Feed: Dave Pollard: Business Innovation - AggScore: 82.1
Story Clicks: 501
Related Feeds:
• The World Directory RSS Feed
• Online Marketing Tools
• Sean Sky’s blog
• GreenVolcano.NET - Helping YOU Make money.
• The World Directory RSS Feed
• Online Marketing Tools
• Sean Sky’s blog
• GreenVolcano.NET - Helping YOU Make money.
Date Published: Oct 19, 2009 - 9:16 pm
Date Published: Oct 15, 2009 - 9:33 pm
What I discovered in putting this chart together was that (a) many of the things I do today, things which take up most of my day, really don't contribute at all to my intentions, and (b) when I reallocated time in my day to these three blocks of time (right column), it required a lot of thought, imagination and work to come up with a list of short-term intentions (exercises and projects) with which to usefully fill that time -- exercises and projects that would stretch toward the long-term intentions. And even with retirement, I suspect "freeing up" six additional hours a day for intentional work will be a challenge -- it will mean less time on e-mail and casual reading, for example (i.e. getting away more often from this computer).
The third column of this chart is new and tentative and incomplete, but it's also for me a personal breakthrough. I am not sure whether this is the solution, for me, to the knowing/doing disconnect and the tyranny of the urgent over the important -- the real formula for Getting Things Done.
But I intend it to be. With practice.
Date Published: Oct 09, 2009 - 7:18 pm
 Since my book Finding the Sweet Spot was published, I've been thinking about how to make it more useful. I did set up a companion website, but I was far too ambitious in its design, and was naive in the expectation that people could/would actually compare ideas, Gifts, Passions and Purposes with others online, and that there would be anough traffic on the site to create a self-organized 'market' of ideas and potential partners. Lately I've wondered whether it might be possible to create an online workbook to accompany the book, one that would include exercises to discover your Gifts, Passions and Purpose, and find the Sweet Spot at their intersection. Rather than starting with the industrial classifications, the way most career counselling guides do, I thought it might be more appropriate to start with the types of activities that go on in a Natural Economy and Natural Society. My first attempt to delineate these (which was part of the research for my novel) is illustrated above. Nine "meta-careers" are identified:
My belief is that our natural affinity is more for one or a few of these nine work categories, than it is to a modern 'specialty': People who are good at designing could be as useful designing shirts as designing recipes. People who are good at mending people (e.g. doctors) could be as useful and passionate about mending trains (e.g. mechanics). So I think it might be useful to think about what we are meant to do using these nine meta-ways of being of use, that draw on similar natural Gifts and similar Passions. In thinking about my own Sweet Spot, I generally identify "reflecting" and "imagining possibilities" (category 3 activities) and "writing" (a category 4 activity) as being what I'm meant to do. I am passionate but not especially gifted at facilitation, conversing and demonstrating (category 2 and 9 activities). I am competent but not especially passionate about research (category1 activity). And I am neither competent nor passionate about category 5-8 work, though I recognize their great value and would not start an enterprise that didn't have partners who were both gifted and passionate about such work. When I look at wild creatures, I see evidence of learning and practice of all nine of these categories of essential work. The need for us to be social, to associate and collaborate and, together, to do all nine types of work effectively, transcends history, geography and species. Another thing I like about this categorization of essential work is that it demonstrates the uselessness of a lot of the work that is being done today by millions of highly-paid people, and hence might give pause to young people drawn to these 'professions' simply because they're easy and lucrative. Lawyers, stock-brokers and insurance agents come to mind, for example. None of these professions produce anything of essential value. They are parasites of the current, unsustainable and dysfunctional industrial economy. The post-civilization world will not need anyone to do these things. So if I were to develop a Finding the Sweet Spot workbook, to help people discover the work they're meant to do, I would be strongly tempted to use this nine-category classification of essential work as the basis for doing so, and to re-cast the exercises about discovering your Gifts, your Passions, your Purpose and your Partners (those with complementary Gifts who share your Purpose) accordingly. So, for example, in listing the dozens of possible and needed 'green' careers in Roberts and Brandum's book Get a Life! I would reorganize them into the nine categories above. I'd welcome your thoughts on this plan. Is this way of discovering what you're meant to do too conceptual for most people? Does it require a degree of self-knowledge and the workings of an economy (Natural or Industrial) that is beyond most people's capabilities? Is it counter-intuitive? Although the book has not been a popular success, I still think it could be very valuable to young people about to embark on their careers, boomers about to 'retire' from their first careers, and frustrated and underemployed workers of all ages. I'm just trying to figure out how to make it accessible and useful enough that it gets the attention it deserves. |
Date Published: Oct 04, 2009 - 9:38 pm
  I've been using the word resilience to describe the capacity -- of individuals, communities and organizations -- to improvise, to respond well in the moment. But I think resilience is the wrong word -- it is from the Latin meaning "springing back". Humans try to be resilient, acting as if everything is temporary, or cyclical, and as if it will always eventually possible to go back to the way things were before a challenge arose. That's why so many of us live in misery, in false hope. While we aspire to move back to the way things once were -- after the desertification, after the forests and fish have gone -- the rest of all-life-on-Earth is moving on, forward. What we try to do instead of adapting to the changes in our environment, is to try to change the environment to suit us. We've become very good at this, but it's unsustainable. What we've created in human-made environments is fragile, shabby, and ineffective. Much of human employment today is fixing all the human-made things that constantly break, and break down. Much future employment will be cleaning up the mess we've created with the human-made, non-biodegradable broken stuff we've thrown away. We try to be resilient, and to force changes in our environment, because, after learning that our cultural "software" can adapt very quickly (in as little as a generation), we discovered too late that our biological "hardware" adapts over millions of years, not decades. Today we're racked with epidemic rates of diseases of maladaptation -- notably immune system diseases, cancers, and mental illnesses. Our bodies just can't adapt to stress, the malnutrition of the modern processed monoculture food system, and the toxins in our air, water, soils and foods. They're still designed for life in the uncrowded, abundant and unpolluted rainforest. Alas, there's nothing we can do about our bodies, nor is there anything sustainable we can do to our environment. Resilience is, in fact, futile -- we cannot expect things to change back to what they were so that we can bounce back to what we were. And in Darwin's sense we cannot evolve either -- at best we can unschool our descendants to acquire the capacities that we lost, or never had -- like the ones depicted in the charts above. We're probably too late, those of us over 30, to learn them all effectively ourselves now. What we can do, however, is adapt and improvise. Evolution and adaptation are not about springing back, but rather springing forward. Evolution is from the Latin meaning "rolling out", but it is worth noting that Darwin avoided the term he is now so associated with, and instead in his books used the term "descent with  modification" (descent in the sense of 'descendants' -- change only occurred with the passing of genes 'down' from one generation to the next). Adaptation comes from the Latin meaning "fitting in" (hence to Darwin "survival of the fittest" was not about strength or intelligence but about adaptability). Improvisation comes from the Latin meaning "[responding to the] unexpected". These are the only effective responses to change in complex systems. Wild creatures have this ability to adapt and improvise: to fight, to flee, to change what they eat, where they live, what they do. They migrate, they hibernate, they adapt to different foods, neighbours and environments, as well as changes to members of their own community. Evolution helps them do this, by selectively favouring that capacity -- those that can't adapt and improvise, perish. So how do we, poor maladaptive and conservative creatures that we are, learn to adapt ("fit in") and improvise ("respond to the unexpected"), and can we help our communities and organizations do so as well? Last week I visited with one of the most adaptive and improvisational organizations I know, one that I profile in my book, called Mountain Equipment Co-op. It's a true one-person-one-vote cooperative, that began with 6 members and which now has millions. Only a tiny proportion actually participate in MEC's decisions, but it's enough to know that if they started doing things the members didn't like, that could change very quickly. They generate only enough 'profit' to cushion them through economic downturns -- any other surplus is returned as a cash refund to members based on their annual purchases. The people I've met like working there, and they really do care about being of service, offering excellent products (made in Canada whenever possible), and doing excellent work. As I spoke with and visited them it occurred to me that, compared to other, profit-for-shareholders companies that sell sporting goods, MEC is culturally more adaptive and resilient in 18 ways:
Communities (small towns, villages, intentional communities and neighbourhoods within cities) are a form of co-operative organization, the only difference being that they have a wider and more essential set of products and services, and have members instead of customers. But many the same principles of adaptation and improvision apply: autonomy, steady-state, diversity, built-in redundancy, non-indebtedness, collaboration, non-hierarchical connection, risk awareness, self-management "on principle", emotional intelligence, biomimicry, contingency planning (including scenarios and simulations), candour and responsiveness. The town I live in tries hard, but they're zero for fourteen on these measures. Individuals are of course part of communities and organizations, but there are also some things we can each do as individuals to be more adaptive and improvisational in our lives: be autonomous (not dependent on those outside your community), live within your means (a life of sufficiency and comfort, not one dependent on tomorrow's income being more than today's), get debt-free, self-manage, build emotional intelligence and other personal capacity, collaborate, plan for contingencies, always be honest, stay healthy, be good to yourself, and be open, attentive and responsive. Whew. That's enough lists for a lifetime. |
Date Published: Aug 23, 2009 - 9:54 pm
 Our hosts during my vacation this past weekend in McKenzie Bridge, OR were Charlene and Galen Phipps. Charlene, it turns out, is a facilitator with an interest in complex adaptive systems, and specifically the issue of how an understanding of social complexity can be applied to improving group functionality. Those familiar with this blog know the fundamental factors that differentiate complex from merely complicated systems. Mechanistic, complicated systems (like an automobile) have many moving parts, but they can be fully identified and understood with study and effort. By contrast, complex systems (like the world's climatic system, or a community) are never completely knowable. They have too many variables to ever fully map, and the n-to-n connection between those variables is too manifold and nuanced to fully appreciate. Further, in complex systems, causality is never determinable; one can never separate cause and effect. So while a dysfunctional automobile can be 'fixed' by assessing the cause or causes of the dysfunction, we can never hope to do this with the world's climate, or with community interactions or other social systems. Nature's way of 'dealing' with complexity is to make these complex systems self-managing. A balance is found, and as the infinite number of variables constantly and inevitably change, the entire system itself collectively seeks and finds a new balance, a new equilibrium. The physical and social systems of our world are complex because, in Darwinian terms, they work. They are less brittle than simple and complicated systems -- cars break down much more easily and frequently than ecosystems and societies. If an ecosystem has a quintillion components, it makes far more sense to have all these components working collectively to resolve their problems (the resolution is then said to 'emerge'), than expecting a single superior intelligence, or even a single species, to try to manage the system and impose 'solutions' on it. In her work, Charlene summarizes the work of many social complexity pioneers and then presents what she calls the Discovery Model, which recognizes that groups learn and perform optimally when the people, the environment and the capacity for self-organization are in sync, and when information, interaction, and adaptability are present and working to enable the group to continuously transform itself into one sustainably suited to dealing with the issues of the moment. The facilitator's role in this dynamic is to open up, unblock, encourage and enable the group to be fully functional. S/he does this through coaching, inviting, drawing out, connecting, challenging, articulating, and building personal and group capacities. This is a huge task, and while I do agree that the role of a skilled and present facilitator is essential to effective group function, it's my belief that this is largely because we have been indoctrinated to believe that mechanistic, complicated problem-solving is the answer to every situation (hence organizational hierarchies, and the simplistic and dysfunctional decision-making methodologies that have prevailed throughout our civilization), so we have never properly learned (as I believe indigenous and non-human societies do from birth) to self-manage, to allow resolutions to emerge naturally. Reading Charlene's work and talking with her got me thinking about the model of social fluency that Chris Lott and I co-developed, which is illustrated above. Here's a brief re-cap of what it says: Our
ability to impart
social value to
others is a
function of (a) our knowledge, Â (b) our thinking competency
(critical, creative and imaginative), (c) our communication skills
(conversation, presentation and demonstration), and (d) our ability to
integrate these three things.
This ability to integrate these three things gives rise to (i) insight, ideas and new perspectives (thinking competency applied to knowledge), (ii) reportage and stories (communication skills applied to knowledge), (iii) rhetoric and provocation (articulation of one's thinking), and (iv) art (in its broadest sense, the re-presentation of reality). We are all artists, performers, when we have the stage in a social circle. This aspect of the social fluency model is from the perspective of the actor (presenter, demonstrator, creator, artist), and is shown in black in the model above. The corresponding elements of social fluency from the perspective of the re-actor (audience, listener, student, learner) shown in red brackets in the model above, are as follows: Our ability to derive social value from others (i.e. to learn) is a function of (a') our openness to others' knowledge and ideas, (b') our learning competency (ability to learn), (c') our attention skills, and (d') our ability to integrate these three things. This ability to integrate these three things gives rise to (i') understanding (openness and competency to learn new ideas and knowledge), (ii') appreciation (openness and attention to new ideas and knowledge), (iii') self-change (attention/awareness of change opportunities and the learning competency to apply them), and (iv') improvisation (the real-ization of learning). Again, this ability to integrate is social fluency. We exhibit social fluency inter-act-ively, as actors (though art/presentation) and as re-actors (through improvisation/attention). Just as individuals' social fluency is a function of these capacities, so is that of groups. The best facilitators have the awareness and skills to recognize the capacities and incapacities of the people in a group s/he is facilitating, and those of the collective group. It's been my experience that groups are more or less dysfunctional depending on the presence or absence of certain preconditions. The work of Dave Snowden and John Kotter supports this. These necessary preconditions for functional groups include:
Being
aware of the
presence or absence in the group of the necessary preconditions for a
functional group.
I'm not suggesting that competent facilitators don't do this already,
just that there is a tendency for some facilitators to take the
inherent problems of missing preconditions and incapacities as a given
and hence not explicitly reflect them to the group, and also a tendency
to make that the facilitator's problem rather than the group's. It
seems to me that,
while the facilitator may be able to get the group started in this
self-assessment and self-management process (i.e. to facilitate it) the
process itself should be directed and managed by the group. This is the
very essence of managing social complexity.Being aware of the presence or absence of social fluency among the members of the group, and of the group collectively, as described in the model above. Articulating to the group the presence or absence of these preconditions and the elements of social fluency, so that they are aware of their strengths and weaknesses. Suggesting compensatory ideas and methods (e.g. bringing in people, knowledge or teachers) to strengthen the group. Most importantly, enabling the group to self-assess these strengths and weaknesses and to self-generate ideas and methods to draw on strengths and alleviate or compensate for weaknesses, to make the group and its members stronger and more competent to address the issues at hand. For example, in my experience dealing with senior executives, they have a propensity (often reinforced by others) to exaggerate their own competencies and knowledge and to be blind to their incapacities and areas of ignorance. In facilitated sessions, they tend to dominate groups of subordinates and rush to conclusions. In such cases I have tried to research their possible and perceived incapacities and areas of ignorance in advance, and pull them aside before the session to urge them to recognize the value of them holding back judgement, listening, and helping draw out the knowledge, perspectives and ideas of others (almost making them quasi-co-facilitators, to disable their dominance, infallability and judgement behaviours). On rare occasions, an executive will even lead off by confessing his/her incapacities and ignorance as a means of leveling the power playing field and eliciting active participation of others. On occasions where the group explicitly acknowledges their strengths and weaknesses, the session can be very productive. A team aware of its individual and collective strengths and weaknesses will generally outperform a team that isn't. Likewise, I have found that business groups in particular often suffer from imaginative poverty, and that there is great value in doing some quiet advance brainstorming with creative and imaginative people, and then pre-seeding some provocative and credible ideas to selected group members, so that these ideas emerge as their ideas during the session and not mine as facilitator. Even better, if the group acknowledges this (or any other factor) as a collective incapacity, it can enable them to collectively invest more attention and effort on that area of weakness, or bring in others who have that capacity, or even follow a course of study or practice to acquire that capacity. Having spent many years in research, I've also found that groups tend to think they are more knowledgeable about issues than they really are. In particular, there is a tendency for bad news and information about problems not to be communicated vertically in organizational hierarchies. For that reason it can be helpful to have the organization's research staff (or group members with that competency) do an 'environmental scan' around the issue, and pull together and present an objective and uncensored precis of applicable facts and perceptions. Of the three sets of elements of social fluency, in my experience the one that is most often lacking in groups I have facilitated is communication/attention skills. Many people come to these sessions with their minds made up, but an inability to articulate the reasons for their belief coherently and compellingly to others (often they don't particularly care if others understand and share their viewpoint). As a result they may convey their ideas, information and perspectives poorly, or not at all, and disengage and be distracted when others are speaking. There is no simple answer to this significant challenge, but being aware of it, and recognizing it as a challenge explicitly, is a first step. It is then largely up to the group to deal with this, and I have seen groups do so very effectively. There is a technique, for example, of requiring each speaker to summarize the point made by the previous speaker before making their own point. The group can use a 'talking stick' to focus attention on the speaker and the importance of courtesy and attentiveness. And if a point is poorly made, asking clarifying questions can help, and can also teach the speaker how to be more coherent and responsive in future. Some facilitators use mindmaps displayed on a screen at the front of the session to ensure the points made are captured coherently and collectively understood. I know that many readers of this blog are facilitators, and would love to hear your thoughts and ideas on how you have enabled groups suffering from lack of necessary preconditions for effectiveness, or lack of social fluency, or even total dysfunctionality, to become aware of, name, self-manage and resolve these issues themselves. The word facilitator literally means 'one who makes things easier'. How have you made it easier for groups struggling with incapacities to make it easier for themselves? Thanks to Charlene for inspiring this post, and to Charlene and Galen for their wonderful hospitality. |
Date Published: Jul 07, 2009 - 5:19 pm
AÂ lot
of organizations
are
struggling with what to do with a host of costly, high-maintenance
technologies that they have introduced in the last decade, hoping these
technologies would produce (a) improved internal productivity, and (b)
better relationships with customers. They have achieved neither
objective. So they're stuck with some very large and expensive lemons,
three in particular:
 At the same time, we have a new generation of workers (Gen Y or Gen Millennium) who have become comfortable using free, commercial Web 2.0 tools, and are using them in the companies they join -- only to run into ferocious opposition from the IT security czars in these organizations, who consider them a threat, shut them down and censure the young staff who use them. Not to be defeated, the Gen Y'ers simply use their own portable hardware to work around the prohibitions. The war escalates. So what are you, as the manager leading a Web 2.0 initiative, IT department or KM group, to do? How can the three giant lemons be fixed? Which Web 2.0 tools can be introduced effectively and usefully, and how? And is there a solution to the generational culture war that Web 2.0 has provoked? I. What's Wrong with Corporate Websites, Intranets and Groupware?  an unnavigable, unfathomable website from an advertising agency, profiled by websitesthatsuck.com Most corporate websites simply ported the sales and marketing material that used to be distributed manually to a flat website with a bewildering array of 'pages', accessed through either 'frames' or 'menus'. Tools to allow online ordering are often bolted on. Often the user has to use a search bar to try to find what they are looking for, and usually that's such a discouraging process they give up. The bigger problem with corporate websites is that most of the customers they're trying to reach simply don't use websites to buy stuff. They prefer a more personalized, interactive buying experience. So who 'uses' corporate websites? A study done by one large multinational organization discovered their actual user audience comprised, in order:  Needless to say, since the website was designed for customers, it wasn't reaching its intended audience, and wasn't meeting the needs of its actual audience. Some organizations were persuaded that, because the number of 'unique visitors' to their site was substantial and growing, their site must be useful. But if they dug a little deeper they would discover that the average amount of time these 'visitors' spent on the website was as little as three seconds! As soon as these 'users' arrived, most of them quickly realized that this was not what they were looking for. The situation with Intranets is no better. Intranets provide a place for 'content providers' in various parts of the organization to 'house' their content somewhere visible to the whole organization, that they can point to and say "I produced this; I'm doing productive work". They don't generally know (or, often, care) whether that content is of any use to anyone else in the organization. People put content on Intranets because they can (and sometimes because they are rewarded for doing so), not because it's useful. What's worse, the same problems with menus and frames (usually designed by 'taxonomists' who organize information in ways that makes sense to content providers, rather than content users) mean that users have to resort to the dreaded search bar on the Intranet, too. Most people I speak to use this only as a last resort, and rarely find anything useful -- they quickly give up and look for a real person to provide what they're looking for. There's a whole discipline in KM for taxonomists and 'enterprise search' experts, and these people are busily employed like librarians indexing and filing books in a library that nobody visits unless they've exhausted every other possible source of information.   What Intranet designers and managers fail to appreciate is that the principal way people share information hasn't changed in centuries -- people get it through real-time conversation with people they respect and trust. This gives them comfort that the content they're given is current and authoritative, and through the conversation they can also appreciate the context behind that content, and ask questions to make it more useful to them. The original idea that Intranets could save the time of experts by reducing the number of conversations needed to convey that information effectively, simply failed to understand human nature and how information without context is worthless. The final lemon in our trio is groupware (though the term, which is now disparaging, is rarely used). Groupware, of which the most notorious example is SharePoint, was designed to facilitate 'communities of practice' (CoPs). The idea was that (a) if the Intranet became too large to find content, there would be an alternative content repository for smaller collections of specialized content that members of a CoP had deemed useful, and (b) certain 'collaboration tools' (mostly those that allowed people to e-mail all members of a CoP) could be bolted on to the groupware tool, so that members could be notified of new content and 'converse' asynchronously about this content. Again, none of this has worked as planned, and most of the failures were predictable if anyone had actually bothered to talk to users. Most groupware tools are so horrifically over-engineered and bloated with 'features' that they require full-time IT resources to manage, and to set up and 'authorize' new CoPs. Most of the 'features' that are added to the tool were added because they could be, not because they actually provided any useful functionality for more than 1% of users. The result is that you need to take training courses to learn how to navigate and use the groupware and CoP repositories and features. This is 19th century design -- users today simply won't use a tool that is unintuitive unless they are coerced to do so. Unless you use these tools often, by the time you need to apply what you've learned, you've forgotten it. More fundamentally, asynchronous e-mail and 'forum'-style 'conversations', which were the basis for the first generations of groupware, are simply not the way most people communicate. If someone is looking for information, or has something useful to convey, they will generally prefer to walk down the hall, or pick up the phone, and ask or offer, in a real-time conversation that is, like the best information communication, context-rich and interactive. What groupware delivers is essentially another way to throw context-free content into a shared repository that quickly becomes obsolete clutter, and to send group e-mails to a large number of people already suffering from asynchronous information overload. II. Can They Be Fixed? In order to assess whether these three lemons can be re-engineered to be useful organizational tools, it's necessary to look at the problems they are trying to solve. Corporate websites were designed to allow customers (current and potential) to learn more about an organization's products and services, without having to go through a sales representative. At least for another generation, this isn't a need in business-to-business organizations, who have to, or prefer to, go through a sales representative, and generally will buy enough to warrant the company's face-to-face investment in that customer. The best examples of business-to-customer websites, like Amazon, eBay and Etsy, all offer a range of products and services you can't get in a store -- they aggregate products from many different, competing vendors, and/or offer a vastly broader range than would fit in a single physical shop. So they succeed because they offer customers something they can't get anywhere else. Other than copycats and wannabees, they have no competition. If a customer wants to comparison shop, they will go to an objective comparison shopping site, like Consumer Reports, not to a whole bunch of competing sites all out to paint their company and its products and services as the best.  So what's the best model for a corporate website? If it's for customers, that depends on what the segment of your customers who actually research or shop online need and want. If you make the effort to identify this segment, and go out and talk with them, I think you'll be surprised at what you learn. You might discover that the best thing you can provide is a directory of names and direct line phone numbers of real individual people in your company that your customers can talk to, without having to go through your god-awful automated switchboard ("if you know the extension number of the person you're calling..."). [And know that while the technology exists, they're probably not ready, yet, to talk with you through their computer speaker.] And if you want to design a taxonomy to index your products and services so that people can browse online (if in fact they tell you they want to), design the taxonomy around the problem the product or service solves, the job it does, not by its industrial category. You might find that some tool that lets users self-assess their need for your product or service meets a need, but be careful -- this requires a sophisticated online customer, and you have to avoid hyping your product. For more advice, talk to your prospective online customers. Don't assume you know what they want. It's changing, constantly. My guess is you'll find that the website that meets their needs will be much simpler, cleaner and cheaper to maintain than what you have now. And remember, your website is about them, not about you. Just don't forget those other categories of people who prowl your public Internet site. If you care about them, send them to a separate corporate website designed for their specific needs -- and talk to them about what those needs are. Intranets are tougher to salvage, because they really were a bad idea to begin with. The concept of having information inside a corporate firewall that is different from what's available to your customers is a bit bizarre. So to some extent, you need to do the same thing to fix your Intranet that you do to fix your corporate website -- identify the different constituencies of potential users and ask them what they need, and deliver on that. My guess is that what most will be looking for is the same directory of specific people to talk with that your customers want. When I worked as a senior executive of a multinational organization, more than half of the calls I received were from people asking me for the name (and sometimes an introduction to) someone in the organization that could help them with a specific problem, need or assignment. Don't expect your employees to self-manage this 'corporate directory' -- there's a completely different dynamic at work than exists in voluntary communities of interest where there's a shared passion driving behaviour. Instead of replicating the organization chart, explore what kinds of questions employees are looking for answers to, and design and maintain the corporate directory accordingly -- by the problem to be solved and the job to be done, not by department and hierarchy. Make it easy for people to find the right people, and easy for them to contact them, in real time. The other need you're likely to find in most organizations is for access to company policies and procedures. This is mundane administrative stuff, but it's important. Think from the perspective of new employees -- what policies and procedures are they going to want to look up, and how can you make it easy to find them. From my experience, you should question the need for everything on the Intranet beyond directories and policies. In my experience most of the rest of the mountains of information in Intranets costs more to maintain than it provides in value. I've looked at a lot of so-called 'best practice' repositories on Intranets, and in the absence of context and contact, they're a waste of server space and maintenance effort. So what about groupware? A little study will probably show that the vast majority of the groupware/'community' content, just like most of your Intranet content, is unused and possibly obsolete (and hence dangerous). And you'll probably find that the vast majority of the CoPs are more or less dormant, or defunct. There are Web 2.0 tools -- simple, disaggregated, free -- that do everything groupware tries to do more effectively. So my groupware legacy system advice may sound extreme, but this is it: Seriously consider just closing it down. Stop wasting time and money on it. Don't be sucked into adding Web 2.0 bolt-ons to salvage it, because that just makes an overly-complex tool even more unwieldy. There are better ways. III. Which Web 2.0 Tools Should You Introduce? Blogs, wikis and document sharing, IM and twitters, multimedia tools, canvassing tools, sensemaking tools, risk management tools, personal content management tools, environmental scanning tools, story collection tools, desktop videoconferencing, simulations and scenario planning tools, proximity locators, affinity detectors, e-learning tools, unconferencing tools, mindmappers, virtual world tools, and mashups customized to suit your particular business -- there are dozens of different types of Web 2.0 tools to choose from. How do you decide which ones are best for your organization? In my experience, you have to follow five steps, which I'll get to in a moment. This will be a lot of work, and will entail a lot of conversations with a lot of people (it is 'social software', after all)! My advice is not to introduce anything just because it's easy, or just because one of your vendors has thrown it in for free. Introduce a few tools, pilot them first, and then, if they succeed with the pilot group, show the rest of the people in your organization how they work and why they're useful. Don't teach them, don't tell them, don't sell them -- show them. In one of my previous consulting contracts I ran a successful pilot using a desktop videoconferencing and screensharing tool. When I suggested it be used in another department, I was warned that the department head was a total luddite, and didn't even like telephone conference calls. So I asked her if I could demonstrate a new tool the next time she was running a lengthy audioconference (which she did often, but only because she couldn't get the budget to fly people in regularly for face-to-face meetings). Just before the meeting I gave her the URL of the videoconferencing "meeting room" and asked her to e-mail it to the others on the conference call. The call was to edit, paragraph by paragraph, a new government policy paper. She had the previous draft on her computer and was making changes as they were discussed by the other participants. Unbeknownst to her, as she made these changes, the other participants were immediately seeing them on their screens, through the screensharing feature of the software I was demo'ing. They started saying how useful this was, and as they discovered the other features of the software (notably the IM backchannel) I could hear the users enthusiastically saying "wow!" and "why didn't we use this before?" After a few minutes of this, the department head covered the phone, said "OK I get it!", and motioned me to go. All audioconferences in her department now use this tool, and it's spreading throughout the organization, with no marketing, and no training. A few years ago, I started using a mindmapping tool on my own machine to keep personal notes on what was being decided during meetings I attended. One day one of my colleagues asked me to project my 'map' of the meeting so that all of the participants in the room could see it. The organization I was presenting to was so impressed with this real-time, shared capture of the essential discussions and decisions of meetings that they now use it for all of their meetings. And when those meetings are virtual, they use the mindmap in combination with screensharing so that everyone in the meeting, everywhere, can track what is being decided. These aren't sophisticated Web 2.0 tools, but they're simple, free, and useful. They're the best candidates to start your Web 2.0 pilot program. And the best way to introduce them is to just demonstrate their value in a live application, in real time. Here are the five steps you need to go through to make sure your Web 2.0 projects and tools will be the right selections:
 When you go through these steps, you're actually following the same research process that good R&D departments use. You've identified your potential customer 'segments', scanned to see what's currently available and how it's succeeding, doing secondary (online) and primary (face-to-face interview) research, and then drawing together an making sense of all this information to establish a 'portfolio' of unmet needs. The final two steps are to discover (before you go designing a new social networking application) why someone else hasn't already invented it (there may be cultural, technical or cost barriers you're not aware of), and to make sure you have the skill set and resources in your organization to effectively introduce the social networking application to your enterprise. Your focus should always be on the needs portfolio, however -- as long as you're working on solutions to problems that your customers (internal or external) have acknowledged, you'll avoid the problem most organizations encounter: providing solutions nobody wants. What you should end up with is a set of perhaps 3-5 unmet needs that lend themselves to social networking applications. You're likely going to be able to identify off-the-shelf, simple, commercial software tools (probably free of charge) that will address 2-3 of these needs. In one or two cases, you're going to actually have to build the application yourself, probably using open source applications (APIs) with a bit of custom code to 'mash' them together and tweak them for your particular needs. There are thousands of young tech-savvy programmers out there who can do this for you. Writing custom software applications is much easier, and cheaper, than it used to be. IV. Dave's Faves There is no set of social networking tools that is right for every organization. Much depends on your business, your size, and your organization's culture. But everyone always asks me for my own favourites, the ones I have introduced or am working to introduce in companies I work with. So here are my current eight favourites. The first four are off-the-shelf commercial tools. Nothing exciting, just fast, inexpensive improvement to work effectiveness. The second four are leading-edge, and would probably need some custom coding, but could be career-making improvements if you can pull them off. All eight, I have to stress again, are responses to identified needs from one or more of the four constituencies I regularly speak with: customers, employees, management, and young 'pathfinder' users. And all eight are about connectivity, context, conversation and communication, not content. 
This
fall will see the
introduction of Google Wave,
an open platform that integrates e-mail,
IM, Twitter-type services, and to some extent blogs, into multimedia,
flowing "conversations". It will be interesting to see whether the
hurdle will be too high for most businesspeople (who have generally not
adopted any of its components except, reluctantly, e-mail), or whether,
through Wave, we'll see a rediscovery of the advantage of real-time
communication and the welcome end
of
accursed e-mail.
Once
you can get users
comfortable with the idea of sharing their screen contents in real
time, it's easy for them to get their heads around sharing documents in
real time as well. Once again, there are simple, free tools like Google
Docs that let you do this, using
the native editing formats people in
business are used to (the Microsoft Office formats), instead of having
to learn a new tool like wikis.
More
recently, some vendors like
Prezi
have produced presentation tools that are essentially mindmaps
where each node is a slide or video instead of a branch, and you create
a presentation 'path' to help users navigate through the nodes in a
logical order. Consulting firms have long used wall-sized 'single
frame' presentations to do the same thing in hard-copy format. These
are all essentially variations on mindmaps: high-level pictures of a
discussion that you can navigate at your own pace, in a logical order,
and zoom in to any node for links or other more detailed information.
You can even use a mindmap as the framework for a self-paced
training course.
Affinity
detectors are the flipside of proximity detectors -- instead of telling
you which of your friends and colleagues are nearby, affinity detectors
tell you, of the people nearby (say at a big conference), what you have
in common that might cause you to become friends. The pioneer was nTag,
recently acquired by an RFID company that sees the potential in using
RFID as a social networking tool. The idea is that you fill in a
questionnaire of your interests and this data gets encoded into an
electronic stripe on the badge you wear at a conference or other event.
When you're close to someone who shares an interest, both tags signal
the common interests to both parties, so you can cut through the
small-talk. And if you hit it off, you just click your tag and your new
friend's contact information is automatically saved for later
electronic retrieval -- no need to trade business cards.
Imagine how, in your own organization, you could use tools like these to replace the 'water cooler' for serendipitous meetings with business colleagues, or to enable people at large gatherings of your employees or customers to quickly discover issues they really care about -- and possibly the spontaneous launch of innovation and collaboration projects from the bottom up. Or at the very least, people essential to your business more powerfully connected on subjects they are passionate about. 
 I suggested earlier that there's a war brewing between the IT security people in many organizations and the youngest recruits, Gen Y'ers, in these organizations. More generally it's a generational culture war. The baby boomer generation that currently runs most businesses were largely rebels in their own time, but they've come to believe in security, hierarchy, expertise, and what I've called a cult of leadership. By contrast, according to Gary Hamel, many in Gen Y, as the above slide suggests, value experimentation, peer-to-peer collaboration, learning from failure, and effort over results. It's a collision course, but not much different from inter-generational differences we've seen before. The key to keeping the peace, and security, is, not surprisingly, information-sharing and communication. If the CEO had any idea how quickly and powerfully some Gen Y'ers can design, develop, test and implement effective new tools that can make a major difference in innovation, connectivity and work effectiveness in their organizations, they would just get out of the way and let them happen. And if Gen Y'ers knew that some seemingly-innocuous information leaks can expose organizations to legal problems serious enough to cause stock prices to plummet and business leaders to end up in jail, they'd be a lot less casual about creating information sieves in the process of working around seemingly nonsensical security restrictions. These generations literally speak different languages. Our job, as people who appreciate the value and perspective of both generations, and value diversity, is what Nancy White calls "building bridges" -- translating Gen Y's ideas and requests into language "the man" can understand (value creation and ROI), and translating the boss' and IT's restrictions into language that Gen Y'ers can understand (the risk of catastrophic financial loss, loss of business reputation, and insolvency). The best way to build these bridges is by telling stories -- of history, of unexpected and astonishing success, and of unintended consequences. Conclusion This presentation has suggested an approach you can use to gently move your organization from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, without a lot of expenditure, other than in energy to actually talk to the users (not the suppliers) of information and connectivity tools in your enterprise. In the process, I think you'll find some ways to reduce the cost of maintaining legacy sites and systems that no longer provide value, get yourself some recognition as a shrewd and focused innovator, and have a lot of fun helping the people in your organization to work a little bit smarter. I welcome your questions, suggestions, ideas, and personal stories. Thank you. |
Date Published: May 29, 2009 - 9:33 pm
 Six steps to sustainable, community-based Natural Enterprise, from my book Finding the Sweet Spot I'm in Denver for the weekend at the annual conference of BALLE, the international network of community-based sustainable businesses. The reason I'm here is more about looking for ideas than personal networking. One of the mandates I've taken on in my current work is to make our association (the Chartered Accountants of Canada, equivalent to CPAs in the US) champions of entrepreneurship and of new, sustainable enterprise formation. The reason we're championing entrepreneurs is that no one else will. It's an interesting paradox that the North American economy is driven by entrepreneurs (virtually all new net employment in the last decade has been in the entrepreneurial sector), not by big corporations, but all the money and attention flows to the big corporations. Entrepreneurs don't get bailouts, massive incentives to locate in your community, or big unpublicized government subsidies. Universities say they teach entrepreneurship but what they do is the minimum ('intrapreneurship') lip service to get big corporations to fund 'chairs in entrepreneurship' that let them hire and retain professors. Economic Development Offices of governments at various levels are designed to attract businesses (i.e. property and business tax revenues) so their work for entrepreneurs is mostly low-budget, low-value work like providing names of lawyers and accountants and telling you how to get business licenses, incorporate and file taxes. Accountants and lawyers (especially the smaller ones) will take on entrepreneurs as clients, but generally are unenthusiastic and not terribly helpful for businesses at the critical start-up stage. Bankers (with the notable exception of credit unions) generally avoid entrepreneurial businesses, and lenders of last resort are usually vultures who create more problems for entrepreneurs than they solve. BALLE founder Michael Shuman has written about these challenges in his book The Small-Mart Revolution. What's worse, in some progressive circles, the very word 'entrepreneur' is suspect -- it's almost as if profit and enterprise are considered necessarily exploitative. If you've read my book, you know that what entrepreneurs need, more (and sooner) than they need accountants, lawyers, marketers or financing is:
As I've written before, I've spoken to many universities about a course curriculum that would entail students going out and visiting with successful entrepreneurs, engaging in Q&A with the entrepreneurs on how they addressed the seven issues above, and then putting together and launching their own enterprise. No lectures, no classrooms, no examination -- the measure of the course's success is whether the students' enterprises succeed or not. The professors I know are enthusiastic, and I've had no trouble finding entrepreneurs who'd love to volunteer their time to talk about and show off their businesses. The problem is that the universities' business model is about filling expensive class buildings with large numbers of students, and finding work for, retaining and paying tenured professors, and my proposal flies in the face of that, so when I talk with university Deans and department heads, they are uninterested. Same problem with high schools. You all know my opinion on the school system -- it's anti-learning, bureaucratic, and propagandizing. Most of those incarcerated there are bored, disengaged, impatient and often angry. Even if we could get a good program into the high school curriculum (which is doubtful) it's unlikely that the students would pay attention or trust that it would be of any use to them. My father is an honorary lifetime member of an organization called Junior Achievement, an organization whose objective is to introduce high schoolers to the fundamentals of business and entrepreneurship. It's been around forever, and a lot of volunteers have spent years working to make it a success, but it's still marginal -- it's just too counter to the high school culture. There is no political party in North America that authentically shares the interests of entrepreneurs. There is no money, influence, public sentiment or political advantage to be gleaned from this cohort. Like the working poor, entrepreneurs are disenfranchised and have no seat at the tables of lobbyists and decision-makers. So what are we to do? If governments and politicians don't care (they don't yet realize that their economies rise and fall with the success and failure of sustainable small enterprises, and that support for these enterprises has 30 times the return on investment of large corporation subsidies), big businesses are hostile, and schools and universities can't help, who are the prospective sustainable entrepreneur's allies? Who cares, or should care, about entrepreneurs? The short answer is: people in communities. Sustainable community-based enterprises create and keep local jobs, keep the money in the community, provide goods and services customized to local needs, and cause less pollution and waste than the multinational corporate oligopolies. They also contribute more to the GDP (if you think that's still a useful measure of anything). The problem is that people in communities aren't organized, aren't wealthy, and aren't informed. Most don't appreciate that they could succeed (by every measure) in their own small sustainable enterprise far better than in their current wage slave job. Few know how important small enterprises are to the economy, or can imagine how uninnovative our society would be without the impetus of entrepreneurs. What can you do to address a need that hasn't been recognized by those who need it? To launch a true sustainable entrepreneurial movement, we need to figure out three things:
The truth about human nature is that we don't change our minds or our behaviour until we believe we have no choice. When the economy really collapses, wiping out whole industries, currencies, and wealthy conglomerates, the choice for millions, as it was in the 1930s, will be between entrepreneurship and starvation. Only when this happens will people scramble to find ways to learn entrepreneurial skills, and to find business partners. We are heading into a period of great economic uncertainty, turbulence and volatility. The job market for the next two decades is likely to go "wildly sideways". By that time, the centenary of the last Great Depression, other crises like the End of Oil, the End of Water, global political upheaval and climate change will combine with the crisis of an overextended economy (unsustainable personal, corporate and government debt levels, exhausted natural resources, whipsawing interest, inflation and currency rates, and plunging consumer spending and confidence) to produce a prolonged economic inferno. The resultant massive unemployment will spur an entrepreneurial explosion out of desperate necessity. After some initial stumbles, we'll see a change as profound as the Industrial Revolution. The community-based economy will be born, and it will be entrepreneurial by default. That doesn't mean my association's championing of sustainable entrepreneurship now is futile. People may 'get' the 'sustainable' part (and make their businesses, of all sizes, greener, simply because it makes good business sense), without getting the 'entrepreneurship' part -- and that would be much better than nothing. And enough people (especially boomers and new entrants to the job market) will make the effort to learn entrepreneurial skills because, for these substantial cohorts, wage slavery is already ceasing to be an option -- the wage slave jobs are rapidly being offshored. When they realize that MBA schools don't teach entrepreneurship (and change too slowly to start doing so), they'll use online and real-world resources and relationships to teach each other the necessary skills, and self-organize. And my association will be poised to provide a platform and resources for them to do so. One way or another, a sustainable, community-based entrepreneurship revolution is coming. Sooner or later, we'll have no choice. (P.S. lots of twittering going on at #BALLE) |
Date Published: May 22, 2009 - 9:52 am
