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

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 »

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 »

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 »

Réseau et organisation: n’oubliez jamais la valeur du contact en face-à-face

Trois mouvements se sont récemment précipités:

1. de l’agriculture à l’industrie et au savoir,
2. du vertical au transversal et au matriciel, et
3. de l’information à la communication et au partage.

On n’a rien inventé mais seulement généralisé la pratique du réseau…

1. Sans les outils pour faciliter cette transition, on resterait à l’âge tribal, réseau par excellence! Il suffit de se souvenir du premier outil de “bip social” qui permettait d’invoquer sa “tribu”.
2. Sans les enfants pour nous montrer l’exemple avec MSN puis maintenant FaceBook, on ne serait peut-être pas aussi poussés à prendre au sérieux cette évolution, et la convoitise attise son utilisation.
3. Sans le besoin que nous avons de conserver le lien social, mis à mal par des vies trépidantes qui nous laissent de moins en moins de temps, on se passerait peut-être de tout cela…

Mais, un premier écueil vient de la nature humaine et de ses fondements ancestraux qui, s’ils appellent à la survie individuelle, renforcent éventuellement le lien strictement tribal qui unit les forces. L‘individu est de nature individualiste et sédentaire à la base; il va tout faire pour survivre dans son état premier. Il est aussi de nature “grégaire”, celui qui aime suivre un troupeau, ce que l’on retrouve dans les comportements d’imitation typique de nos civilisations.  Il peut finalement être sectaire et se limiter à son entourage immédiat, évitant alors toute forme de contact avec les cercles externes. Or, ce que demande le monde moderne, c’est cette ouverture vers l’autre…

Ensuite, il y a l’inhibition initiale à se jeter dans l’eau, ouvrir les outils, se familiariser avec leur utilisation, trouver son réseau, s’organiser pour en être un actif contributeur, etc…  Tout d’abord, je fais face à la paresse naturelle que je ressens quand je dois me mettre devant mon PC, si impersonnel!  Puis, il y a l’apprentissage qu’il me faut faire, alors que je serais tellement mieux à regarder les oiseaux.  Finalement, il me faut engager une utilisation régulière, invoquée par le mouvement incessant des retours d’information, et qui peut me fatiguer avec le temps. L’ergonomie du software comme du hardware a grandement facilité son usage, fort heureusement.

Finalement, il y a la culture et les valeurs du groupe (famille, entreprise, pays) qui ont un impact certain sur la façon dont l’individu appréhende l’outil, son utilisation et son impact.  Les fondements éducatifs (famille, école, religion) sont la base de cette culture qui nous imprègne dès notre premier âge et qui va nous marquer du fer rouge; arrive le temps du travail et, ce que l’on retrouve dans son entreprise contribue au renforcement des usages précédents ou vient les compléter; mais, au delà de ces deux dimensions, encore faut-il que les structures institutionnelles s’accordent pour le favoriser! La globalisation a pu effacer certaines des différences mais “chassez le naturel, il revient au galop!”.

Nous vivons une période de transition fondamentale en ce début de millénaire; on attribue à Malraux cette parole bien connue: “le 21^ème siècle sera spirituel ou ne sera pas”; parfois on trouve “religieux” à la place de “spirituel” mais, qu’il ait utilisé l’un comme l’autre, il voulait faire passer ce message du rapprochement des hommes. Si la globalisation y a contribué, elle était essentiellement économique et politique; c’est l’informatique qui a pris le relais sur le plan social, à la surprise de tout le monde.

Pour ne citer que le plus “successful”, FaceBook a désormais 300millions d’adeptes, pas seulement des enfants en mal de contact social; grâce à ce genre d’outil, on atteint cinq fois plus d’amis qu’auparavant! Certes ils sont “virtuels” mais assurent la “connexion” avec nos prochains, offrant l’avantage de passer outre l’inhibition du premier contact en allant directement aux “common grounds”, créant des ponts naturels vers d’autres contacts et, complétant avantageusement son réseau, au risque de se noyer rapidement dans un grand magma.

Et c’est là où il ne faudra jamais perdre de vue l’importance du contact “face-à-face”… On le vit tous les jours en entreprise où l’e-mail qu’on envoie à son voisin de bureau risque de casser le lien social naturel de l’homme. Si l’on ne perd pas de vue ce retour nécessaire sur l’image réelle, l’informatique aura cependant grandement sublimer son rôle initial d’information pour faciliter la communication, qui est échange mutuel et constructif. Cette tendance à l’unification des peuples par le partage est inhérente à notre époque; reste à l’encourager!

Written by Martin de Waziers Uncategorized 1 Comment »

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 »