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

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):

Pros	Cons
Very practical, easy to use A great tool in  geographically dispersed teams For informal quick Q&A, frees you from email and/or phone Allows multitasking Allows you to check info on a call/in a meeting (virtual-whispering) Boosts efficiency, cuts costs A great collaboration tool, and allows you to network in an easier way than phone or mail, or even voicemail	Perceived by some as a waste of time, or a time consuming distraction Management concerns on the need to monitor and archive conversations (with the corollary of privacy concerns) Legal concerns in regulated markets (trading etc.) Fancy pop-up opening during exec presentation is generally ill thought  of Not for  long complex messages You rarely end-up with o single tool - more often with 2 or 3

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

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?

---

[i] DLP : Data Loss Prevention software
[ii] Mobile messaging futures 2007-2012 - www.portioresearch.com
[iii] Question thread asked in LinkedIn (see http://www.linkedin.com/answers?viewQuestion=&questionID=566821&askerID=1198599)
[iv] See Forrester report http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/0,7211,55268,00.html
[v] AkaAki was demonstrated at the 2009 NetExplorateur http://www.netexplorateur.org/

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

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 »

If collaboration is bad for you, make it better

An interesting article by Morten T. Hansen underlines the need to carefully analyse whether to launch a collaboration project or not. While he underlines important aspects of successful collaboration, in my opinion, he does not delve long enough in how to build the perfect conditions for successful collaboration within an organization. And what collaboration, exactly ?

I am always pleased to see people taking the time to think about how to make collaboration successful and stressing how difficult this can be. The whole E2.0 movement sometimes seems to forget that collaboration in corporations did not start with the arrival of E2.0 technologies, and that companies have developed skills and capabilities for improved collaboration.

This is, to my mind, why the article by Hansen comes at the right moment. He gives precise examples on why collaboration could fail (overestimating financial results of collaboration, ignoring opportunity costs or underestimating collaboration costs), and therefore contributes to a necessary reassesement of collaboration projects.

Still, I found two aspects of his article that would deserve further research:

• First, when analyzing the projected return of the collaboration project, Hansen seems to concentrate on the cash-flow it can generate;
• Second, when analyzing collaboration costs, he does not seem to take into account the potential for improved collaboration due to E2.0 technologies.

E2.0 technologies, if conveniently deployed (meaning with strong change management support on new usage and skill development), should greatly diminish collaboration costs. This is something I have seen at most of my clients.

I find even more important to go further into the analysis of the projected return of collaboration, depending on the depth of the collaboration project. Obviously, making two different units or teams collaborate at a given point on a given project generates costs and the returns can only be in terms of cash generated.

But shouldn’t Hansen go deeper in analyzing the projected returns of collaboration projects that actually change the DNA of the organization ? Because, in my opinion, when he points that “the collaboration imperative is a hallmark of today’s business environment”, it is not collaboration as usual.

The hallmark of today’s business environment is the development of collaboration as an alternative to hierarchy for a precise number of business situations. We are not speaking about making BUs or teams learn to collaborate transversally (even though this is important). We are speaking about giving the organization a new organization dimension, based of people who are able to identify each other and organize to solve a business problem.

It is about governing and giving responsibility for transversal collaboration that does not need hierarchical micromanagement.

Written by Luis Alberola collaboration Enterprise 2.0, Management 2 Comments »

Collaboration will push people management from execution to strategy

I was with a client yesterday, thinking about how to bring collaboration skills (and awareness) to future leaders. Several points come to my mind after this conversation:

- This particular client has broken down its HR department: HR administration, social matters and people development are really managed by very different departments and people. This is pragmatic HR innovation to my mind !

- Putting the whole collaboration affair in the People department is a great approach, but one that should be managed carefully. When looking at collaboration through classic people development lenses, we are brought to think about classic people development services (using training and development to develop new usages, skills, technology skills, …). That’s important but clearly not enough.

In this approach, it is more important to find key issues on which to collaborate (and learn to better collaborate) than to identify “collaboration skills” that would afterwards be deployed through training. I think that training can only come as a support of a wider methodology.

The best way I know is to open collaborative spaces (communities or networks) and launch these communities or networks with minimal support (ensuring only consistency accross communities and in the support given). In these “people development communities”, if issues are carefully chosen, people should be oriented towards working differently (contributing rather than producing; rating rather than evaluating; ….), and should be recognized and rewarded for so doing (not financially on a first step).

Why act this way ? The whole idea, to my mind, is not to try to impose standards tools (blogs, wikis, feeds, microblogs, …) or average skills, but to bring the employees to discover the ways that match their needs - that is, that help them solve business issues.

The people development department will not be deciding which are the key skills or competencies to develop, it will rather be building an advanced “framework for collaboration“, in which employees will test and invent the new ways of working that make sense for their particular business (that match their industry, culture, processes).

Discovering how to manage the collective side of people development is one of HR paths to value creation.

Written by Luis Alberola collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, Management, Talent Management Enterprise 2.0, Management 2 Comments »