One word as a focal point for change – Collaboration

Taking up my last post on the role of social software and collaboration technology in organizational change management (“Cultural change and developing collaboration capabilities“) I want to add Charlie Bess’ view on EDS’ Next Big Thing Blog. Here Charlie holds that collaboration is the focal point for change in 2008:

[collaboration] can be applied at many levels to the changes that are underway.

At the cultural level, we’re all familiar with web 2.0 and the collaboration across organizations it supports. Wikinomics states the view of collaboration between organizations, increases diversity of perspective enabling innovation and reaching objectives more quickly.

At the software level, the concept of SOA is based upon the collaboration between services, enabling clear separation between the interface and the underlying data, freeing up organizations to focus at a higher (more business oriented) level.

[…] Companies need to be more agile, moving from viewing change as a periodic disruption of the status quo to accepting continuous change as the norm. Information technology (IT) has an important role to play, since it enables agility through collaboration. IT needs to collaborate with the rest of the enterprise in meeting the business objectives, probably until it fades into the business itself.

It’s timely also that Josh Bernoff, co-author of Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies (blog here) was recently invited to the Harvard Business Review IdeaCast. Topic of the talk is “Be a Social Technology Provocateur”. Get the mp3 here, listen to it.

Makes me wonder – is there a place for a “consultant provocateur” to get enterprise social software going? Provocation is such a bad and naughty word. Well, sometimes it’s a necessary part of the consulting task/project at hand, smartly disguised as innovation consulting. But this works best when combined with the credibility and professional ethics that clients always need. Being pushy is a dumb idea. Bringing an outside-in perspective is a good start, and if let’s add smart questions, communication, promotion, explanations of best practices. So we can make friends and win inner-organizational allies etc. – even when we’re shaking the boat?

Cultural change and developing collaboration capabilities

Scott Anthony – president of Innosight (see some of my innovation related posts over at bmid) – compiles some of the drivers needed for organizational change, based on a panel discussion he moderated with CEOs from Dow Corning, Eastman Kodak, Procter & Gamble etc.:

  1. The need for a crisis or some kind of “burning platform” to motivate transformational change
  2. A clear vision and strategy … that allows room for iteration
  3. A recognition that transformation is a multi-year journey
  4. A need to put the customer or consumer in the center of the transformation equation
  5. The critical importance of demonstrating to skeptics that different actions can lead to different results
  6. The need to over-communicate to employees, customers, stakeholders, and shareholders

While I doubt that implementing social software in the enterprise profits much from a state of crisis (we need some careful planning and concepts which suffer from too much fuzz, social software doesn’t help turning the ship around quickly – at least not in financial terms, etc.), the other success factors make perfect sense. And they’re people centered success factors – highlighting communication, leadership and (customer) relations.

So it’s kind of disheartening when Susan Scrupski paints a bleak picture and perspective of the setting, the context and the understanding of organizational change for enterprise social software (“Corporate Antisocial Behavior: the Enemy is Us“):

I once heard from a Wall Street executive that he was no longer permitted to use the word “social” when describing 2.0 opportunities. It made senior management uncomfortable. Similarly, if there is more emphasis on social than networking, our clients raise the justifiable question of employee productivity. When we talk about collaboration and breaking down barriers with earnest information-sharing and knowledge harvesting, the conversation is more intriguing. But, realistically, can technologies engender cultural change? That is the $5 billion dollar question that will be answered over the next few years.

It’s 4,52 billion USD by Forresters account (btw, I’ve made a long german language comment arguing it’s actually a lot more). What stresses me out is this “being uncomfortable” – this is strange: Management is supposed to be people business, it is inherently social by all accounts.

Well, here’s my answer to Susan: It’s the social stuff that makes “Enterprise Social Software” projects both complex and worthwhile. Technology is easy to figure out, while it can effect interesting and complex changes. And some technologies can engender cultural change:

the way I see it is that social software is both a driver and an enabler (or infrastructure) of organizational change.

All the while this changing of work practices, routines etc. doesn’t come easily. So I’m glad I am a subscriber to the Anecdote newsletter, because I learned early that Shawn Callahan, Mark Schenk and Nancy White have published a new Anecdote Whitepaper entitled “Building a Collaborative Workplace” (pdf):

Today we all need to be collaboration superstars. The trouble is, collaboration is a skill and set of practices we are rarely taught. It’s something we learn on the job in a hit-or-miss fashion. Some people are naturals at it, but most of us are clueless.

Our challenge doesn’t stop there. An organisation’s ability to support collaboration is highly dependent on its own organisational culture. Some cultures foster collaboration while others stop it dead in its tracks.

To make matters worse, technology providers have convinced many organisations that they only need to purchase collaboration software to foster collaboration. There are many large organisations that have bought enterprise licences for products like IBM’s Collaboration Suite or Microsoft’s Solutions for Collaboration who are not getting good value for money, simply because people don’t know how to collaborate effectively or because their culture works against collaboration.

Of course technology plays an important role in effective collaboration. We are not anti-technology. Rather we want to help redress the balance and shift the emphasis from merely thinking about collaboration technology to thinking about collaboration skills, practices, technology and supporting culture. Technology makes things possible; people collaborating makes it happen.

This paper has three parts. We start by briefly exploring what we mean by collaboration and why organisations and individuals should build their collaboration capability. Then, based on that understanding, we lay out a series of steps for developing a collaboration capability. We finish the paper with a simple test of your current collaboration capability.

Looks like an interesting read for enterprise social software (who really need to understand change management deeply) consultants.

Focusing on people and work relations, usability and more …

Socialtext has announced version 2.20, with improvements to the user experience and added Dashboard and People modules. Besides the “Facebook for the enterprise” approach, that puts people and work relations at the center of interest, I particularly like the focus on integration and usability (yes, this is important): Ease-of-use can be a dig differentiator in this market of “enterprise collaboration suites” (wikis are a central part still) – corporate users don’t want to spend days of training to learn “systems”: It’s better to spend the time (and consulting budget too, you know) on coaching and implementation, supporting early users, building up internal support (and use cases) etc.

Here’s a video demo of the newly added capabilities (via Jon Grorud and Socialtext Customer Exchange):

In this context, Scott Schnaars explains the direction and goals of Socialtext along four business use cases:

  • Collaborative Intelligence for sales and marketing
  • Participatory Knowledgebase for service and support
  • Flexible Client Collaboration for professional services
  • Business Social Networks for partners and customers

Disclaimer: Jon pointed me to this video, alas – I am subscribed to Ross Mayfield and the Socialtext news and feeds anyway. Consultants need to stay up to date … and that’s where this is apt:

Disclaimer 2: I know there are other players in this market too, like Jive’s Clearspace, XWiki, BlueKiwi, MyWorkLight – even Lotus Connections might stand the test and integrates well (I don’t have to link the IBM guys – do I?).

Notes from the trenches …

Andrew McAfee makes a case for prediction markets, citing James Surowiecki:

“[…] the most mystifying thing about [prediction] markets is how little interest corporate America has shown in them. Corporate strategy is all about collecting information from many different sources, evaluating the probabilities of potential outcomes, and making decisions in the face of an uncertain future. These are tasks for which [prediction] markets are tailor-made. Yet companies have remained, for the most part, indifferent to this source of potentially excellent information, and have been surprisingly unwilling to improve their decision making by tapping into the collective wisdom of their employees.”

Janet compiles Enterprise RSS Day of Action posts, pointing out Scott Niesen who calls for altering the conversation about RSS:

Like most new technology companies we had a vision of how RSS could be used behind the firewall and we wanted feedback to see if we were on target. In the early days we started these conversations by focusing on the technology. These conversations didn’t get very far. The inside joke was that we were starting the conversations by asking, “How many pounds of RSS would you like to buy today?” You live and learn. Now we start the conversation talking about communication and collaboration challenges. The conversations last longer and are far more meaningful.

Naming is important, so I like this “Communication & Collaboration Delivery” instead of Enterprise RSS.

And there’s an interesting chart on Enterprise 2.0 adoption here at Read-Write Web (“Enterprise 2.0 To Become a $4.6 Billion Industry By 2013“), citing a report by Forrester Research:

web 2.0 adoption

Yes, it’s sad to see that small and medium-sized businesses don’t see the opportunities. Way to go for social software consultants – more explaining, teaching and coaching – customized to this “long tail” of businesses – is needed. Still, the problem of “getting past the IT gatekeepers” is mostly a problem of big enterprises, which have other upsides still:

Enterprises are keen in adopting web 2.0 principles in both external and internal aspects. Knowledge Management is being replaced with web 2.0 collaboration and social networking applications. The executives understand the need, but knowledge of web 2.0 and how to implement is still missing. They are opting for less risky web 2.0 pilot applications instead of realigning their business strategy with web 2.0. But I am sure success of pilot applications will lead to bigger initiatives. It is just a matter of time and confidence.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with doing pilots first, funding a small team and bringing in external consultants like me to get up to speed quickly. Don’t spend hours pondering the details and splitting hairs – actually use this stuff and find out.

And finally, when shall the next Wiki Wednesday Stuttgart be? My favourite date is July 9th, between the European Football Championships and summer holidays in Baden-Württemberg.

Enterprise 2.0 Keynote @ re:publica

Peter Schütt von IBM gibt nun einen Überblick über Motivationen und Herausforderungen die sich im Kontext von Web 2.0 im Unternehmen ergeben. Schön – das Thema ist offensichtlich auch für die anderen Besuchern der re:publica interessant – der große Saal ist fast so gut gefüllt wie bei der Blogger vs. Journalisten Debatte geradeeben. Im Anschluss wird es einen zweistündigen Workshop zur Vertiefung geben.

Weitere Themen:
– Erfahrungen der IBM mit der Transformation zum Unternehmen 2.0 (u.a. Lernschritte und Akzeptanz der Mitarbeiter)
– Unterschiede zwischen großen und kleinen Unternehmen bei der Herangehensweise an Web 2.0 (klar, sie betreten Neuland, die Frage ist welche Schrittfolge und -größe gewählt wird). Die Daten entstammen einer aktuellen Studie des IBM Institute of Business Value
– Web 2.0 allgemein (Long Tail, …) und die Auswirkungen auf die Produktivität und Motivation von Wissensarbeitern
– Schnelligkeit von digitalem Content (durch Schütt mehr auf die Geschäftsmodelle gemünzt, kann aber auch intern interpretiert werden). Schütt leitet denn auch hin zu “digitaler Reputation” & “social sharing”, das interne Teilen und Arbeiten von Content
– Social Networks im Unternehmen als Plattform für Wissensarbeiter und damit zusammenhängend:
– Crowdsourcing und das Nutzen von externen Ideen im Rahmen von Open Innovation, aber auch der persönlichen Netzwerke der Mitarbeiter (mit kleinen Anklängen an die Potenziale von Social Network Analysis im Unternehmen)
– Flexibilität von Geschäftsmodellen und Informationssystemen durch Enterprise 2.0 erhöhen (u.a. mit Nennung von Mashups, Widgets in personalisierbaren Portalen, …)
– Arenen für Social Software im Unternehmen – passt schon, die Idee “schnelle, kollaborative Innovation zu fördern” ist schon sinnvoll. Problematisch ist mehr, dass die IBM Studie hier offensichtlich massive Defizite bei KMU festgestellt hat.

Insgesamt viel “Richtiges und Wahres” im Vortrag, aber eben auch recht generell und damit leider “nicht viel neues bei IBM (und unter der Sonne)” für mich. Jetzt bin ich auf die Diskussionen im Workshop gespannt, die kleinere Runde ist da sicher vorteilhaft.

Projektmanagement mit Social Software @ WikiWednesdayStuttgart

Der vierte WikiWednesdayStuttgart war ein rundum gelungener – weil arbeitsintensiver und dennoch atmosphärisch lockerer Nachmittag (und Abend), allen Teilnehmern und Mitwirkenden ein herzliches Dankeschön (Fotos bei Kai).

Ich komme nun erst recht spät zum Bloggen und Dokumentieren – ein kleiner Grund ist der ungeschickte Termin. Beim nächsten mal wählen Cedric und ich auf jeden Fall nicht mehr (Oster-)Ferien, zu eng liegen dann doch die sonstigen Aufgaben.

Dennoch ist das Oberthema Projektmanagement (PM) zu spannend um einfach zum normalen Blogging und Geschäft (was meist eben auch projektbasiert abläuft) überzugehen, zumal wir drei herausragende Vorträge hatten.

Einige meiner Notizen (und Überlegungen) zu Lars’ Vortrag:

– wir brauchen neue Methoden im Projektmanagement, die alten Herangehensweisen tragen nicht mehr
– “Social Project Management” ist sowohl gutes Branding, als auch Programm
– 2.0 impliziert eine gewisse Wertung, die mir auch nicht gefällt. Social Web ist prägnanter als Web 2.0.
– klar, es gibt nicht das Werkzeug für PM, Projektleiter (und Programmmanager) brauchen einen gut gefüllten Werkzeugkasten und eine gewisse Virtuosität (und Erfahrung) bei Auswahl und Einsatz des Instruments
– ich schreibe bewusst Instrument und nicht Werkzeug – Instrument ist das Bundle von Methode und Werkzeug
– strukturierte Vorgehensweise bleibt wichtig, aber die Art und Weise der projektbasierten Zusammenarbeit muss sich ändern – und ändert sich auch (manchmal …)
– die Zusammenarbeit via Email stört eher – u.a. weil der “Flow of Work” zu oft und aus zu geringen Anlässen unterbrochen wird, Email ist eine tendenziell unstrukturierte Form der Zusammenarbeit …
– Kommunikation muss weg von Push- und hin zu Pull-Funktionalitäten (RSS anyone?)
– um die weltweit verteilte Zusammenarbeit von (virtuellen) Projektteams besser zu koordinieren und zu unterstützen sind Wikis schon besser geeignet
– Realität sind jedes mal neu zusammengestellte Projektteams, mehr Freelancer, mehr Externe, mehr Kunden und andere (Projekt-)Stakeholder … die mit heterogenen (IT-)Werkzeugen zurechtkommen müssen …
– bittere Realität ist es auch dass allzu leicht (der Schwabe sagt “gerne”) im Stress auf lang (und früh) eingeübte Werkzeuge der Zusammenarbeit zurückgefallen wird (“when the going gets rough nobody edits the wiki”)
– Lars: “Wikis werden in D gerade als potenzielle Lösung verstanden und evaluiert” – stimmt, die breite Akzeptanz fehlt aber noch, entwickelt sich im Moment, 2008 wird WikiJahr
– Social PM lehnt sich an die Ideen von Wikinomics an, konzentriert sich auf das Wesentliche – Kommunikation als erste Priorität
– Simplify your Projects: Reduktion des PM auf Kommunikation, Meilensteine, Aufgaben
– Lars: “Social PM braucht neue Art von PM-Software: keine Balkenplan-Ansicht, keine Vorgangsverknüpfung, kein kritischer Weg, keine Bearbeitungsdauer” – OK, da bin ich dabei, Einschränkungen siehe weiter unten
– Immer wieder gern daran erinnert: Parkinson‘sches “Gesetz”: Ein Aufgabe braucht solange wie man ihr Zeit einräumt (und wenn Pufferzeiten vorgesehen sind, werden diese auch genutzt)
– Social PM ist sicher nicht für jedes Projekt geeignet, klassische Projekte und klassische Instrumente (“Balkenplanung mit MS Project”) haben weiterhin ihren Platz
– Social PM ist sowohl Methodik als auch empfohlene, bewährte Abarbeitungsstrategie für jeden einzelnen (Wissens-)Arbeiter.
– Social PM ist ein Grundgerüst für die Zusammenarbeit in Projekten, benötigt angemessene Toolunterstützung – andererseits sind viele Wissensarbeiter bereits “toolgeschädigt”
– Social PM greift auf verschiedene Vorläufer und deren Instrumente zurück, wichtig sind u.a. Merlin Manns 43folders.com, GTD, die 4-hour workweek (ja, mein Liebling, best quote ever: “doing something unimportant does not make it important”), Getting Real (ja, auch ein Liebling, warum Probleme, Design und Prototyping spannend sind? siehe hier)
– wir sollten neue Instrumente auf Einsatzarenen prüfen, bspw. hat CoreMedia mit Trillr eine Business-Twitter Adaption eingerichtet, wir können aber auch ganz banal den Gruppenchat von Skype verwenden …
– Social Bookmarking und Social Networking in Projekten ist auch spannend
– …

Hier noch die Folien von Lars’ Vortrag (und der zugehörige Blog-Eintrag):

Meine Notizen (und weitergehenden Überlegungen) zum Vortrag von Karoline Kraus vom Steinbeis Transferzentren Qualität im Unternehmen (TQU).

– TQU-Kerngeschäft ist Beratung und Managementunterstützung – Managementsysteme und mehr, d.h. es geht um interne Organisationsgestaltung
– TQU = Projektarbeit, Weiterbildung, Qualifizierung, Information
– aus diesen Aufgaben (Organizational Re-Design) ergab sich der Einstieg in Richtung Wiki ganz natürlich
– TQU setzt internes Wiki seit 2 Jahren ein
– einige interessante Fallstudien und Praxisbeispiele, u.a. aus Gesundheits- und Sozialbereich, aus KMU, etc.
– erfolgreiche Einführungen starten oft mit Erklären, der Grundprinzipien von Web 2.0 und Social Software, der Motivation, der verfolgten (Unternehmens-)Ziele
– erfolgreiches Vorgehen durch Beachten von Erfolgsfaktoren, u.a. kleine Projektteams, Projektmarketing, frühzeitiges Vergeben von Rollen, d.h. Rechten und Pflichten, (initiale) Inhalte, MA-Schulung und Training, …

What’s wrong with current corporate systems?

Nice rhetorical question in this interview with Ross Mayfield in CIO, nothing new for people into enterprise social software, but I like how Ross draws the field, my markups:

Mayfield: The way organizations adapt, survive and be productive is through the social interaction that happens outside the lines that we draw by hierarchy, process and organizational structure. The first form of social software to really take off to facilitate these discussions was email. The “reply all” feature was fantastic for forming groups, communicating, and getting some things done, but it’s also been stretched thin. Because of its popularity, we use it for everything. It creates what the Gartner Group calls occupational spam, and it makes up 30 percent of email. It’s when you CC, blind CC, or reply to all. Consistently, with our customer base, that 30 percent moves over to the wiki. So e-mail is a big part of it.

Traditional enterprise software is the other. If you think about traditional enterprise software, it’s top down, highly structured, and is made for rigid business rules. The entire goal is automation of business process to drive down cost. But the net result is someone goes and buys SAP, implements the same 15,000 business processes that it comes with, and all they’re doing is paying the ante to stay in the round. They don’t gain any competitive advantage. Most employees don’t spend their time executing business process. That’s a myth. They spend most of their time handling exceptions to business process. That’s what they’re doing in their [e-mail] inbox for four hours a day. Email has become the great exception handler.

Unfortunately, what it means is all the learning disappears because it’s hidden away in people’s inbox. It’s not searchable and discoverable or findable through tags and folksonomies. And so just simply moving some of that exception handling into a more transparent, searchable, and discoverable Wiki means that you have the opportunity to gain a different kind of competitive advantage. John Seely Brown and John Hagel wrote this book recently called The Only Sustainable Edge , and there they suggest that the greatest source of sustainable innovation is how you’re handling these exceptions to business process.

So at the edge of your organization, there are all kinds of exceptions that are happening. If you handle them appropriately, you can adapt to where the market is going. You can adapt to the problems you have in your existing structures. So I’ve always looked at it as we’re doing the other half of enterprise software: making this unstructured information transparent.