L'Institut Boostzone est un carrefour d'échanges construit autour des réseaux professionnels vivants et de ses implications sur le management

The XXIst Century is becoming a teenager, are we too?

The name of the coming decade, between now and 2020, has not yet appeared on the screens of the “namemakers” and it may take a few years before it does.

However, one thing is certain, whatever else happens in this decade, and the best or the worst could (the last teenage decade, 1910-1920 was one of the worst in human history), this decade will be a major milestone in the way humanity gets connected. I would suggest to call this decade “Birth Of The Total Connect”. Individuals will connect to individuals without knowing them and with very little introduction ceremony; individuals will connect to several types of work in a complex mix of virtual and real interactions; individuals will connect to the most important database of knowledge mankind ever produced; equipments and machines will connect with their masters i.e. us (including our fridges or home air conditioners via the Internet); they will also connect with each other — without us knowing about it — when they will need a refill or maintenance or “just” when they will be used to collect, store and message data about us in a systematic way, the current private data usage by Google for advertising is just a joke versus what is coming next.

This total connect decade has started. We need to better understand how it will affect our networks, our standard of living, our professional and private lives, our relation to work and to colleagues; how the relationship between corporations and their connected employees all over the world, their suppliers etc. will change and to what shape of the world of work it will lead.

This total connect will be one of the many elements of the chaos theory put in practice. The butterfly effect will show its reality within this decade and it will be true in fields as diverse as climate change, social networks, geopolitical issues, finance, migrations, human health, etc. A twitter stream could lead to the fall of a government, a rumor could ruin a corporate reputation, an other one an individual’s standing, etc.

The problem with total connect is that it connects to, both, the good and the bad, the truth and the rumor, the scientific database and the hoax. Yes, these are also the problems of teenagers who have to learn to discern and it is not easy for them.

What will be most needed for this decade is a “common” sense for managing our “commons” (what belongs to all of us in a way or another and for which we are responsible) in what is now clearly an unavoidable world of “commun”ities.

I wish us all a good teenager decade, the opportunity to become adults, to separate the wheat from the shaft, to become better actors of our world, to understand that it is changing faster than we can grasp, that all what we learned and considered right might be wrong within a fortnight.

It already happened, it was called the century of the lights, the Renaissance.

Our world is changing, let’s enjoy and be responsible.

Written by Dominique Turcq future edito No Comments »

Listening

There are several paradoxes in the current overload of information showering on us everyday, from twitter to RSS to mail to alerts on discussions we are part of, to news, etc.
- The first paradox is that we feel overwhelmed while for most of it, this information overload’s main culprit is us because we are at the origin of the subscriptions.
- The second is that in a world of information most “senders” have not yet understood the minimum etiquette that consists in not communicating if one has nothing to communicate (my grand mother told me to turn my tongue seven times in my mouth before speaking, the habit is lost even by quite prominent personalities, Twitter just makes them look often ridiculous). This happens with Tweets, with mail, with Blogs (why do so many bloggers feel obliged to write every day or more! Do they really think they have something interesting to share every day? Or do they really mess up quantity with quality?), and with most forums. The mail, after about 20 years of diffusion, is not yet well understood by most users and we all tend to use the CC too extensively. The other social media are more richer than mail and are therefore more potentially intrusive. The future of information overload looks bright.
- The third is more subtle but more profound. Most of the progress in understanding any situation is made via listening, thinking, synthesizing, contributing or acting on the situation. When we suffer from this overload, we may listen well (although it is highly debatable) but can we think? Can we make any sense of these flows? Can we really contribute? Can we act? If not, we all waste our time and we help others lose their time too.

I see at least three implications
- The first one is that these three paradoxes are quite significant for our personal behavior within our communities. As an analogy to this often seen signature on e-mail that says “Preserve the Environment, Do you really need to print this email?” are we able to invent our own etiquette: “Preserve my readers’ time. Do I really need to write and send this?” “ Do I really need to keep that subscription?” “Do I need to keep that friend in my Linkedin or Facebook network while updates or messages from him just bother me?“ We need this etiquette (or even sanity) to cut the volume of flows, to regulate our way to “publish” anything, to force us to shut down the noise for taking the required distance and becoming better contributors.
- The other implication is for our social behavior. Should we remain silent and vote only with our feet i.e. by spamming someone’s mail, by unsubscribing to some RSS feeds or some forum, by terminating “friends”? It is certainly the easy way and the most direct and effective and practical consequence of the above implication, but it is sometimes a bit rude and, in most case, it is not seen by the other party, and therefore not really useful to him. How can I tell this contributor that I am interested in most of what he writes but that he is also polluting my inflows?” … without losing too much of my own time. I have not yet found a solution but at least I would suggest to social networks software to register and inform the members not only of how many friends they have but on how many they lose (because I am sure this will be one of the next phases of social network lives as it is already part of the e mail life or the RSS life). And for those who may realize that they may write too much, I would recommend to use some software like Rypple to survey their readers and their satisfaction about the quantity and quality they perceive….
- The third is one I observe as a growing trend since I created the Boostzone Institute in 2004. Many formerly open discussion forum, where individuals could join freely and discuss using a pseudo, are separating their public site and their private, membership only, community.  They are also banning the use of pseudo. As we do. In my view this is the most practical way to advance. This is also why the Boostzone Institute is limited in its membership and most of our events are now closed to a limited number of individuals.

Written by Dominique Turcq edito 1 Comment »

A note to CEOs: WHY switching your organization toward interactive management? HOW?

French text under the English one

WHY? Three objectives.

Let’s take some distance with the Enterprise 2.0 concept and fashion and wonder what are the real reasons why a corporation should switch to an interactive management with all its cohort of implied pain and complexity (since this is a change issue and not a fun issue). It is not only because collaborative/ interactive management is on its way to become a sort of new normal for management, due in particular to the social evolution towards more connections and social networks. More deeply, the so what is simpler than that and more profound: the collaborative mode is an essential way to improve productivity, innovation and engagement. All the rest is accessories.

HOW? Two assets have to be built

Any strategy relies on the creation of competitive advantages. Two are emerging out of a well managed interactive management model.

The first one is an “Information asset” by which a corporation becomes able to better manage information than its competitors. It implies finding information, codifying it, qualifying it, distributing it, valorizing it, combining it, towards one of the objectives mentioned above. It implies publishing, tagging, distributing, debating, validating, all those things that work infinitely better within a collaborative culture.

The second one is a “Relational asset” by which individuals interact better with each other internally and externally. It implies social networks, intelligent directories, forums, internal and external communities, etc. In short all the structures and systems allowing individuals to co-labor together.

NOTHING REALLY NEW HERE

These three objectives and these two assets were here long before the Internet (1.0 or 2.0 or whatever) BUT the mass (of information or of contacts), the speed of mobilization (of information or contacts) and the drastic reduction in transaction costs (for accessing information or contacts) are such that a whole new way of building these assets and pursuing these objectives is now necessary. Tools are available and the nice thing here is that once one knows what one wants, the tools will follow, not the contrary. The slavery to the tools is over. It does not make change simpler since all these issues involve both choices and pain. One cannot pursue all objectives at once or build these assets in one day (even one year) and one cannot build these assets without pain, all changes are painful. But the rewards could be great IF the strategic intent is not lost and pursued relentlessly.

This is what is behind the Boostzone Institute base line: “Strategic Impact Through Connected People”.

VERSION FRANCAISE

Note aux PDG : Pourquoi faire passer votre organisation au management interactif? Comment ?

POURQUOI ? Trois objectifs

Si la mode du 2.0 et notamment de l’Entreprise 2.0 ou encore E2.0 (!) semble s’être installée, il convient de prendre un peu de distance et de s’interroger, simplement, sur les vraies raisons qui font qu’une entreprise devrait faire les efforts considérables de changement que le management réseau-centré / collaboratif/ interactif va apporter, car il s’agit d’un changement profond de son organisation, et donc d’un changement couteux et risqué. Ce n’est certainement pas parce que tout le monde y vient ou encore parce que le mode « réseau-social » va devenir le mode normal de travail. Mais simplement parce que le mode collaboratif va permettre de poursuivre mieux les trois objectifs fondamentaux de toute organisation qui sont nécessaires à sa survie: Productivité, Innovation, Engagement. Pratiquement tout le reste n’est que sous chapitre.

COMMENT ? Deux actifs à construire

Toute stratégie repose sur la construction d ‘avantages compétitifs. Deux avantages compétitifs vont émerger d’un management collaboratif bien mené :

La construction d’un « actif informationnel », c’est à dire la capacité à mieux gérer que la concurrence les informations, leur codification, leur qualification, leur circulation, leur transformation, leur utilisation vers l’un des trois objectifs ci dessus mentionnés. Cela implique la veille, le marquage d’une information, son partage, sa discussion, son évaluation, etc. tout un ensemble de choses qui se font infiniment mieux et plus vite dans une organisation collaborative.

La construction d’un « actif relationnel », c’est à dire la capacité à inciter les hommes à mieux interagir entre eux dans l’entreprise et avec le monde extérieur. Cela implique des annuaires sociaux, des forums, des communautés internes et externes, bref des structures et des façons de co-labeurer radicalement nouvelles.

RIEN DE NEUF MAIS TOUT EST NEUF

Rien de nouveau ici par rapport à l’organisation du XXième siècle SAUF que la masse (d’information ou de contacts), et la vitesse (de diffusion ou de mobilisation de contacts) ont augmenté ET sont désormais gérables à un coût de transaction ridiculement bas. Les outils sont disponibles. Toutefois ils ne serviront à rien si les objectifs prioritaires ne sont pas définis (on ne peut pas poursuivre de façon égale les trois objectifs à la fois) et si les actifs à construire ne le sont pas de façon méthodique (un actif ne se construit pas « tout seul »).

C’est ce qui est derrière la baseline de l’Institut Boostzone : Strategic Impact Through Connected People…

Dominique Turcq

Written by Dominique Turcq collaboration, collaborative management, communities, E2.0, enterprise2.0, interactive management, tools Enterprise 2.0, Management, WOW world of work, edito No Comments »

Finding purpose in this new world

“PURPOSE” |ˈpərpəs|
noun
the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists

Purpose, a key word in any human endeavor.  What are we doing here? For which purpose? This question is fundamental, not only from a philosophical or religious point of view, but very pragmatically from an economic and social, and therefore managerial, perspective. The dedication to work, to an association, to one’s family etc. have huge implications on everyone’s performance, on the overall economic performance, and as well on the overall well being within the society.

The new environment (a simplistic way to define the fact that our society becomes collaborative, is in crisis, has to face a multitude of new issues i.e. forces a paradigm shift) does not change the fundamental questions but puts them within a new context and within a new scale. Examples?

«Sharing», an important element supporting any «purpose», what one has or knows about (from a piece of knowledge to a piece of music) is part of social life, within a corporation or any other type of organization. But suddenly it is possible at a huge scale via the Twitters and the «sharing sites» of this world. But «sharing» then changes its meaning and sometimes loses some of its value. Sharing with all is not the same as sharing with a few.  And many corporations start to worry about their employees «sharing» too much.

«Contributing» to non profit or to the common knowledge development or to the advancement of science is also a classic behavior within our societies and a fundamental element of any «Purpose». But suddenly the best and the worse can be «contributed» without the same filters as before. Some filters are put in place, progressively, but are far from being effective, especially in front of the massive «contributions» now made via the Internet. Corporations start to worry about the time spent by their employees «contributing» to social networks and don’t know which part of this time (paid by them) is an investment for them and their future and which part is a loss of time and money for them, even if it could be valuable for some other parts of the society (most of open source software is improved via «free» contributions from people who do it out of their «paid» time at the office).

Examples are plenty and a lot of progress has still to be made on understanding them and understanding what the future meaning of “Purpose” will be.

The Boostzone Institute is from these angles a strange place where a number of sharing and of contributing activities happen, within the clear «purpose» of advancing the understanding of  how organizations can create a «strategic advantage through connecting people». Some of it is public as with this letter and with the collective blog www.boostzone.fr, some of it is private within the «Cercle». In that sense the Boostzone Institute is a laboratory, with its successes and failures, its conceptual complexity (what should be private? what should be public?), its issues with the ROI of everyone’s time

Written by Dominique Turcq edito edito 1 Comment »