Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 24 December, 2008 under Enterprise 2.0 |
Hi everyone!
Its been a really big year for me with many changes in all aspects. Enterprise 2.0 has also advanced heaps during this year. Lots of new ideas, projects and success stories have emerged over the year. On Christmas eve, I shall not write anything about Enterprise 2.0 in the past but would like to focus on what I hope to see next year.
1) I hope that more could be understood about how Enterprise 2.0 could be implemented in organisations and its value it can bring.
2) How Enterprise 2.0 relates to key topics like Knowledge management, Business Process Management and Enterprise Content Management.
3) I would also like to see enterprise 2.0 go more main stream and integrate with existing systems providing a greater impact on organisations.
Merry Christmas everyone and have a safe and fantastic New Year.
Posted by Sean Lew on Monday, 15 December, 2008 under General Ranting |
I have been trying to understand the different types of people who collaborate. Interesting enough, from my professional work in setting up collaboration systems, I can see that there are 1) some people who are extremely active collaborating for a short period of time and disappear “forever”, 2) there are another kind that are somewhat active and contributes just a little and 3) there are the ones who always contribute and collaborate.
Using the above three kinds of people I would like to propose that for 1) they are the people who are faced with external pressures / work requirement forcing conformity. They are somewhat forced to collaborate and since the boss says so and the performance review is at stake, therefore better “wake up” and get cracking (collaborating and contributing). Once the pressure and work requirement is gone, then contribution stops.
2) There people are uncertain about the whole idea of collaboration. They see successful peers climbing up the corporate ladder through sharing innovative ideas and producing good work on collaboration but not sure where to start or what to say. They contribute aliittle once in a while and are trying to mimic successful peers.
3) These people share and collaborate heaps. They do it as they are professional and have shared values with others in the network. Its simple, they believe in it, knows how it works and are willing to share. They are the “champions” of the system.
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 10 December, 2008 under Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Web 2.0, social media |
For Enterprise 2.0 to be successful within the organisation, the following factors needs to be considered. Let me introduce the CAMPER model.
1) Communication
2) Aim
3) Membership characteristics
4) Process and hierarchy
5) Environment
6) Resources
Communication
Communication is the key in Enterprise 2.0. The basis of social networking and collaboration is communication. There should be open and frequent communication in the network where users are able to easily access, interact and update on the latest development of issues in the community. These information are documented and can be easily accessed at a later date. Advanced notification should also be a requirement to alert stakeholders on new and updated information.
On top of formal communication tools, users should also have the ability to connect via information tools like IMs or private messages. There are certain things that a person would like to say but would not want it to be documented.
Before communication can happen, the other party must be identified first. One must be able to easily identify the teams that are involved and connect with them easily. Searching for talent must be quick and easy. Searching for past content on similar topics should also be available.
Aim
We know that the aim of the Enterprise 2.0 platform should be clear, concrete and achievable. However, within an organisation different departments have different needs and goals and many a times, they need their own workspace. Within each workspace, the aim should also be clear, concrete and achievable. It should not be just a place where people come to dump their stuff but has an objective and place to accommodate the needs of the community. The aim of each workspace should be a shared aim and everyone would work towards getting to the objective. With a clear goal in mind, it would be easier to get things done.
Membership characteristics
In this factor, we are looking at how easy is it for interested parties to get onto the network, how easy is it to find talent and the types and quality of members within the community. If there are roadblocks to join the network or the sign up process is way too long and complicated, it would be a deterrent for interested parties to get onto the network. Also the types of ACTIVE members in the community MUST comprise of people from everywhere within the organisation. This is important as anything raised in the Enterprise 2.0 platform would be well covered and well represented by all key stakeholders in the organisation. When all the key people from each stakeholder group come together, discussion and decision can be made collaboratively. One should also note that members who are aggressive and fierce should be subdued quickly. Violence is something not to be tolerated.
Process and hierarchy
The key in this factor is flexibility. This does not only means that the tool must be flexible to allow users to organise itself and accomplish objectives in whichever way they would like to but also the processes surrounding it. It should not be overly restricting like enforcing SLAs and forcing people to do something. If such are requirements for the business process, the organisation needs to look at how to foster such attitudes instead of enforcing it with a cane. Having said that guidelines must be present to ensure that users know what the can and cannot be done. This is really more of setting expectations but not in a totally restricted way. There is a fine line to be drawn in this case and it can be tricky sometimes. There is another important point here which is, users should be able to have a say on the results generated. For example, if users are asked to contribute on a certain topic and there is a strong consensus on the solution, a senior person should not just overwrite the consensus but instead join in the discussion and come to a comprise or a new consensus.
Environment
In this factor, a few things needs to be considered. We need to understand if the community at large is willing to participate and collaborate generally. For example, if the environment has a culture of selfishness, then knowledge sharing and collaboration might not work. Also if the environment is generally made up of introverts, social networking might not be conducive. We should also look at any opposition from key leaders in the environment. If the boss or “tribe leader” or “village head” is opposed to the idea of social networking and collaboration generally, Enterprise 2.0 would not really work. For this to happen, C-level support is needed to ensure that people will adopt such technology.
Resources
For all of the above to happen, resources is needed. Money and skilled Enterprise 2.0 talent is generally the main issues however its not restricted to just these two. All required resources must be available before success can take place. Support for leadership (C-level and middle management) must also be present to ensure adoption. Staff on the ground must also have the time and capability to contribute and share.
The above is the CAMPER model and please feel free to contribute to this model.
Posted by Sean Lew on under General Ranting |
A good slide pack on how BPM relates to Enterprise 2.0. In fact, I think its the other way round. Its how Enterprise 2.0 relates to BPM.
What I find really interesting after reading this is that I can really see how this works in my daily work. Every so often, I will get a question at work which I can’t answer and right away, I will access my knowledge repository – the all powerful Wiki and find something that would help me solve my question. That is part of BPM modeling for the organisation.
This is surely one area to research more into.
Posted by Sean Lew on Sunday, 7 December, 2008 under Collaboration, Innovation, Web 2.0 |
Innovation is the process of coming up with new ideas, products and process that will help an organisation perform better. Large organisations generates alot of ideas internally and compete on bringing many of these ideas to the market fast and cheap. With the era of M&As happening, innovation across different silos is getting very complicated. I have read a question a while back where someone asked why did Time Warner and AOL not come up with the iTunes concept post the merger. Its a great question and one that could possibly be due to the lack of innovation and cross departmental innovation. After all, one of the reasons for M&As is to harness the potential and intellectual capital in the other organisation.
Innovation at a departmental level will receive departmental results. Organisations need to look at new ideas and processes at an organisational level and understand the impacts of these ideas on other affected stakeholders. Organisations should also look at replicating the idea to other countries, region and product line – if applicable. I believe the best way to do it is to have a dedicated team to control the ideas coming from the organisation and pursue potential valuable ideas further.
So what is IT’s role in this? I have discussed about how social networking and collaboration previously and IT can enable innovation to happen smoothly across boundaries. IT should make it really easy for people to get to where they would like to go and allow the ideas to flow.
Posted by Sean Lew on Friday, 5 December, 2008 under Enterprise 2.0, Web 2.0 |
I have been studying web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 for over a year now and after looking at social networking, collaboration and the impacts on virtual teams. From many of my previous posts, you would have known that I am quite skewed towards the fact that one of the key outcomes of social networking and collaboration is better knowledge management.
So if web 2.0 and enterprise 2.0 brings about better knowledge management, that would also mean better content within the organisation. If there is better content it would also mean that Enterprise Content Management (ECM) would need to be managed.
I have looked at some of the ECM tools on the Gartner’s magic quadrant for Enterprise Content Management tools and compared it with some of the open source tools like Joomla and Drupal. Even though each tool has pros and cons and for different situation, different tools would fit the bill better. I must say that the open source solutions are actually really good aside of the level of support provided.
I have decided that this is one area I would explore more into and try to integrate the ideas of Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, ECM and Knowledge management all into one.
Posted by Sean Lew on Tuesday, 2 December, 2008 under General Ranting |
I had an extremely interesting conversation recently. We were working on a project and we are using a collaborative tool to facilitate communication, ideas and the final deliverable. The client has an input into this tool as well and everyone is really happy. Information was flowing and version control is keeping multiple emails throughout the day at bay. All good.
So I spoke to a client baby boomer who is also someone more senior than me and I said this “what did you think of [my work], could you please comment on it?” He said sure, let’s grab a room. I was pretty stunned. Why do you need a room? Well being the junior one, I followed suit and had a brief chat about my deliverable. The conversation led on to the pantry and we were discussing what does “commenting” means. To me, its a constant feedback and a constant learning session. To me, a comment is a comment.
A written note intended as an explanation, illustration, or criticism of a passage in a book or other writing; an annotation.
A comment doesn’t have to be right or wrong. It can be another perspective to the same problem. It can also be throwing ideas around or just a simple message. However to my baby boomer colleague, a comment is a review session. Something more formal, something that requires a room and something that has a structure. Please do not get me wrong. I am not saying that he is wrong. In fact, he is absolutely correct.
Generation X / Y has a different view of the word comment and it really shows the difference in the approach to solve problems at work. Attitudes have changed and no one is right or wrong.
