Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 25 March, 2009 under Innovation |
Innovation is the key to competitive advantage these days. However, its not that easy to achieve. I have written about the difficulties previously and I believe that this is not just it.
When it comes to innovation, ideas are put on the table to be discussed. This is where different ideas, perception, opinions comes together. Everyone has their view of the world and how it can help improve the business in general. An idea is a brain child of someone and the creator takes pride in it. If the idea was rejected without good reasons and the person was bitterly removed from the table, chances are that the person might not innovate anymore. There will surely be conflicts and abrasion amongst people and ideas and to some degree even anger.
I am sure you have seen people at your work place who are absolutely unmotivated – these are the people I am talking about. Motivate them by getting them to talk and air their grievances and get them to innovate. For someone to be that upset and unmotivated, there is alot of pent up unhappiness. Turn that into good use and possibly productivity for your company. Get them to contribute. Get them to create constructive conflict and get them to share and innovate. Get them to discuss it and “fight it out”. Critical thinking, fine tuning and sorting out ideas are important. This is when the best ideas are born.
Having said this, an organisation must learn to embrace both good ideas and bad ideas. What I really like about working at BearingPoint is that they embrace both. Whenever, I deliver a good idea, I get praise and rewarded for it. But when there is a bad one, I was told why its not good and what is lacking and where should be explore in great depth. This allows me to learn and grow as an individual. Other organisations should try to do the same too.
Posted by Sean Lew on Thursday, 19 March, 2009 under General Ranting |
Business as usual (BAU) is a term used in business and it means
The normal course of an activity, particularly in circumstances that are out of the ordinary.
I really dislike this phrase. I am a strong believer that as the market moves, organisations have to move together with it. BAU in most situations means going through your normal course of work and doing alot of the monotonous stuff and get through the day. We are in business and we are here to create value in a dynamic and volatile market. Continuously innovating, testing, exploring and trying new ideas is the way to go. Yes, alot of ideas might be chucked aside due to a variety of reasons but as long as one have tried, that’s the most important thing.
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 18 March, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy |
When should one invest in Enterprise 2.0? While its emerging, growing or mature? I believe this is a question many executives have. Many people have some slight idea on what is Enterprise 2.0. Many have even tried – Some succeed and many failed. However, we know that the power of Enterprise 2.0 is in an enterprise implementation which is not cheap. So when should an organisation start investing?
Its interesting that the two person I spoke to today on this said emerging. “You’ve got to get in early to reap the benefits”, “first mover advantage” and so on. I actually do not think that’s the case. Yes, IF IF IF one can get all the ideas correct, the strategy, roadmap, people and technology right. Sure emerging is when one should invest in. However, life is never that sweet.
However, in the mature phase, many to most competitors would have this technology already. Even though, you might be able to replicate it easily and possibly spending lesser money to get to where the competitors are, but its too late. Its difficult to gain a competitive advantage in this case.
So I am proposing during the growth phase of a technology is when many companies should invest in. This this phase, the technology is kinda stable, people(strategist, change managers, technology implementers) know what they are saying and doing and even the general public has some levels of understanding and be more receptive to it.
I am not going to say what and where I think Enterprise 2.0 is at but I am sure its not in the mature state for sure. Whether you would want to invest or not, hire someone who knows what he/she is saying and move from there. I also feel that there is alot of fluff in this space at the moment and we need to look above the unnecessary items and identify the bits that delivers value and benefits.
Posted by Sean Lew on under Blue Sky Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, Innovation |
I am playing devil’s advocate here.
I am proposing that an fully open slate enterprise collaboration platform can detrimental to the progress of an organisation. What I am saying is that, an organisation can’t just implement an Enterprise 2.0 platform and promote innovation across a large company and hope that it works. Below are some reasons why it doesn’t work well in a large company environment:
1) Sometimes, lower level employees do not get to see the full picture and even though the idea might be ideal in their perspective, it might not be optimal in the environment.
2) Lower level employess might not be revenue or profit driven. A good idea may not be bottom line friendly.
3) Country/region specific culture, attitudes, environment and work habits can interfere with innovation and collaboration. What works in one setting might not be applicable in another setting.
4) Cross departmental and boundaries collaboration and innovation can be very hard. Every team works differently and have their own view and attitudes towards new ideas. It will be all good if everyone was receptive and open to new changes and ideas – this is the ideal world that is hard to achieve.
What do you think? Are these valid?
Posted by Sean Lew on Sunday, 15 March, 2009 under Academic, Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy |
“Other things being equal, idiosyncratic exchange which features personal trust will survive greater stress and display greater adaptability” – Williamson (1985)
When I started thinking about this particular area of Enterprise 2.0 recently, I was pretty confused. Trust is such a big unknown. How do you trust someone? Can you trust an organisation? or do you trust the people in the organisation? Can trust be exchanged or transferred? Does the build up of trust related to how desperate the person is (when one is desperate to get something and someone says that they can get it, is the trust given to that person generally higher??) These were some questions I had. Moreover another really tough aspect of trust is that, its very difficult to measure. In this post, I plan to describe what is trust and the key areas Enterprise 2.0 implementers should look at.
So what is trust?
Gambetta defined trust as the subjective probability with which an actor assesses that another actor or group of actors will perform a particular action, both before she or he can monitor such action (or independently of his or her capacity ever to be able to monitor it) and in a context in which it affects his or her own action. Great definition but still quite high level and doesn’t tell us much from here.
At a high level, I would like to say that trust is like a chicken an egg question. When two actors connect and communicate (and even collaborate) some levels of trust must exist in the first place (generally neutral trust). I would like to propose at this point that there is no such thing as no trust for something. There is only negative trust (distrust), neutral trust or positive trust. As communication develops, depending on the situation, a positive relationship will lead to an increase in trust and vice versa.
Adler wrote a really good paper on trust and I am basing much of this blog post on his findings. He argued that there are four dimensions of trust – Sources, Mechanisms, Objects and Bases – Source of trust, mechanisms that generate trust, objects that trust can be built on and bases or factors that trust can be generated from.
| Dimensions |
Components |
| Sources |
Familiarity through repeated interaction
Calculation based on interest
Norms that create predictability and trustworthiness |
| Mechanisms |
Direct interpersonal contact
Reputation
Institutional context |
| Objects |
Individuals
System
Collectivities |
| Bases |
Consistency, contractual trust
Competence
Benevolence, loyalty, concern, goodwill, fiduciary trust
Honesty, integrity
Openness |
To find out more about the details of the above table, I recommend you to read Adler’s work. Note that even though Adler listed the components as individual items the components within each dimension is suggested to be interdependent and intertwined complements.
Here comes the important bit, we can’t assign trust to a person. Trust is earned not given and for people to effectively share and collaborate, positive trust is needed. So does it mean that if people in an organisation has a culture of distrust, Enterprise 2.0 would not work effectively? I would think so – no practical basis for what I said here though.
I believe that trust is not just an Enterprise 2.0 issue, its an organisational issue. If it doesn’t exist within an organisation, it must be looked at from a strategic standpoint and internal HR initiative. With trust, things can work so much better – I’ve been there done that.
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 11 March, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, Innovation |
Within social networks, there is a “code of conduct” that exist within the network. This could be in the form of a formal conduct or an unspoken culture, norm and beliefs that governs the actions of individuals. One simple example would be in an organisational context, it would be unacceptable to discriminate against gender or disability. Formal or unspoken culture is an important issue in social norms. Little things like emoticons and usage or certain words like “Nah, I can’t be bothered” in an Enterprise 2.0 environment could have different effects on different cultures. Therefore its never quite easy to implement a global Enterprise 2.0 initiative as part of culture stems from the culture of the race and nationality. However, corporate culture can be more easily controlled.
More importantly, shared strategic visions, shared language / interpretations, norms of cooperation, obligations and expectations are all critical factors in generating social capital. Each of these are important factors to consider in the success of the social network. Even without Enterprise 2.0, the above are all critical for a business in general, if a global organisation do not have share visions, language and culture, it would pretty much be individual companies running by itself. According to Kaplan and Norton, shared visions and strategy is critical. Shared languages and interpretations are important as well. For example, someone might say put the file in system X. It really doesn’t say much but if there is a common understanding that when you put a file into system X, you have to update a certain field as well – now that’s shared interpretations.
Norms of cooperation, obligations and expectations discusses more around what Putnam said “I’ll do this for you now, in the expectation that down the road you or someone else will return the favor.” In a very layman’s term you could even call it “how selfish is the organisation?” or “how competitive is the environment” Also I believe that a wide spread in power between managers and general staff will contribute to a low level participation in certain areas. Putnam also added that a society that relies on generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful society.
Posted by Sean Lew on Tuesday, 10 March, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, Innovation, books, social media |
I’ve always heard people talk about culture and change management in Enterprise 2.0 and it is very important. However no one really discussed in detail what does is involved – at least I haven’t read any so far. There are a few factors that must be considered before implementing Enterprise 2.0 – social norms, obligations and expectations, trust, rules and recognition. I hope to cover one topic per post over the next few days.
Lets start with rules. 1) Rules have a strong impact on formal organisations with regards to the success of Enterprise 2.0. Decisions made at the top can change and influence network ties and the content of the communication across the organisation. Also within organisations there positions and hierarchy which will also affect the way people communicate and the content provided across any medium. Some may argue that organisations are becoming flatter but I am arguing that there are still very traditional and old school type organisations – lets not get into this.
2) Organisations can also influence the norms and beliefs which will in turn affect the success and failure of Enterprise 2.0. For example, if in a traditional firm, innovation is frowned upon (read as authoritarian), it would be unlikely that people would suggest new ways of doing things. Or if an organisation, removes some redundant hierarchy within the organisation and creates a more accessible path to the top, it would increase the chances of people interacting more efficiently.
Rules can be a detriment or enabler for Enterprise 2.0. Make sure you know how to use it well.
Posted by Sean Lew on Thursday, 5 March, 2009 under Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, Web 2.0 |
Interesting question Where should Enterprise 2.0 and Web 2.0 Sit Within an Organisation? Many Enterprise 2.0 and Web 2.0 experts would argue that this should be a standalone unit with their own budget and resources. I agree too. Enterprise 2.0 and Web 2.0 is cross functional and cross verticals – almost like HR, marketing… However, during such times its not easy to fork out money for a new team of people which could easily cost half a million dollars just in salary, workspace and other standard overheads for a team. This does not even include the cost of software, software maintenance and IT infrastructure.
To be very pragmatic, its not easy to convince senior management to get onboard this funky bandwagon. Cost is a huge issue in such times. So, who should own this work? IT, Marketing, Human Resources or no one (just install the software and let people run “wild”)? Should Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 be split up and handled by different teams like IT, Marketing, Human Resources or no one?
Posted by Sean Lew on under Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Speaking, Web 2.0, Wiki, social media |
Reposted from BearingPoint’s NewThinking Blog
There is a growing importance to use Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 concepts in human resources. Last week, I attended and presented at the Inspecht HR Futures Conference in Melbourne. The Inspecht HR Futures Conference brought together speakers covering all areas of HR, Recruiting and Technology to discuss how social media, innovation, culture and technology empower, attract, engage and evolve employees.
I presented how BearingPoint leverage Web 2.0 technologies to assist us in engaging our internal team members through the BearingPoint Wiki and shared some of my experiences and benefits using the tool in my day to day work. Following on, I explained how BearingPoint is reaching out to external information management experts through Mike2.0 where it provided us with an excellent platform to interact and discuss information management.
My presentation is below:
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 4 March, 2009 under General Ranting, software |
I have been thinking about twitter within the Enterprise and how it can help. Yammer is the Enterprise twitter and the dynamics of it within an organisational context is extremely different from the standard twitter I use. Let me explain.
On my twitter, I generally follow and is followed by like minded people in the Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, social media space. Updates also generally surround topics in this space. This is all great because I can network with others in this space. I believe that within the enterprise, there is a space for such things to happen as well. Non-confidential and non mission critical information can be communicated via the platform like new ideas, bookmarks and company wide updates.
However, within an organisation there are many commercial confidential information that we deal with, especially in consulting. Some of the stuff we do, we are not even allowed to share with others outside the project team. Being in this business for a while, I absolutely understand why. Many of the stuff we do will delivers competitive advantage to our clients. Therefore I think that project team yammer could be a great asset. Status updates within a large project can be extremely useful. It allows streamlined communication, a virtual notice board, one stop updates for everyone in the team.
This is just one small aspect of Yammer I think could deliver real value. There are many others that I am still trying to iron out. =)
