Posted by Sean Lew on Thursday, 15 October, 2009 under Academic, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Innovation, Speaking, Web 2.0, Wiki, software |
I just finished an introductory Enterprise 2.0 lecture with approximately 80 undergraduate students at The University of Melbourne. I asked a question to the class at the end of the lesson – Would prefer to work with an organisation with or without these tools?
The response were as follows:
1) An organisation with these tools – approx 75% of students raised their hands
2) An organisation without these tool – no one raised their hands
I guess just this simple 1 minute survey with the future of working generation says alot about what organisations need to do to improve their internal systems.
Anyway, the presentation as below:
Posted by Sean Lew on Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Innovation, Wiki, software |
Enterprise 2.0 applications are sprouting all over the place and there are many start ups developing innovative products. However, only a few software makes it into the category Enterprise 2.0, many others are more like “point-solutions” Enterprise 2.0.
Enterprise 2.0, as the name states, is supposed to be an enterprise solution. Just like there is one CRM or ERP in one company. When there are more of these sorts of enterprise software, integration, data integrity and updates becomes a problem. So what does an “enterprise” Enterprise 2.0 platform consist of?
So, for starters, lets look at some of the market leaders like Jive, Socialtext, OpenText, Telligent and Mindtouch and get some understanding of what is being offered. The very standard functionalities most of the market leaders provide are wikis, blogs, social bookmarks, discussions, project management (to some degree), multimedia support, dashboards, communities, user profiles and messaging.
These functionalities are all good and highly critical within an enterprise 2.0 platform.
Let’s now step back and understand the concept of Enterprise 2.0 – its about connecting, coordinating and communicating across teams, networks and the whole organisation. Andrew Mcafee suggested that there are strong, weak, potential and no ties within an organisation (Please watch the video to get a full understanding of what I am talking about).
A strong tie is the relationships between two people that must meet the following criteria: 1) interaction, 2) affection and 3) history of interaction. Weak ties are acquaintances within a social network and argued that that the only thing what can connect two social networks with strong ties is a weak tie. Potential ties mean that there are connections between the two parties however they require a few weak tie connections. No ties means that the ties are either too far away to be any effective in leveraging that relationship or there are just no existing ties between the two parties. Andrew suggested that software like wikis are great for strong tied teams and social networking is great for weak tied relationships. Blogs are fantastic for potential ties and prediction markets are great for no tied relationships. Now, we have a framework to work with to analyse what does an “enterprise” Enterprise 2.0 platform consist of.
Strong ties – team based collaboration and communication
So what are the tools we need to leverage team operations better? What do teams do? As many would have experienced, teams work together towards a specific goals and commonly, documents and spreadsheets are everywhere. I feel that teams need, on top of the current functionalities listed above, a common discussion forum, issue tracking tool, project management tool, mandatory instant messenger, video conference capability and advance notification.
Weak ties – Social networking and connecting with others
What would people like to do while trying to reach out to their community, share a few ideas, get to know someone better and network? I think in this space, entertainment is important. Providing employees with a platform to communicate, have some levels of fun and share photos / videos of their holiday is a great way to get people together socially. Team based photos could also be put online. What is even better if there is a connection between the internal system and facebook where the user could select only some photos of themselves and show it internally and leave the embarrassing drunk weekend photos for their friends.
Potential ties – broadcast ideas and reach out to everyone
What is the best way to leverage everyone within the organisations as and when you need it? Aardvark and Hypios are two excellent and innovative tools I feel that could add great value to the organisation in this space. Aardvark is a platform that hunts for the best available person to answer a question posted by a user. Hypios on the other hand is an open innovation platform where users can post questions and get experts to respond to it.
No ties
In this space, as Andrew discussed, prediction markets are useful in leveraging these resources. However, what I see is that we still have a long way to go.
The trend in Enterprise 2.0 implementation seems to start at strong ties and it slowly moves down the line. This makes sense. Wikis and collaboration in strong tie teams are the easiest to justify the ROI on it. However, it will be much harder to calculate the ROI on prediction markets (at least currently its true). I think what software vendors needs to do is to focus on strong ties and slowly move down the line as well. I think the above is what is needed in an “enterprise” Enterprise 2.0 platform. Please feel free to add or comment on it.
Posted by Sean Lew on Thursday, 10 September, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, IT strategy, Innovation |
I was just doing my banking and was thinking that banks have legislation to protect my money against fraud and theft. If there was a system error and my money was stolen, they have to put it back somehow. Why can’t this be done for data centres and cloud computing providers? The data in an organisation’s database/software could potentially be alot more valuable than the cash in their bank. If the data was missing, companies could be out of business. If the data was stolen, competitiveness, organisational secrets and privacy could be compromised. These are highly valuable but probably harder to quantify it in dollar terms.
If this is the case, why can’t the government enforce some sort of legislation on data centre providers and cloud computing suppliers? Maybe an insurance amount could be paid to ensure data integrity and security? If organisations do not pay that they do not get the benefit of the security? These are just some high level thoughts.
Cloud computing is not only great for businesses technically, its also very low cost and fantastic for the environment. These are areas that are of interests to government. If more businesses could reduce their cost and make more money, they could potentially be stimulating the economy. Green IT has also been a popular topic in the IT and since government’s are trying to reduce green house emissions, why not start with one of the largest energy consuming technology – computers?
This is an idea that came up from no where and something that could be looked at. What are your thoughts on this? Is this feasible? Does government have any incentives to tackle this? Would businesses be willing to pay more? If yes, how much? What will be the liability of data centre providers? Feel free to comment.
Posted by Sean Lew on Sunday, 23 August, 2009 under Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Innovation |
Many business leaders acknowledged that Enterprise 2.0 is something important to the organisation and some of these leaders have spent time investigating how they can implement it and leverage the benefits of Enterprise 2.0. A smaller group of them have adopted Enterprise 2.0 within their organisations. This is all great news.
I believe that many leaders do not understand that Enterprise 2.0 changes the way people work within an organisation – from the top all the way to the bottom. Gen Y’s are looking for open communication, honesty, information and innovation. The younger generation is expecting alot from their leaders and this is will have a growing impact on organisations as more Gen Y’s enter into the workforce. Leaders must start changing the way they manage their organisations, the old command and control way of doing things is slowly fading away. Collaboration, communication and innovation are all important aspects.
I am not saying that all command and control should be removed. What I am saying is that leaders need to find the right balance in everything they do. Constantly seeking feedback on issues that affect individuals, collaborate and listen to employees, embrace and fine-tune innovations.
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 8 July, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Gov2.0, Innovation, Web 2.0, social media |
The whole idea of Government 2.0 is changing the way government works. Traditionally, the government is the master of the country. They could say and do alot of stuff that can affect the economy and society in general. Good governments make life better and bad ones just create a whole lot of rubbish. However, the concept of Government 2.0 passes some of these powers back to people and allow citizens to speak and do more.
In Australia, we have the Gov2.0 taskforce and the government is looking at ways on how they can get people to contribute and collaborate more. Obama is one of the famous advocates of Gov 2.0, the Americans are a fair way ahead of other countries on this with many initiatives in this space. Other countries like Denmark, UK and Singapore have started some initiatives in this space as well.
First and foremost Government 2.0 is defined by Wikipedia as:
Government 2.0 is neologism for attempts to apply the social networking and integration advantages of Web 2.0 to the practice of government. Government 2.0 is an attempt to provide more effective processes for government service delivery to individuals and businesses.
I would say there are three key components to Gov2.0, 1) social media, 2) collaboration and 3) innovation. These three components are similar to that of Web 2.0.
Social media in Governments
This is a strong area in which governments can easily do. Look at how Obama connected with his voters during his presidential campaign. He has effectively use social media to create and mobilise his army of voters to donate and create awarness for his campaign. Governments can also use social media during disasters, examples of this are Australian CFA’s use of Twitter and facebook the deadly Victorian bushfires early this year. The ideas in this space are endless. Governments could use the army of connected individuals via their computers and mobile phones to provide information, help each other and aggregate information.
Collaboration
Collaboration in Governments is still relatively new. There are some reasons behind this. Political information is generally quite sensitive and secretive so collaboration in any form would generally be more in-house as compared to public collaboration. However, this is not stopping interested individuals from joining publicly created groups to discuss about political issues and in some cases, people within the government agencies have joined in the conversation to listen and discuss what these folks have to say. One of this example is the Gov2.0 Google groups.
I can see this space growing as the government is making decisions on behalf of their citizens who voted for them. In some way or another they need to listen to them and what they say. This could make the decision making process easier or harder but for sure it would be a more informed decision. Could we even have citizens voting on every single bill, law and jury that takes place in the country? Maybe, I do see some problems with that though. We could have the government having the final veto in all matters and controls the relationships with other countries and the agency that has the top talents and analysts to help citizens make the right and informed decision. (Having said all these, I am taking the assumption that government and their staff for virtuous and honest).
Innovation
Innovation is a way in which government can engage with experts in various fields. Tapping into the larger network of experts in or outside of the country allows a greater flow of idea contribution and hopefully these ideas is worth it thus providing a better solution. I really do not see much activity in this space so far. However, I do believe as points 1 and 2 evolve, Innovation in government will evolve as well.
Government 2.0 will change the way people work. Doing this well can help retain top talents in the country, improved satisfaction ratings, improve the economy and a better society in general. Government 2.0 is not without its challenges and we have to study and work through each of them.
Posted by Sean Lew on Friday, 29 May, 2009 under Collaboration, Innovation, social media, software |
I always knew that Jive software was good. I’ve implemented it (v2.5) and used it before and love it. However, whenever someone asks me why I like it so much, all I could say was “Its so easy and it makes sense”. I have decided to jump into Jive Social Business Software and have a deep understanding why I love it and reviewed Jive Social Business Software extensively.
First of all, I must say I look at Jive from an Enterprise perspective and what I would want if I ran a company.
1) Spaces are fantastic
2) Permissions on Spaces is even better
3) Permissions on individual documents within a space – Wow!
4) Leader in Forrester Wave: Community Platform 2009, Gartner Magic Quadrant, 2008
5) Excellent plugin and API interface
6) Strong community reporting tool
7) Has a document publishing approval process
8 ) User fully customisable front page, excellent widgets (you can create your own widget too – good for the geeks)
9) Excellent notification via customisable RSS, emails and “watching a page/tag” functionality
10) History of where you have been
11) Interesting functionalities on documents like (“more like this page” and “More by Sean” )
12) Video and interactive communication capability
13) Simple project management (I would probably wish that this functionality was stronger so that I could save on buying MS project if possible)
I personally feel that Jive is like facebook and anything else is like MySpace? Or should I say Jive is like a MAC and the rest are like PCs? You get what I mean. You just get it.
Posted by Sean Lew on Tuesday, 14 April, 2009 under Academic, Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, Innovation, Statistics, social media |
I have been researching the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 for a while now and there are not alot of statistics out there to show the benefits organisations are achieving. This could be due to a whole myriad of reasons –
1) No two Enterprise 2.0 implementation is the same
2) Enterprise 2.0 is still quite new
3) Lack of understanding of Enterprise 2.0
4) Lack of companies implementing Enterprise 2.0
Having said this, alot of the success stories so far are case studies and not mentioning any names, I must say some of these “success stories” are really not that successful. Its been over hyped.
So which companies have really made Enterprise 2.0 successful and managed to gain competitive advantage, cost savings, innovation and so? There are not many strong Enterprise 2.0 case studies (like P&G’s Connect and Develop and Lego) that really delivered value to the bottom line.
So does Enterprise 2.0 deliver value? I truly believe so. I have experienced the benefits of it before. If this is the case, how can we measure it? I feel that a framework of understanding the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 must be created. Its not as simple as just connecting people together or just posting videos online and sharing it or collaboration with others. It has to be looked at from a holistic angle. This is my study and this is what I hope to achieve.
Posted by Sean Lew on Monday, 6 April, 2009 under Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, Innovation, social media |
Dean from Infovark wrote a very real and truthful story about “the empty wiki problem“. I can really related to everything he said. In a nut shell, Dean discussed a failed Wiki implementation and how to defeat the “empty wiki problem” –
“either decrease the individual effort needed to maintain the system, increase the value that each user gets from the system, or — ideally — do both things at the same time.”
Interesting enough, I had a chat with another Enterprise 2.0 enthusiast last night and he had a similar problem as well. This is my personal point of view on how one can increase adoption of Enterprise 2.0 should work.
1) Quick wins – solve immediate problems or pain points users are experiencing. Make them happy by making their life easier straight away.
2) Integrate the Wiki (or Enterprise 2.0 platform) into the current business processes and reduce any kinds of redundant work. Remember, if it means more work, it means it won’t work. Sharing and knowledge management will always take back seat when it comes to mission critical priorities.
3) Unless its three times better, its not better. I use this simple rule of thumb from a change management article I read previously. Also three times better should be measured according to what the user’s definition of “better” not the skewed understanding of anyone else.
4) Long term strategic benefits – the CEO, CFO, CIO needs to know Enterprise 2.0 will deliver value to their bottom line. May it be tangible or intangible, value should be somewhat measurable and there are abstract ways to do that. Remember, we are in business not in a playground. Anything that doesn’t directly or indirectly make more money or save some money will be canned and make sure stakeholders can see and understand that clearly.
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 Wednesday, 18 March, 2009 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?
