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

Managerialism, an old battle with many similarities with Network Centric Management today

You should read this article “Managerialism and the demise of the Big Three”

by Robert R Locke [Emeritus, University of Hawaii, USA and a specialist of the history of management sciences]. It was published in December 2009 in the real-world economics review, issue no. 51.

This article is relatively long and difficult to read. Too bad if you only read one screen page articles, you will miss it. Now; if you are interested in the history of management and in what kind of lessons history tells us today, it is a jewel.

Robert Locke has been writing extensively on management practices, namely comparing the US and Japanese management systems. This article summarizes his view on why the Big Three lost their battle against the Japanese because they were unable to apply the Japanese rigorous but specific production management techniques.

One of the main reasons is what Robert calls (and denounces) managerialism, i.e. the management by the hierarchy, and in particular by the class of “managers”, as opposed to the collective and community like management of Japanese companies. Now you know why I see this article as a jewel! A striking parallel can be done today with what will happen to those companies that will be able to switch to a more collaborative management and those who will stay with a hierarchical one.

When you read this article just put your brain in a parallel processing mode and while you read about the American and the Japanese organizations in the manufacturing industry, just think of the contemporary challenge we are facing if we accept that networks will drastically change our management models. You will see why the emergence of the multidivisional firm actually led to the possibility of managing large groups but also to the hubris of a few managers who saw their coordination role as the real core value of the group. I let you get glimpses of the analogies.

Locke insists on an old concept incredibly contemporary: the one of a culture of flows versus a culture of structures as elements of management (see page 31 32), an important point because today’s organization has to become nothing else than a series of flows and connections. It has to include some regulation and governance (as with the commons or as in any system with collective responsibilities) for these flows but this is exactly where managerialism failed and where the old hierarchical management might fail in the face of Network Centric Management.

He also looks at how change is made more complex when one cannot reduce the people’ status differences within the Firm, something not really new but so acute within communities (see page 36). New hierarchies have to appear, but they will be based on the quality of contribution and on the quality of individual’s skills, not on status nor on the quantity of contribution. Quality is at the core, as it was in quality management.

He also looks, among other examples, on how the cooperative behavior between suppliers and producers led to better cars (page 39) instead of a client/supplier relationship.

He reminds us that already in the early 70s (page 40 41) there was a very interesting conceptual movement towards considering successful organizations as those able to organize themselves like a natural living system with three basic principles: self organization, interdependence, diversity.

What I like in Locke’s approach, beside the fact that I have been working on these issues since the time of my thesis on Japanese Management, is that he reminds us of the necessity of the tools required for a successful collaboration. And the tools recalled here are not technologies, they are the very tools around the organization of work, see page 42 43, from Quality Control Circles to Takt time to Kanban, to JIT, etc. All these techniques were at the heart of the Japanese success. I think that we don’t have them all yet for Network Centric Management within the corporation even if we are approaching some of them (governance rules, moderation techniques, virtual/real interaction for problem solving, etc.)

The most striking exhibit in this article is the following one. Just replace TPS (Toyota Production System) with Network Centric Management and you will be surprised too. History really has lessons for us.

I let the conclusion of this post to Robert:” Was this management? Not in the Chandlerian sense or in the sense understood by purveyors of the “New Paradigm” in management education. But Management by Means produced much better results.”

Written by Dominique Turcq locke, managerialism, NCM Enterprise 2.0, Management, Uncategorized, WOW world of work No Comments »

Enterprise 2.0 experience: 5 misconceptions

Sometimes when participating in the launch of a brand new initiative, a disruptive one, you may feel a bit like the sorcerer’s apprentice and not too sure how to make things happen. Donning your wizards robe and hat, you go ahead with what seems to be the right things to do, while eager to see how others are doing, and learning from the early experiments. In the past week’s meetings I had with several companies moving into Enterprise 2.0, lessons learned were at the centre of the discussion: what, in the transformation effort, is different from originally expected?  Here are 5 misconceptions that came up in the discussions, all valid considerations.

Misconception 1. Enterprise 2.0 mimics Web 2.0
Because both the term and the concept ‘Enterprise 2.0′ was coined from ‘Web 2.0′, and because the technology behind both have the same roots (’cloud roots’ if I may), because the web outside inspired the enterprise inside, one can think it is just a transposition. Then comes the vision of a plethora of technical features, employees becoming geeks, or staying behind and dragging down the organization, anarchical deployment and use. It did happen to start-ups in early growth phases, but it doesn’t happen to enterprises, because we’re on a different paradigm: we’re  improving an ecosystem. From what I see from corporations who are running the transformation, it gets careful thinking and backing. Moving to Enterprise 2.0 does not change the enterprise’s culture, values and unique specificities, but helps reinforce them. Here are 3 examples on how each organization may get different results from deploying E2.0 within its own patterns: Accenture uses it to invigorate its practices, focus on sharing and exchanging information (and especially the ones they do create), the central pattern is a knowledge network; IBM fosters  innovation and collaboration, getting the employees around the world to unleash their creative thinking and leverage each other’s ideas, the central pattern is collaborative innovation; and Sogeti concentrates on teaming, on sharing and leveraging expertise and experience, the central pattern here is rather corporate efficiency.

Misconception 2. Enterprise 2.0 is a technology issue
As you may already imagine from the above argument, E2.0 is far more than just a technology issue, or the choice of the right technical solution. Technology is the engine: how you will use it is what gives it value - like for a car or a computer. E2.0 is in fact a broad corporate change issue, with dependencies on the corporate culture, a need to be consistent with the corporate strategy (or to update the corporate strategy to make the most of this new paradigm), and organizational impacts, since both hierarchical and transverse work streams will be impacted. It cannot be worked as a normal legacy systems transformation project: while most of the time the CIO is in charge, he must work with the rest of the organization and especially the executive team and HR to make the transformation successful.

Misconception 3. Employees need to be trained before being able to participate
While a minimal training is mandatory (technical: what is a forum, a blog, vs. email, a wiki, etc.; and non-technical: what is collaboration, what are communities, etc.), one can hardly learn and understand the new paradigm without diving into it. The momentum will not come from training at first, though it is indispensable during the transformation. It will come from a common expectation for the organization’s transformation. Remember Enterprise 2.0 is about network and collaboration, and apply the virtuous circle of situated learning: the more people participate, the more they learn, and the more they identify with the wider group, becoming more motivated to participate further.

Misconception 4. Let’s offer it ‘inside’, to prevent employees  joining it ‘outside’
You probably know this argument: what ever happen, people will join the Web 2.0 movement and go on Facebook, LinkedIn, and other Ning things, so let’s offer similar tools internally, so that employees are not tempted any more by the siren’s song. Capture energy, prevent leaks. This argument is still a main one for some solution vendors, while experience has shown that it somehow misleading. First, see Misconception 1, people won’t find ‘inside’ - the empowered enterprise’s ecosystem - what they look for when they go ‘outside’ - extra-curricular activities, communities of practice, etc.-. Both environments are complementary, rather than rivals. Second, having employees ‘fluent’ in 2.0 environments may be a plus - the more they practice, the more they become skilful, adept and efficient - see Misconception 3 - so it is good that they are also present on Web 2.0 platforms. Of course, the corporate policy might help them understand how to represent their company, what to do, what to avoid. And third, last but not least, no company even the biggest can survive isolated: customers, competitors, ideas, insights, research, inspiration… all these are ‘outside’. Being able to go and grub around in the world and fetch intelligence back is an asset.

Misconception 5. Participation should be encouraged by objectives (or rewards)
Because the modern corporation has sustained good results with the management by objectives mantra, one can be tempted to use that process to facilitate Enterprise 2.0 adoption.   This commonly shows as a false-good-idea, a potential ‘faux-pas’ that may turn the effort into a big flop. When deploying Enterprise 2.0 into the corporation, what we seek is adoption, which will result in new work behaviours, strengthen the ties, allow  pooling of  skills and expertise, bring new ideas to light, etc…; and indeed adoption is very sensible to any attempt of control. Short story: an internal community is opened around the subject of Customer Satisfaction. The management is truly interested in getting results, hence it wants its employees to participate, and thus, actively encourages employees’ involvement. Employees get this as a mandatory task that will be checked during year-end appraisal, and they step in the community to ‘please’ the management, rather than because they are interested in the subject or may bring insights to the discussion. At the end of the day, the volume of participants is important, but most contributions are limited to “I agree”, “That may be right” or “Good idea”, i.e. no value add, a waste of time for other members, plus a spiral of disinterest for the few people really engaged with this subject. Lesson learned: one must definitely seek other means to foster adoption, such as viral adoption, value added animation, situated learning, or collective immersion events.  Also, remember that between 1% and 20% of people usually actively participate in Enterprise 2.0 initiatives, depending on the ‘centrality’ of the corporate culture and other factors, and forcing the participation may only get a negative result.

Thanks Didier C., Pierre M., Willem G. And Christian S. for sharing with me their corporate stories.

Written by Cécile Demailly change management, Enterprise 2.0 Enterprise 2.0, Management No Comments »

From Augmented Reality to Augmented Business

Another buzz word enters the arena. Two letters: AR, short for Augmented Reality (wikipedia definition). This concept has long been prophesied by the writers of the cyberpunk genre. However, with the advent of the always-on smart-phones outfitted with a GPS sensor, a magnetometer (a.k.a. digital compass) and live camera view finder, augmented reality is entering our reality real fast…

A flurry of workable applications have appeared in the last view months. One of the first notable application Wikitude appeared on Android devices in the Fall 2008. What made this development possible was a combination of hardware and software features, officially or unofficially supported. Google’s OS is fairly unrestricted in that sense, which explains why the developers chose that platform first. To bring it to the iPhone, the single most addressable user-base to date, the developers had to wait until Apple finally made it possible to leverage the view finder of the camera to “add” to the reality. Small things matter, and developers are into small things! Here is how Apple implicitly started to support augmented reality on the iPhone; the following line appears in the documentation of the Phone OS 3.1 SDK update:

@property(nonatomic,retain) UIView *cameraOverlayView

This new and simple “property” means that the software now lets the developer add an overlay (i.e. anything) on top of the camera view finder while you are aiming the “camera” at a scene in front of you. That’s it! Pandora’s box is now open!

How does AR work? It is by no means a revolution in the technical sense; it is merely a re-rendering of what we have grown accustomed to: GPS & POI (Point of Interest) mapping. In fact, one may argue that augmented reality begins with the arrival of GPS devices, and improved with newer generations of network enabled devices (real-time traffic updates, etc…). However, rendering on first-gen GPS devices was simulated in 2D or at best in 3D and not “real” looking. So the term was not really legitimate.

AR starts with the camera view finder, the GPS location, and the compass. This trinity allows the device to know where you are, and in which direction you are looking at. The camera view finder is inevitably what you are looking at (or at least, usage makes this true). Then it is only a matter of adding the POI on top of the view finder, perhaps changing the size of the objects by using simple math and distance calculation (big = close, small = far away), perhaps with an arrow to indicate direction.

Here are sample screen shots of the Metro Paris iPhone app:

Today, the category is blossoming, bringing us AR centric applications as well as applications where AR is just a subset of the main app.
To illustrate this point, here is sample selection of iPhone Augmented Reality apps:

The benefits are obvious for tourists in need of help to go from A to B in unknown territory. In the same vein, AR may provide additional context in finer grained environments such as Museums: http://www.cultureclic.fr was recently awarded a French subsidy to develop such a service.

Now let’s venture into the world of work and into the future. How may AR be applied to this context and especially as a tool to the information workers? Are we far off? Can we add context to people as much as we add context to maps and locations?

The following concept illustrates what may soon be part of the arsenal in our day-to-day reality at work:

Technically, most if not all bricks exist:

• synchronizing calendar & email data
• GPS coordinates from which to derive address building, company name
• accessing attached files from corresponding emails (emails that led to this meeting)
• face matchmaking (ex. Face Match on iPhone, or iPhoto)

Now imagine that this tool is linked to a corporate CRM. Imagine that it is linked to Facebook & LinkedIn…

Imagine the possibilities of using this in a mixed context: in a large meeting with customers & partners, in a forum or round table.

The hypothetical productivity gain would be gigantic: no more wasted time on missed document, improved efficiency in finding related material or individual skills needed to achieve the goal of the meeting. Also, imagine using this tool to maximize the number of relevant encounters: prospects, clients, colleagues - that you would have otherwise missed by lack of knowing better. The social graph is only available online today; with augmented reality, the social graph springs in front of you.

Unfortunately, one could easily envision a worse scenario: polarization of the workforce and creation of a new digital divide, this time within reality, leading to an increased pressure on the individual to expose herself digitally, perhaps even leading to reality withdrawal. Then the regulators will step in, stating that pulling a smartphone out of your pocket is prohibited in meetings that involve more than 2 people… A dystopian future again.

Or not. We will find out soon enough.

Written by Yann Lechelle augmented reality, iphone, Mobility, real-time Enterprise 2.0, Mobility 2 Comments »

Presence, the next life changer

When the Internet started in the 80’s, globalization was unheard of and those working in international organizations were not “connected” across frontiers and seas. Open questions - fewer at that time - were solved by asking nearby in the same office, floor, building or restaurant. Twenty years later, technology has made everything faster and everyone closer; to keep a business among the leaders, collaboration is a must, real time, across distance and frontiers.

Instant messaging (IM) arrived in the early 90’s as an engineer’s gadget, and was rapidly adopted as a business tool. Simple, practical, ergonomic, cheap, it allows us to see who is ‘on’ and pass short messages that don’t need the formality of an email nor the interruption of a phone call. You may use AIM, Google Talk, ICQ, Jabber, MSN Messenger, Office Live Messenger, Reuters Messaging, Sametime, Skype, Yahoo Messenger or many others including in-house versions, or a mix of those through aggregators such as Pidgin or Trillian. You will need to install the client and to ask your contacts to connect (except in some companies, where the directory is pre-declared in the IM server). It is easy to use, and carries very few constraints: no need to click/open/read/answer/proofread/send/archive, no need to search for a phone number in a directory, no need to stop everything else and concentrate, you have your contacts at your fingertips.

Here are some common pros and cons (randomly organized):

Presence everywhere

In 2005/2006, as IM reached maturity, security questions came to the foreground; they are now mostly under control thanks to awareness training (security risks mostly come with connecting to strangers), acceptable use policies (AUPs), and in-house IM servers with security features (encryption, authentication, DLP[i], etc…) where necessary.

More recently, most social networks (including in the in-company versions we categorize under the label Enterprise 2.0) have added an IM feature. You can also try Mobile IM (MIM) by installing the client on your Smartphone - a step beyond SMS and MMS which it is expected to replace in 2011[ii] - it is still a bit impractical and monopolistic, but expected to improve quickly.

In fact, the advent of social networking seems to have slowed the growth of IM as a standalone service for individual users. Not yet the case in corporations, though a trend to expect as Enterprise 2.0 platforms spread.

Changing group dynamics

Just like many other technology tools, IM makes collaboration practical and transversal to the organization (and as such, is somehow unsuitable for command & control organizations). It also carries more spontaneity than most other tech-tools, hence is seen as less mechanical, more ‘human’, strengthening ties. It usually denotes autonomous employees: an example I like is self-organizing support teams, who use IM to check who is on shift and hand over problems quickly to the right expert[iii]. It also allows questioning of a variety of sources at the same time, and is seen as a true power in troubleshooting problems.

Because it is easy, and because it can be kept short and simple, some users forget about meeting face to face IRL (in real life), even when sitting just a door away. And, just like for email, each has her/his own pace, and addicts run the risk of harassing more tentative users. Yet, advantages seem still more important than burdens - one of the testimonies I received was even more enthusiastic: “I can work without mail, I can’t live without IM”.

Tops collaboration tools

IM tops collaboration tools

Forrester recently ran a survey for information workers in the US[iv]: surprisingly, only 26% of ‘information workers’ use Instant Messaging - one would have expected more, as this kind of service is now mature. The other interesting finding is that Instant Messaging comes first  of all collaborative tools, followed by web conferencing (used by 24%), Team document-sharing site (19%), Social network sites (12%) and Videoconferencing (8%). It is definitely a main tool to facilitate the rise of corporate collaboration.

If your corporation is not yet there, should it go now? Probably yes, unless you are all in the same place, all time, with a super coffee machine, and don’t need any informal external stakeholder contact.

Since the application seems pretty mature, what’s next?

How will business IM morph?

• Presence everywhere, with Mobile IM. Mentioned above, this is seen as the replacement for SMS/MMS in the next few years, more or less connected with online platforms.
• Adding features. As a standalone tool, Skype seems today to be ahead with chatroom on demand, voice, video, video-conferencing, and any kind of mix you want. Plus clients for Smarphones. Neither yet screen or application sharing nor enterprise management support, but one can hope for it.
• Replacing phone. Skype has a phone-like set, and VoIP service and hardware providers (i.e. the whole telephone market) are all paying attention to this area … though not yet clear if it will lead to something
• Integrating in collaborative platforms. Already started, most social networking platforms, and especially in-company ones, now propose the same type of services, interconnected with many other collaborative tools.
• Geolocalization. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to see a demo of AkaAki[v], a mobile social networking service from Berlin. It adds geo-localization and diverse profile and history features, allowing people to meet when they roam nearby each other, whether they know themselves (it alerts you) or not (it compares profiles, common friends etc. to propose people you should meet, or you can search for someone you see around - and if she/he is registered, her/his profile will give you chat subjects…). It uses GPS, Bluetooth and antenna recognition to map Smartphones and proposes to their owners a view of the neighborhoods. Beyond the privacy debate it generated, and assuming necessary ethic and safeguards will be developed, the idea of geolocalization is quite appealing: imagine entering in a crowded meeting room and immediately having the exact list of participants, imagine in a conference checking who you can or should meet around you, imagine while travelling your Smartphone lets you know that several of your workmates or partners are around…
• Bridging/federation. No lead there, but a need : those users working with several tools still need an efficient , agnostic and user-friendly aggregator …
• Interactivity. Out of the Cloud comes … GoogleWave, beta launched a few weeks ago, aiming further at real time live collaboration, mixing presence, social networking, email, … and many other things. Google is playing an ambitious endeavor - betting users will understand the purpose of this crossbreed tool, and will like the practical use. In any case, we can be sure that this innovation will influence corporate collaboration behaviors and tools - continuing on web 2.0 startups fate since almost a decade now.

How would you like these tools to work, in the future?

Written by Cécile Demailly collaboration, Corporate, Enterprise 2.0, Instant Messaging, Presence Enterprise 2.0, Mobility, WOW world of work No Comments »

Rypple : le 360° feed-back pour tous

Vous connaissez le 360° feed-back ? Il s’agit d’un processus d’évaluation des compétences piloté par l’entreprise à partir d’un référentiel de compétences défini par l’entreprise.  Cela peut servir pour détecter les hauts-potentiels ou pour évaluer les résultats sur le mode entretien annuel d’évaluation.

Rypple est un service proposant un système de feed-back auto-géré. Voici quelques textes extraits de leur site pour comprendre le système :

De quoi s’agit-il ?

“Rypple is built on the belief that feedback leads to success. Some of  the best habits of successful people are built into Rypple. What are they? Frequent requests for honest, direct feedback; quick, regular 1-on-1 conversations; and real actions based on this feedback that leads to constant improvement…and success!

People use Rypple to ask for specific feedback on business and personal topics from the people they know (co-workers, clients, mentors, and friends).

Companies use Rypple to enhance their existing performance reviews and learn where their people can improve.”

Comment ça fonctionne ?

“The basic building block is a ‘Rypple’, a 200-character question that you want answered, and that Rypple sends to the people you specify (your ‘advisers’), who could be colleagues, clients, mentors and friends that you know.

Advisers receive an email containing your question, and can respond how and when they want. We made it easy for them to respond through features like Reply by Email.

Rypple is designed to keep responses anonymous, so your advisers feel safe providing honest, direct feedback (which can sometimes be difficult).”

et en bonus une vidéo :

Introduction to Rypple

Les applications de ce service sont nombreuses : depuis le développement de sa performance professionnelle jusqu’au Personal Branding.

Quelques pistes de réflexion sur l’utilisation de Rypple pour un individu ou pour une entreprise :

- Sur le management de l’intelligence collective

L’évaluation d’une activité très intellectuelle (réflexion, partage de savoirs, création,…) est très difficile. Par exemple, sur quels critères évaluer ce que doit être le temps de rédaction d’un rapport XYZ ? Comment évaluer la qualité de ce rapport objectivement (sans que le contenu de l’évaluation varie trop fortement en fonction de la personnalité des évaluateurs) ? Face à ces questions, il semble que le système du 360° feed-back soit l’outil le plus adapté pour l’évaluation des activités à forte valeur ajoutée intellectuelle. Mais pour l’instant, on évalue de la même manière le traitement de 50 dossiers et la rédaction d’un rapport de 50 pages. Si compter jusqu’à 50 est à la portée de n’importe quel manager puisque c’est quantifiable, évaluer la qualité d’un rapport avec équité et objectivité est une tâche bien différente dans laquelle le collectif peut apporter une contribution intéressante.

Le 360° feed-back pose par ailleurs la question de l’évaluation de la contribution d’un collaborateur au collectif. On voit mal pourquoi un collaborateur contribuerait au collectif si on l’évalue uniquement sur ses objectifs individuels.

- Sur la gestion de sa marque personnelle (Personal Branding)

Ce mode d’évaluation joue un rôle important. Sur la partie  “Mieux vous connaître” de la démarche, il faut faire un travail d’introspection pour définir son identité professionnelle. Pour réussir cette partie, il est indispensable de solliciter le feed-back de son entourage social et professionnel. Il faut chercher de l’aide dans le collectif pour mesurer les différences entre notre perception de nous-mêmes et la perception des autres. Cette mesure est d’autant plus importante que la perception de la réalité par notre entourage est toujours plus forte que la réalité elle-même.

Sur la partie, ” Mieux vous faire connaître”, il est utile de recueillir du feed-back pour savoir si son profil, son blog et tous les éléments liées à sa marque personnelle sont ” on brand” ou “off brand”.

Est-ce que ce mode d’évaluation est humainement acceptable ?

Solliciter du feed-back est dangereux puisqu’on s’expose à un feed-back négatif et ce d’autant plus que Rypple permet l’anonymat. Quand une entreprise vous impose le 360° feed-back, vous jouez le jeu parce que vous ne voulez pas monter dans la prochaine charrette. Mais, si vous aviez le choix, est-ce que vous seriez l’initiateur d’une telle évaluation pour vous-même ? Est-ce qu’il n’est pas plus confortable de ne pas savoir ? de vivre dans l’illusion de la perfection ? de se protéger psychologiquement contre toute nouvelle agression extérieure (on doit déjà supporter celles qui ne sont pas sollicitées) ?

Rypple est promis à un grand avenir mais ce service n’est pas compatible avec toutes les personnalités. Il faut avoir un “self” fort, une grande confiance en soi, de l’ambition, l’envie de progresser pour devenir moteur de sa propre évaluation.

Sur la dimension marque personnelle, on pourrait aussi imaginer que ces feed-back servent à construire sa réputation professionnelle. Mais cela pose deux problèmes : (1) du fait de l’anonymat, on ne sait pas qui est l’auteur du feed-back. Or le poids d’un feed-back dépend de la réputation et du statut de la personne qui le donne ; (2) la réputation professionnelle se construit sur une logique de recommandation et non d’évaluation, il faudrait donc qu’on puisse publier uniquement les feed-back positifs.

Enfin, des dérives sont possibles. Les feed-back que je reçois sont ma propriété. Je les utilise pour progresser. Mais Rypple pourrait aller plus loin en permettant à l’entreprise d’utiliser ces feed-back comme un outil d’évaluation à 360°. Dans ce cas, il est fort probable que l’individu ne serait plus le moteur du système. On reviendra au top down, c’est-à-dire à un entretien annuel d’évaluation à la mode 360°. Rien de nouveau ! La force de Rypple aujourd’hui, c’est d’offrir un outil d’auto-évaluation pour ceux qui veulent progresser dans leur métier. Peut-il proposer le 2 en 1 sans perdre son âme ?

Merci à Dominique Turcq pour cette découverte et pour ses “feed-back” inspirants pour la rédaction de ce billet.

Written by Olivier Zara 360 feed-back, Rypple Enterprise 2.0, Management, Personal Branding No Comments »