will Web 2.0 social tools have a major transformational positive impact in the workplace?

Yesterday, I attended in London a David Gurteen’s Knowledge Café with the topic of the Web 2.0 social tools and what they will mean for organizations. The question to answer was: will these tools have a major transformational positive impact in the workplace? This K Café had an unusual format this time, starting with two speakers given 10mn to either answer positively or negatively. Then the 50+ attendance divided in groups of 5 to discuss/debate, followed with a speaker for each group addressing everyone with the conclusions reached by their group. The event ended with an informal vote on the question. Let’s start with the result of the vote: about 35 people chose to answer positively. It’s a majority but that still left 15 to 20 people (so about 1/3) either unsure, or believing that these new social tools will either have a negative impact or no significant impact at all. I felt that was still quite a lot. Being a supporter of any tools that can help to foster knowledge-sharing and innovation, I will focus here on the arguments given against them having a large impact. A key “negative” argument mentioned was that these social tools are over-hyped since the bulk of effective conversation can only be spoken, not written. Face-to-face conversation would always be required. I would agree with the over-hyped status but not for this reason. The Web 2.0 social tools are not designed to replace face-to-face conversation at all! They are to enable conversations and knowledge sharing that would for the most part otherwise simply not take place. You don’t start a blog and join online forums to discuss with your neighbors and the colleagues you see every day. Yes they might also take part but you intend to reach many many more people you will never speak to directly, let alone meet face-to-face. The reason these tools are over-hyped is that the issue is not about the technology but about the people and the organizational culture. As it was correctly highlighted yesterday, these tools are to be used for a purpose that make business sense to the people using then and to the organization they work in. In other words, they must contribute directly or indirectly to the bottom line: higher profits (or value for money in the public sector). Another “negative” argument I noted was the fear of information overload. More collaborative tools meant for many the risk of increasingly less control over the amount of incoming information. I believe this risk is real but so it was with the telephone a century ago, with email 15 yrs ago or with mobile phones 10 yrs ago. It didn’t stop our ancestors to install a phone in their home or for us to now receive emails on ou mobile phone(s)! It is a potential problem yes but not one that would prevent the Web 2.0 social tools from flourishing. This fear will influence more how we use them individually or collectively such as within an organization. On the whole, the majority agreed that the spread of Web 2.0 tools inside the organization was inevitable. It was only a matter of time. What was less clear was what would be their true benefits, what transformation they would generate. What is happening on the public web can give us some clues but it is indeed difficult to foresee exactly their impact on the workplace. Nevertheless, this is not a reason for not starting to use them, maybe just one to be cautious and not move too fast. But that’s ok, that was also the case with email back in the 90’s. 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

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&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

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