Supporting Business Development with a Wiki

Via Stewart Mader comes notice of an article in FastCompany on how Disney uses wikis in internal business model innovation projects (well, not all WDI employees seem so content as the folks of the digital-media department, but that’s another story …).

This is an excellent description of how a wiki can be the information, collaboration, and social hub of a group. Creating a directory of staff profiles helps people hone their wiki editing skills, tell others about themselves, and become more deeply connected to the rest of the community on the wiki. The flexibility of the wiki shows in the creation of that “Cool Stuff We’ve Done This Year” section, because people can start by informally listing things they’ve done, then go back and add descriptions, links, images, video, etc. and pretty soon they’ve built a better, more accurate, and naturally built report on what they’ve accomplished.

I like the use case and rationale of the people at Disney, this is obviously a good little case study. I wouldn’t place too much focus on the “maverick spirit aspects” anyway. Adaptivity and room for “emergent uses” are attractive enough – especially for the support of (business model) innovators.

Social software for the enterprise

More on the social side of knowledge management via elearnspace: “The state of social networking software for the enterprise”:

Two things come to mind with enterprise use of social tools:
1) Organizations that I’ve worked with are generally too unaware of themselves and their strengths and expertise. Social software can greatly aid the “coming to know oneself” that most larger corporations need…but too often, hierarchy and information secrecy reduce it’s effectiveness.

2) Expertise and knowledge are not “database-able”. They reside in people. And tools are required that initiate and sustain dialogue that translates into deeper levels of understanding. Software, like social networking tools, is an enabler, but often clashes against the existing culture of the organization. Software implementation is a change process…

Yes, social software can help raising (knowledge and competency) awareness, where it acts as an enabler, facilitating communication, and possibly also cooperation and collaboration.

Werte statt Macht

Sören Stamer, CEO von Coremedia (hier das Video seines Next07-Vortrags), im Interview mit dem Fischmarkt-Team, u.a. zu zeitgemäßer Unternehmensorganisation aber auch den Implementierungserfahrungen bei Coremedia, u.a.:

Was bedeutet die Post-Web-2.0-Ära für klassische Unternehmen?

Der Hauptpunkt ist der, dass der Kampf gegen den Paradigmenwechsel nicht zu gewinnen sein wird. Jedes Unternehmen kann zwar versuchen, dagegen zu arbeiten, aber meiner Meinung nach wird man mit dieser Strategie nicht erfolgreich sein können. Traditionelle Modelle mit starren Hierarchien und starker Machtorientierung werden leiden und möglicherweise untergehen, weil die Welt um sie herum sich grundlegend ändert.
[…]
Mit dem Medium Internet hat sich eine kulturelle Revolution in Gang gesetzt: Selbstorganisation statt starre Hierarchien. Kompetenzen statt Kontrolle. Kooperation statt Kampf. Werte statt Macht. Technologie hat somit in erster Linie einen kulturellen Effekt.

Web 2.0 changing decision making processes within organizations

More on Chambers keynote by the people of Avenue A | Razorfish, pointing out his argument that decision making processes (at least at Cisco …) were changed and accelerated:

And when talking about web 2.0 [Chambers] specifically drew attention to social networking as changing decision making processes within organizations.
[…] Chambers emphasized that social networks are changing businesses making them less hierarchical and more network oriented.

Well, yes, strengthening (and leveraging) social networks via social software may facilitate this, decision making can be accelerated (and be more distributed, democratized, deconstructed, diversified, …).

In fact, the main change effect is not acceleration (but the change effects in brackets …).

Alas, be warned, your results may vary, social networking in the enterprise is not “easy”. One reason is that this is not a technology problem (with some kind of tech answer), but a people problem. Supplementing organizational hierarchies and “command and control” decision structures with free-form collaboration and teamwork approaches needs some serious thinking before “kicking-off these projects”, taking into account that this calls for broad implementation approaches, lead and energized by skillful managers, and more …

Then (and only when …) we employ freeform social software and enterprise 2.0 concepts we can ease implementation, like when we leverage bottom-up mechanisms that are already in place, and allow for the emergence of usage and networking patterns that reflect and support the actual informal networks that exist in the organization anyway.

Social software may enter the corporate world quite naturally in the end …

Pursuit of busyness (and customized implementation)

Andrew McAfee on the adoption challenges of enterprise 2.0, when web2.0-style tools are seen as superfluous, must-not-have and an “unproductive thing to do”:

people who use the new tools heavily – who post frequently to an internal blog, edit the corporate wiki a lot, or trade heavily in the internal prediction market — will be perceived as not spending enough time on their ‘real’ jobs
[…]
In environments that value ‘busyness’ enterprise 2.0 enthusiasts can be seen as laggards, goof-offs, and people who don’t have either enough to do or enough initiative to find more real work to do.

This is not surprising, as we all know that this organizational pathology of “you’ve got to be busy” is both widespread and (ironically) utterly unproductive …

Yet, he makes perfectly clear that especially knowledge based organizations can profit from enterprise 2.0 oriented collaboration support, so when introduction is not easy, management guidance and leadership is are even more essential.

Companies that are full of knowledge workers and that have built cultures that value busyness face a potentially sharp dilemma when it comes to E2.0. These companies stand to benefit a great deal if they can build emergent platforms for collaboration, information sharing, and knowledge creation. But they may be in a particularly bad position to build such platforms not because potential contributors are too busy, but because they don’t want to be seen as not busy enough.

And even if the leaders in such companies sincerely want to exploit the new tools and harness the collective intelligence of their people, they might have a tough time convincing the workforce that busyness is no longer the ne plus ultra. Corporate cultures move slowly and with difficulty, and it will take a lot more than a few memos, speeches, and company retreats to convince people that it’s a smart career idea, rather than a poor one, to contribute regularly and earnestly to E2.0 platforms.

Besides, this illustrates that enterprise 2.0 tools and methods must be intertwined and knitted into daily work processes and routines to ease adoption – when they are added-on superficially, one runs into exactly the problems Andrew notes.

Update: Marcel de Ruiter adds his thoughts to the “no time” excuse that threatens to keep participation low, arguing that the benefits of social software for an individual knowledge-worker should be pointed out more. I second that and observed that similar issues have been part of failed past knowledge management efforts, mainly those that focussed on corporate (and down to group) uses, both in the design of knowledge management solutions and in the design of implementation and change projects (“we the company know what is needed”).

So, please, don’t let us make the same mistakes again, start bottom-up (and add top-down support as much as possible). This CEO and CIO support is essential, because strategic issues are touched and need to be sorted out. One example is that it’s mandatory for the acceptance of internal social networking, to facilitate the transfer and exchange of corporate social networks between different employers (you know, this is no longer a world of “IBM now, IBM forever”). While this is all about individual benefit trumping official corporate policy, it’s also deeply logical as value creation processes cross inter-organizational frontiers anyway all the time.

Wiki Workplace

Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams in BusinessWeeks wikinomics series on the “Wiki Workplace”, i.e. online collaboration and decentralized knowledge collection, refinement and distribution. Besides, the article notes some examples of good corporate use, e.g. by companies like Xerox, IBM (see here for more on Innovation Jams) and (again) Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein.

Thanks in part to younger workers, more companies are using social computing tools to aid collaboration and to foster innovation and growth.
[…]
The information and communication technologies that are transforming media, culture, and the economy are also reshaping how companies and employees function. New social computing tools such as wikis and blogs put unprecedented communication power in the hands of employees.

I would hold that this is no question of age, but of disposition, i.e. willingness to participate, to share and to commit ourselves, it’s a people issue from the start, it’s a big task, yet the goal is worthwhile:

Clear goals, structure, discipline, and leadership in the organization will remain as important as ever and perhaps more so as self-organization and peer production emerge as organizing principles for the workplace. The difference today is that these qualities can emerge organically as employees seize the new tools to collaborate across departmental and organizational boundaries, and, yes, “the power of human capital” can be unleashed.