Posted by Sean Lew on Thursday, 12 November, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy |
There has been alot of talk about creating enterprise 2.0 pilot test groups before a full fledged implementation across an organisation. However, I haven’t read much about how one can go about identifying teams that will succeed in the pilot test groups. So what are the requirements of an Enterprise 2.0 pilot test groups?
1) Must be tech savvy enough to know how to use the Enterprise 2.0 platform. This doesn’t necessary have to be the IT department.
2) Managers and team members involved have a history of collaborating with other teams/business units, i.e. helping other business units and contributing time and resources to support other business objectives other than their own.
3) High performing teams. These teams are very good at what they are supposed to do within their job scope and business objectives.
4) There are reasons and incentives for the teams to collaborate both internally within the team and external with other teams/suppliers and/or clients.
Do you think there are enough factors to select a team that will be highly effective and produce the right results in an Enterprise 2.0 pilot test group?
*Hint* think about this from a corporate level, if these are factors for a successful pilot team, what about a successful collaborative organisation?
Posted by Sean Lew on Thursday, 5 November, 2009 under Academic, Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, Web 2.0 |
Generally, overdoing anything is not good. For example, humans have to drink water to survive, however, if one drinks way too much, the water would wash away the nutrients in the body and its bad for one’s health. Collaboration is the same. Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies promotes collaboration across groups of people and there has been alot of buzz about it.
My experience with such implementation is that many leaders do not know when to collaborate and when not to. One classic example is when teams can’t decide on a specific problem or find the best route of advancement. I do not think the relationship works this way – the more people collaborating, the better result is achieved. Just like a 2 hour meeting with 20 people in the room is generally a waste of time. Leaders must target collaboration strategically.
Collaboration takes time and effort of employees and teams and this translates to opportunity cost. Employees from both sides of the team could have spend doing something more useful. The exact time spent on collaborating could be translated to a cost (based on salary of employees). Employers needs to ensure that employees are using their time effectively and help their organisation make money.
Collaboration between teams also cost money. There is a cost for the technology platform, telephone calls, traveling to other sites and so on. These costs should not be under estimated – small amounts can roll up to be a substantial amount.
Based on this, the returns of a collaboration arrangement between teams should be greater than the sum of opportunity costs + collaboration costs.
Returns on collaboration > opportunity costs + collaboration costs
If a collaboration arrangement does not fulfill this model, then it would be better to stay status quo or find another way to maximise the returns on other investments.
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 28 October, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy |
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?
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 21 October, 2009 under Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy |
Enterprise 2.0 has never been about the technology. In simplistic terms, its just a web application and its not rocket science. The concept of getting groups of people to collaborate, share, communicate and connect however, is extremely powerful. The most difficult part about an Enterprise 2.0 implementation is change management. Good consulting firms can implement the technical aspects of an Enterprise 2.0 platform easily. I have done a few myself. However, getting people on board to use it is a long, tedious and complex process. This is where consulting firms comes in.
Consulting firms must be able to formulate a rigorous methodology to approach Enterprise 2.0 change management effectively. Potential areas that needs to be covered are like strategy, communication plan, C-level adoption, integration of current business process and many more. This is where consulting firms can make money as quite a substantial amount of time needs to be spent at the client side to work things through with the client. Consulting firms have a presence in many firms and that’s the best place to start.
Consulting firms should formulate a strategy, business plan, objectives and impact analysis of the Enterprise 2.0 platform for their clients. They can then do a technical product selection based on the requirements, implement the solution and move the change team into the organisation. Pilot teams could potentially start with the combined team between the consulting firm and the client, however, this could not be ideal depending on the situation and environment.
Selling Enterprise 2.0 to existing clients has a few benefits.
1) Since consulting firms have a presence within the client, there is a better understanding of the issues the client is facing and there are some levels of trust that is already established. Trust within a Enterprise 2.0 platform is critical for its success. Consultants can then show the client teams how to use it and demonstrate the many benefits of Enterprise 2.0.
2) With a presence within the client firm has another advantage where change consultants can act as champions and provide initial support for the clients.
3) Consultants on the ground also have the ability to identify areas where the platform needs to be modified and changed so that the platform constantly evolves to meet the client changing needs.
4) Lastly, when the implementation is successful, there will be greater rapport and trust built between the two parties.
Since Enterprise 2.0 is a rather new technology and concept within the organisational context, many clients do not understand what they can have and what they can’t. Many clients also do not know what and how to do stuff on the platform (i.e. when should I write a write a wiki page versus a blog?). I feel that that professional advice needs to be provided for the successful implementation of such projects. The last thing that should happen is the misuse of the platform (i.e. using the wiki as a document repository and a dumping ground). Consultants on the ground has the power to walk to most of the different scenarios that the client organisation is facing and tackle them one by one.
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 Monday, 20 July, 2009 under Academic, Collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy, social media |
We have heard of various resistance stories when it comes to Enterprise 2.0 / collaboration initiatives. There are also many blog posts regarding this topic. Today, I would like to approach this topic from an academic perspective.
I was reading Lynne Markus paper on Power, Politics and MIS implementation and it drove a really good message on the various types of resistance and theories that could help explain some of them.
There are three key reasons why people resist changes in technology.
1) Internal factors to the person or group – where it targets reactions like “People resist all change; People with analytic cognitive styles accept systems; while intuitive thinkers resist them”
2) Application or technical factors – if its a crappy system, people will resist it.
3) Interaction factors – where the new application or system would change the balance of power in organisations and people who are threaten by it would resist it.
In the Enterprise 2.0 world, I believe that all three factors can cause resistance but I feel that the third factor is probably the most problematic factor. How can we go about managing this?
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 27 May, 2009 under Enterprise 2.0, Financial, IT strategy |
I have been on this topic for ages and I truly believe that this is an answer that could only be answered once I have experienced it. Here we go. I think the total cost of ownership is something that is very difficult to calculate. First of all, alot of the “gardeners” or “champions” I have seen and worked with work extra long hours to ensure that the platform is “nice” and “clean” and still perform their day jobs extremely well. So if effort is invested after hours could we consider this as part of the TCO equation? Some might argue there is a opportunity cost involved and they could be working on real work after hours. But if they are not motivated by their day job scope and prefers tending the “garden” then would they work after hours? I do not think there is an answer to this.
What I have seen is that champions move in and take control of the maintenance of the platform and look after it. All of them have day jobs and generally their day jobs is not affected by their extra work load. IT seldom gets invloved in maintenance other than the standard harddrive replacement, server upgrades and stuff like that which applies to all software that is running in house. These costs can be calculated easily. It seems to me that the human maintenance costs is relatively low as well – as long as you have the right people maintaining it. Do you need a dedicated team to maintain a large Enterprise deployment? Maybe.
I think the TCO arguement for Enterprise 2.0 is still very new and unclear. I do not know all the answers but the above is something I have observed.
Posted by Sean Lew on Thursday, 14 May, 2009 under Enterprise 2.0, Financial, IT strategy |
Buying an Enterprise 2.0 platform is pretty cheap. There are not much complexity in the software or hardware requirements unless the purchasing organisation decides to modify and change things around extensively. Even that, its still not as complex as an Oracle / SAP type enterprise implementation. However, being cheap and easily installed, many people forget the soft costs involved in the implementation.
Enterprise 2.0 is about social networking, collaboration and innovation. Whether it is a bottom up or top down driven implementation, alot of time is required to educate, excite and experience the true benefits of it. Champions have to spend time to educate people and change people’s working mindset and habits. Alot of preaching of the goodness is required too.
So even though an organisation might be paying small amounts of money per user, the amount time time employees spend to push this out into the wider organisation could be quite substantial. This is the communication cost required to get it running. How much would it cost your organisation?
Another thing organisations need to look at is an analysis of the transaction cost and how much savings can an organisation make out of it. I will not go into the theory and concept of transaction costs but there are means to calculate and analyse it even before deciding to take a step into the Enterprise 2.0 platform.
There is never a one size fits all model. Enterprise 2.0 will work for some and not for others. What is discussed above is specifically from the financial perspective only as well. There are many other factors that needs to be considered.
Posted by Sean Lew on Wednesday, 22 April, 2009 under Blue Sky Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, IT strategy |
I have never agreed in the way unions do collective bargaining and conduct strikes and all. Its bad for the economy, the employees and the company. There are better ways to get to a similar end point many other ways.
In many industries nowadays, a job is no longer a job, its a career. The economy has become so dynamic that employees come and go easily. Internet has made it easy for people to search and hunt for jobs with tools like LinkedIn and Online job boards with RSS feeds. To stay competitive, companies must work to retain staff and keep them happy. Employees on the other hand should constantly upgrade and update themselves to keep themselves valuable in the workplace and the industry. Its the survival of the fittest and forceful fighting doesn’t work anymore. If one doesn’t want a job, in such times, the employer will have a queue of others waiting to take on the position.
However, there are some characteristics of a workers union we can learn from. Collective bargaining, in its true ideal form, collects and aggregates the wants and needs of their members and negotiate with the employer on those terms. However, the information is filtered and aggregated before it reaches the management of the company and its done in the self interest of the aggregators.
In the Enterprise 2.0 world, this can be better managed by having a live discussion with the senior management and understanding each others point of view. Open and transparent information exchange will put all interested employees on the same plate. Argument is based purely on logic, business benefits, personal benefits and reasoning. Other users can also “vote” or support either parties. Employers also understand that they need to keep valued employees happy and employees can have an open communication platform with employers and raise concerns.
I feel that Enterprise 2.0 in this sense not only improves the personal benefits of an individual employee but also provides one of the most valuable feedback channel for senior management to help understand other than from statistics and reports – the softer side of the organisation. This is a win win situation for both employees and employers.
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.
