BoostZone

the 35 - 50

The 35 -50 the Lost Generation

Have you noticed how much is spoken and written about the “Netgeneration” and about the “Babyboomers” recently, all over the OECD? Yes for sure, you just can’t escape books, conferences, articles about them. But have you noticed how little is said about the one in between and in particular the 35 top 50? Actually it is sad because this forgotten generation is also in a difficult shape. I regularly test with my conferences or courses audiences how many of the participants are aware (and if possible participating) to Web2.0 locations like Facebook, Linkedin, YouTube, etc. The lowest rate is amongst this lost generation (my sample is mostly Europeans and is not statistically significative). I wondered why. I was also actually concerned several times at clients where we were implementing collaboration cultures, to see that the most importance resistance came from those people in this age bracket, and they were often amongst the most influential and internally powerful; they were the CFOs, the CIOs, the head of internal audit, etc.  Then I understood something: they are scared of what the new technologies imply for them . And the reasons are simple: they were not born digital, far from it, and they don’t understand this digital world because they don”t have kids of the right age and they don’t have time to focus on the Internet development especially around the WEB 2.0 concepts; they are often insecure in their position and see change as a threat; they tend to work very hard and see any new “stuff” as one more constraint on their time, attention span, even week ends. And on top of it, they are supposed to know, because they are at positions of responsibilities, they have to lead teams, to manage the corporations in the middle of rough waters, with Babyboomer bosses on their backs and Netgenerations chasing them. Wouah, next time you see them, be kind to them.

How to cope with it? Probably with a lot of training, some reverse coaching as was done at the beginning of the Internet era for mail and navigation when the same problem occurred, a lot of reassurance that in any case even those who understand and use the tools are actually quite bad at understanding their social implications, etc.

If well managed the lost generation can become an important asset in this changing world, especially within the next five years while the Babyboomers will be a fast disappearing specie.

corporate communities and SN communities

The illusion of collaboration within corporations is often that by putting a collaboration system in place the results will be  an enhanced collaboration. But it does not work most of the time, even with the best tools in place. Surprising? Not really. The most important part of any collaboration system is not the software but the “social” software, i.e. this hard to define set of attitudes and behaviors that lead individuals to get closer to each other and to work together.

We found in our practice with corporation putting in place collaboration systems that several factors of this social software can be outlined. Two examples.

The first one is obvious: colleagues are colleagues, not friends. Contrary to friends, colleagues are not chosen, they may not like each other and they are asked to do things together, but the “what’s in for me” is seldom obvious.

The second is more subtle but as important. While the same kind of tool can be used for internal and external collaboration ecosystems, the reasons for joining and the focus of work make the two models actually quite opposite.

The external collaboration, be it in communities, on forums, etc. relies mostly on two dimensions: individuals think the collaboration can develop or help them and possibly others; individuals are at the origin of the working groups thus created, willingly joining and debating. The ‘What’s in for me’ is a social and personal development. When individuals contribute on TripAdvisor or Wikipedia they  know they are building a constantly  improved social construct.

The internal collaboration on the contrary is generally required or suggested by the hierarchy, individuals are assigned because of their role within the organization, and the purpose of the created community is to improve a process or any element of an activity. A core example is a Community of Practice. The “what’s in for me” is less obvious than the “what’s in for the company”

The implied difference in culture is huge. Closing the gap will not be a question of “motivation” or of “collaborative spirit” but more prosaically a question of rewards and recognition. People who develop collaborative skills in the outside world will apply them internally IF there is something for them to win. Employers implementing collaborative models will have to evaluate the possible rewards. They differ by company but can be in terms of prestige, internal expertise recognition, psychological rewards, etc. as well as in terms of participation to the benefits of the output, be they in cash, in career advancement, or in free time for one’s personal interests.

The Corporate Community Quadrant

There is a lot of confusion about communities within corporations. This confusion blurs the thinking on objectives, on adequate tools etc.

Making a long story short and therefore not going into details, I propose the attached framework for clarification.

The world of communities is divided into 4 quadrants; One barrier is the firewall of the corporation i.e. only corporate members can have access; The second barrier is the specific password required to be allowed access to a specific community.

The 4 quadrants are then the following:

IP GENERATION(inside corporations, selective membership): here only coopted or selected experts can work together, this is the realm of "IP creation Communities of Practice" (COPs). These communities use specific rules, specific jargons and specific tools. This quadrant is the one where "next" practices are developed (vs. best practices).

IP LEVERAGE (inside the corporation, accessible to anybody belonging to the corporation): This is the  territory of dissemination COPs, of communities of interest, of Knowledge Management documents being made available, of internal folksnomy and tagging. These communities may use other tools, certainly have other jargons and respect other rules.This quadrant is the reservoir for improving productivity, best practice diffusion, etc.

CO CREATION (outside of corporation, selective membership): This is the area of Communities with alumni groups, suppliers, customers, closed social networks, etc.this quadrant allows new forms of experimentation and creation. Again new tools (or other tools configuration) are required, different jargons are used, different rules are observed.

INTERNET BRANDING (outside of corporation, total visibility and availability); this is the territory of open communities of interest, blogs, open social networks, candidate attraction, forums, etc. this quadrant builds the brands of the corporation (volontarily or not). The tools here are often the usual ones of the Internet, the jargon has to be understood by everyone, the rules are the ones of this totally open world.

Please Mention Boostzone Institute - Dominique Turcq if you use this copyrighted tool.

Communities vs. networks vs. collaborative teams vs. Social networks

Several conversations in the last days have made me think that we need to progress on some definitions. The confusion between the terms might be troubling for a few.

Let me propose the following simple operation oriented set of definitions (as opposed to an academic one)

·         A directory is a facebook with more or less elements about the members, including in general their contact details. The most sophisticated directories describe the content of an individual’s experience and knowledge. LinkedIn or University alumni directories are the best examples. No specific activity is expected from a member (except to pay its membership or its usage fee, even the update of one's profile is voluntary).

·         A networking platform is a technical system allowing individuals to know that other individuals exist (like a directory) and proposing ways to contact them. It can be called “network” if there is no ambiguity (e.g. a telephone network, an alumni network, the Internet to a certain extent; LinkedIn). Such network has no activity in itself except as a connector and in some case as an aggregator of individuals according to certain criteria (like LinkedIn’ groups or Facebook’ networks and groups). No activity is expected from a member but anyone can propose things to others.

·         A social network is a group of people who are bound together through some social relationships. The bonds between some of them might be tight but in general the bonds between members are relatively loose. They more or less know each other directly or via one or two intermediaries. A social network has no strict boundaries and changes all the time as people join and leave. On the web, you belong to a social network when you are registered on a “social networking” platform. Older examples include the Lyons, the Rotary, etc.

·         A community is a group of individuals having some level of personal bonds with each other, for any reason that could range from friendship to business to family to residence to culture to religion, to politics, etc. A community can have all sorts of activities, from chatting to creating knowledge to organizing events to having fun etc. Communities are generally formed within networks. Therefore a professional usage of networks can accelerate the birth or growth of communities (it is particularly important within corporations). It requires, for being active, all the tools of the network, the collaborative team, the social network and the directory. Contributions from members are encouraged and are the very substance of the community. Without activity there is no community but not every member is required to be active on every activity and every time. A community allows members to be as active as they want on what they want. The “politics” of activity therefore is part of a community i.e. the fact that some members are more visible than other, that some appear as leaders, other as followers, others as neutral listeners. What distinguishes a community from a social network is the gate keeping:  the social obligation of its members for one another or the required closeness of ties implies that not everyone is welcome to join.

·         A community of practice is a community of professionals whose purpose is to create and share knowledge on a given practice common to all members (e.g. a community of cardiologists). Its objective is to foster incremental innovation. They are not necessarily “colleagues” nor “friends” and their relationship is purely on narrow professional matters.

·         A collaborative team has a purpose, producing an end product. It is a group of people defined by a final joint deliverable, which can be a methodology, a piece of software, or a complete knowledge repository. It may have an indefinite life or a finite life, the usual example is Wikipedia or Sourceforge. In many cases what corporations call Community of Practice are in reality collaborative teams expected to deliver regular updates and progress paper on specific issues. Contributions from members are expected along the lines of the purpose. Politics are not welcome and silent members are often rejected de facto if not de jure. In most cases members are “colleagues” and have no other relationship with each other than the project at stake.

Finally I do not approach “technologies” here because they might be very different for each situation. The most important difference might be actually in the content rather than in the name. A technology can provide a “directory” but the word might as well mean a simple address book or a sophisticated profile. The same is true for any feature and therefore does not deserves to be discussed within the same stream of discussion.

Wikinomics à Paris

Wikinomics, "How mass collaboration changes everything", est le nom du livre de Don Tapscott qui a le premier illustré en quoi le management collaboratif a déjà changé nombre d'entreprises.

Don sera à Paris et présentera son livre (qui sortira alors en Français) mais s'esprimera en Anglais lors d'un petit déjeuner organisé par L'AFPLANE (Association Française de Stratégie des Entreprises) et l'Institut BOOSTZONE (Centre de recherche et d'information sur le network centric management) le 9 novembre au Cercle France Amérique. Pour plus d'information et pour vous inscrire (d'urgence car le nombre de places est limité) voir sur le lien: http://www.afplane.org/eQ_eventinfo.php3?id_event=65&id_rubrique=8

"friends" or "colleagues" the other face of social networks

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5994&tag=nl.e622

Trampoline systems is the name of the company, sonar the name of the system.
This interesting technology, see article attached, positions itself as a first in corporats social networking. It is interesting conceptually since contrary to social networks where one selects his "friends" this social network approaches searches, like Google, all documents and relationships in order to map the social networks and to identify the right person one needs to talk to.It is in between KM and social networking and mapping.
One of the salient features in this concept (not new but developing fast) is the recognition of the fact that within a corporation one has colleagues and not friends. For me it is the most important differences between any public social networks and corporate social networks.

nouveauté du sujet?

En réponse au commentaire de Jérôme qui s'interroge sur la nouveauté de ces sujets.

le KM et les COP ont en effet quelque 15 ans d'existence. Ce qui est nouveau par exemple  c'est le fait que toute l'entreprise va désormais passer par le mangement transversal, qu'elle le veuille ou non (contrairement au KM et aux COPs), que les technologies utilisées sont désormais les mêmes dans la sphère privée, semi privée ou professionnelle, que toutes les fonctions sont concernées depuis les RH jusqu'au marketing ou la production, que les IT sont "débordées". Toute une nouvelle écologie de l'entreprise est en train d'apparaître qui change à la fois les process, les comportements, les relations de travail, les relations entre le travail et le privé, etc.

Ce qui est intéressant n'est justement pas la nouveauté, c'est l'ampleur et les implications.

De façon analogique, deux exemples

Le téléphone mobile grand public est apparu vers 1985, son explosion dis ans plus tard n'était pas nouvelle mais il continue à changer nos vies quotidiennes de façon radicale.

Les puces RFID et autres micro composants d'information, plus ou moins reliés à Internet, sont connus et sont encore d'un domaine marginal alors que dans 10 ans nos frigos et autres appareils electro ménagers nous obéiront et communiqueront avec nous à travers des connections Internet. Ce ne sera pas "nouveau" mais cela va bougrement changer notre quotidien.

Sur le fond donc ce qui m'interesse n'est pas le caractère nouveau mais les implications exponentielles de cette nouveauté qu'est le Network Centric Management.

Network Centric Management University Oct 4 and 5 Bordeaux

Comme vous le savez, l’Institut Boostzone organise en association avec la Communauté Urbaine de Bordeaux les premières journées de l’université NCM (« NetCentric Management ») consacrée aux organisations en réseau et aux nouveaux modèles de management associés. Cette rencontre aura lieu les 4 et 5 Octobre prochains, sur invitation seulement, à la Cité Mondiale de Bordeaux, dans le cadre de l’événement marquant le lancement du réseau pilote à haut débit à Bordeaux.

Ces deux journées s’adressent en priorité aux dirigeants convaincus que le développement rapide des organisations en réseau, notamment grâce aux nouvelles technologies de collaboration sur Internet (Web 2.0) nous poussent à repenser nos modèles de management en nous ouvrant à de nouvelles formes d’expression de l’autorité et du pouvoir. L’objectif de l’Université NCM est de faire progresser la compréhension pratique d’un nouveau management par les réseaux sociaux, qui se révèlera décisif au 21e siècle.

Le format de l’événement combine exposés, partages autour de cas concrets en entreprise, et ateliers de réflexion collective autour de personnalités du monde de l’entreprise et de professionnels du management des réseaux. Il vise à être, pour une centaine de professionnels invités, une expérience unique de rencontre et d’apprentissage, avec des résultats immédiatement applicables.

Le programme des journées peut être consulté sur le site développé dans cet objet par Netcipia. http://ncmuniversity.netcipia.net/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome

Le tarif de participation a été volontairement réduit à 250 Euros repas compris afin de permettre au plus grand nombre de venir même de loin. De ce fait, nous serons amenés à clore les inscriptions dès que l’effectif maximum sera atteint. Dépéchez-vous de demander à vous inscrire en suivant le lien: http://ncmuniversity.netcipia.net/xwiki/bin/view/Panels/Page+Name ou en envoyant un mail à Maryline.gerlach@boostzone.fr ou à Marie-laure.dufau@bra-bordeaux.org.

Enfin, vous pouvez regarder la liste des tables-ateliers thématiques et utiliser les touches commentaires pour indiquer votre intérêt pour l’un ou l’autre et éventuellement engager une discussion préliminaire.

http://ncmuniversity.netcipia.net/xwiki/bin/view/Knowledge+Caf%E9/

L’institut Boostzone vous tiendra régulièrement informés de l’avancement de l’organisation et de la logistique de cet événement qui, nous en sommes convaincus, sera de très grande qualité et se prolongera par d’autres.

The ignorance of crowds

In the last issue of Strategy+business, Nicolas G.Carr gives this title to his article. An excellent read.

Read it in full at http://www.strategy-business.com/press/freearticle/07204 or at least take the gist I have got from it (my own interpretation of what he says for my concerns with internal corporate community's life):

• As ERic raymond mentionned in a seminal paper of 97 on open source creation, one should not mix the Cathedral and the Bazaar in the art of co creation. Cathedral is the structure around knowledge, bazaar is peer to peer developments of ideas.
• Peer  production is good for incremental improvements, it is not an innovation model.
• As for any community, 's work helps solve fast myriads of little problems (called bugs in IT but with other words in other communities)
• The power of problem solving in communities comes partially from the size (critical size is a flexible concept however and could mean 20 in some cases and 2000 in others), and partialy from the diversity of skills (what I call the variance of skills in my consulting jargon. A community of equal lame ducks will hardly produce anything)
• A central authority is necessary for managing this bazaar. Without it the outputs are relatively poor, could even be wrong. The central authority is the only one able to transform series of good increments into a corpus of new knowledge.
• A genius or a series of good thinkers is essential at the start of any idea because incrementalism cant work on "nothing", it needs a base to start increment on (obvious? no?)
• In short a community will be successful if a good idea is put on the block, a number of good and diverse people work on bits and pieces of it and finally a good team of very good people transforms the output into a real good piece of new knowledge.

All this seems to be good common sense, and as always with common sense it is difficult to implement it...

The starfish and the spider

The Starfish and the Spider

Subtitle “The unstoppable power of leaderless organizations”

This book, by Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom, Portfolio 2006 is a highly recommended reading.

In short here are my takes:

It compares organizations being starfish (i.e. decentralized, organic) and those being spider (i.e. centralized, structured) and, o surprise, is very much in favor of the starfish ones (don’t expect anything else from two California Internet kids).

Beside the naiveté, although reasonably balanced here and there, and the over simplicity of concepts, the book presents a number of interesting case studies, all good as analogies, and a number of simple concepts, all actually gaining value because of the naiveté and the over simplicity. As a former strict academic I tend to want perfect rigor and thought through analysis all over the place and, guess what, I think I am the one who is wrong.

On the conceptual side what I found particularly valuable are the notions of center less organization and the replacement of the center by some systemic forces of organization (what I call in my consulting practice’ jargon the “magnetic field” of management). The book illustrates several particularly relevant examples of what it is in practice in several organizations.

What the book misses from my point of view is the dark side of the starfish, the fragility of the body, the risks of disruptive chaos, the value destruction potential, but this is why I said earlier naiveté. Let’s not forget the dark side but let’s not have it paralyze actions.

Similarly it misses the good side of the spider (“Jaime l’araignée et J'aime l’ortie, parce qu’on les hait…” Victor Hugo) since business organizations, if they want to be efficient and effective, need very structured systems and structures. My point is that most business organizations have to be hybrid and that this very characteristic is the diamond to find. Many examples in the book are “nice” starfish but they don’t create a lot of financial or economic value or jobs (although they may create enormous social value or non monetized economic value), they are often even parasites to other value creating organizations (Apache or Linux rely largely on people devoting some of their time free of charge to their development, but we know that often this “free of charge” means actually time diverted from their day job paid by spider organizations.

This comment actually leads me to think that internal social networks (internal to large organizations, my central topic of interest, not the other social networks) could be seen as creating a strange “symbiotic management model” as a few do exist in nature where two plants species or two animal species live on each other and can’t live without each other. I could see the organization of tomorrow being such a model where networks and communities live on the body of the organization and would die if the organization would die, but also conversely the organization needs them to live and grow and would die without them.

Overall a good (and fast) read I really recommend.

(Thanks to Tammy for having presented the book to me, a great gift)