees exchange experiences, ideas and opinions on various models (http://www.thepurists.com/). The key fact to note is that the website is independent: JLC management did not create it, has no input and even less control on its content. 

This new competitive environment indicates that luxury Brands should focus on bridging the gap between them and their customers through co-creation of value with the customers (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, The Future of Competition, 2005). The idea is to organize companies in such a way so that all their valuable human resources based knowledge is leveraged through the creation of value for our customers and for the organization. This is done best in co-operation with the customers themselves. When a customer submits a problem at a point of sale of a particular international Brand name, the customer is in fact asking the whole company, not just the front line employee. 

Now can the organization ensure that the right person with the right knowledge is solicited at the right time to satisfy the customer? This is what becoming a knowledge-driven organization is ultimately all about: satisfying our customers faster and better and increasing revenue and profit as a result. A Knowledge-driven organization is focused on providing all the knowledge tools and assistance each of its front-line collaborators could benefit from, in order to deliver a better service. A knowledge-driven organization is inherently a customer-focused organization. 

Typical Product and/or Market-focused Organization schematic representation:  

 The Organization/Customer Gap is reduced through product design assumed to satisfy the customers and through market analysis to adapt to each markets. The rationale is that the organization “knows” best what its customers need/want.

A Knowledge-driven and customer focused Organization simplified schematic representation:  

A Knowledge-driven Organization sees its customers at the top of the pyramid with the whole Organization at their service. The goal is to co-create with the knowledgeable customers valuable and personalized experiences. In other words, such an Organization does not sell only products and services anymore but sells experiences. 

Read Verna Allee's comment to this post.

Why all this fuss about KM now?

Knowledge Management is about how an organization makes use of its intellectual property. It is about leveraging the knowledge produced internally or acquired externally, to add value for competitive advantage. BUT WHY ALL THIS FUSS NOW? Organizations always produced knowledge and this knowledge must have been used to add value somehow => TRUE However, knowledge was not managed explicitly, formally, systematically because, until the 90's, it didn’t really need to be in order to add value. In the increasingly Flat World we live in - with weaker geographical and political borders - individual and organizational knowledge is the most rewarding asset to leverage. Find below examples of key benefits of Knowledge-driven initiatives in an organization:

• Stop “reinventing the wheel”. => Similar or different solutions are applied to identical problems by different teams throughout the organization, when one solution could be applied for all. What are needed are processes and tools to facilitate knowledge encoding and accessibility. It must be facilitated to find out what has been done and who has done it.
• Induce a “Knowledge is power when it is shared” culture. What is needed is a top-management will and drive for a knowledge sharing culture, in which individuals, departments, teams, companies are encouraged, valued and rewarded for sharing their specific knowledge.
• Effective replacement of experienced staff through knowledge acquisition and transfer. A fraction of the significant costs associated with staff turnover could be directed towards proactive knowledge transfer from senior staff to more junior ones. Training, Coaching, apprenticeship, documentation are only some of the methods that could be generalized.
• A company-wide team spirit or the systematic involvement of all the relevant stakeholders in projects and activities, all sharing specific and valuable knowledge and experience. “When knowledge gained somewhere doesn’t move elsewhere, that’s not a learning organization; that’s just a bunch of projects” (Jac Fitz-Enz, HR analyst, founder of the Saratoga Institute). What is first needed is for individuals and groups of people to be encouraged and valued for using their own knowledge and experience to constructively challenge the production of others. Furthermore, positive and negative feedback from all parties involved in projects and activities should be formally collected and made freely available to all for re-use (this relates to first and last examples as well).
• Stop making the same mistakes twice (or many more times). The risk of repeating mistakes can be considerably reduced with the generalization of relatively simple processes and tools, all centred on the principle of proactive knowledge sharing. In other words, the reasons and impacts of a mistake along with what was done about it is to be systematically recorded in a database available for others to consult.

I found on Pera the Innovation Company's website (www.pera.com) this very good support for knowledge-driven stategies:

"Global Knowledge A Knowledge Based Business... The best businesses today recognised a long time ago that their use of knowledge would be key to making them successful and they did something about it! These businesses: Thrive on chaos and uncertainty because it confuses their competitors Welcome globalisation because it gives them access to customers and capabilities that their competitors are yet to comprehend exist Welcome reduced product lifecycles because they know they are agile enough to get in and out of these new business spaces at speeds others can only imagine Can be sure that China is not a threat because they know that the value they create comes from the man and not the machine But what did they do? Divorced themselves of the corporate mindset and released the spirit of the individual Developed their human capital first and then watched their financial capital multiply Looked across the business and to the world at large for inspiration not just to their leader Realised that they exist in an ecosystem, not linear world And then what did they do with this self-empowered, self-motivated, self-aware and profit hungry bunch of individuals? They fed them knowledge and they made them money……"

Peter-Anthony Glick Leveraging Organizational Knowledge