Applying Game Theory to Enterprise 2.0 Change Management
I have been thinking alot about how Enterprise 2.0 can be applied to politically intense environments. Let’s face it, to get global teams to work together is not the easiest thing. Not everyone share the same objective and in a highly competitive environment, it could be quite challenging. Some teams could think, why should I help in your division’s bottom line?
I will not discuss in detail game theory. However, it is widely known that game theory consist of five elements – Players, Added values, Rules, Tactics and Scope, PARTS in short.
Players
If there were a situation where two teams would not collaborate together, it could be wise to introduce another team to the collaborative platform or even changing one of the teams and replacing it with another team that is more interested. There is no point pushing and trying, if the team is not interested, it would be too much pain and effort to change the culture.
Added values
When two teams are collaborating and one slacks away, this could be sign that there is not enough incentive for the team that is slacking away. This calls for more added value to be provided to the team that is slacking away. For example, if a car product innovation team is collaborating with the tyre department and the product innovation team is just sucking information out of the tyre department and not contributing back, this would not provide any incentive for the tyre department to collaborate anymore. However, if the product innovation team is to provide feedback and ideas for the tyre department to improve on their operations, design and efficiency, this could improve the collaboration.
Rules
Within an organisation, rules could always be used to force people to collaborate. However, I have never been the sort of person who will try to force something down someone else’s throat.
Tactics
In Game Theory, tactics refer to changing the way players perceive the game and thus changing the way they compete. In the context of this post, an organisation could use other success stories within the organisation that has delivered high growth and efficiency and present it to teams who are against collaboration. Changing the perception of losing control and power and providing these teams with greater benefits could be a way to go.
Scope
Finally, scope refers to the boundary of the game. I have seen some team collaborate only on certain things and not others. By increasing (or decreasing) the scope of the collaboration, it could ultimately improve the net benefit of collaboration. The last thing management would want is to over collaborate and start discussing things that are not to the point and doesn’t provide any benefits to the organisation.
What do you think of the methods I have presented above? Is this something you would consider when performing Enterprise 2.0 change management?
Rick said,
Interesting. However, I find that more often the collaboration of teams is not the real problem – it is the manager’s themselves. Thoughts?
Sean Lew said,
Rick, you are right. The managers do play an important role in the success of collaboration. The managers needs to advocate and the team members need to comply and follow. I would prefer to say that the manager is the left hand and the team members are the right hand and it takes two to clap.
Add A Comment