I won’t go further into the details and conclusions to preserve the interest of the document, but I’d like to share some thoughts all the same.

- numbers are consistent with my own experience, what is a good start.

- the report also tackles some issues not everyone is comfortable with. In particular : ROI, doubtful leadership, the gap between what organizations expect and what makes sense for employees. Conclusion are objective without any kind of bias.

- some new surprising angles that are very interesting : comparing adoption in B2C vs B2C contexts for instance.

- it’s consistent with the way I see things, most of all on from the employee’s perspective. I have a few posts in preparation about that and that’s true that, at least in our local context, autonomy, even when offered, does not spread through good intentions. On the contrary, its beneficiaries ask for a clear definition, a defined framework, sense.

- an interesting maturity analysis and, here again, a relevant focus on employees, on the “does it make sense, what are my challenges, my needs” instead of the “how to make them adopt this thing”. This reminds us, once again, than trying to make people happy despite of them and fufill our own dreams through them is neither efficient nor desirable.

There are also some points I’d to go deeply into. I’ve a meeting with Cécile in the next days and it will be the perfect occasion.

Enjoy your reading !

Related posts

• Enterprise 2.0 adoption : you need both a voice and a screwdriver (5)
• Networking and collaboration : is enterprise a land of trust or distrust ? (0)
• Is enterprise 2.0 possible without positive thinking ? (0)
• Enterprise 2.0 : is there a French specificity ? (2)
• Who’s looking for a magik stick on the clouds only gets showers (0)

ERP ? That’s to say ?

First, we need to define what we mean when we say “ERP”. At first sight, it looks simple, a look at the definition on wikipedia and that’s done. Then some some wonder if we should include RH systems in the discussions : some say that’s radically different, some say that’s the same, some say the underlying logic is the same.

But this is a tool-oriented discussion. When talking about ERPs in the enterprise 2.0 context, people often think beyond the tools, they think of what the tools embody: structure and processes. Even untooled, a process is a process and can be defined by its rigidity.

Beyond the strict definition, depending on people and context, ERP symbolizes many different things in the collective mind. In my opinion, saying “that’s that” or “that’s not that” is pointless. What matters is not the word but the feeling, what people think about when hearing or saying the E. word. This feeling, either right or wrong, exists and has to be taken into account into any changeme management approach.

Where does the discussion comes from ?

It has many sources.

First, one is already implemented, the other is emerging. Anything that comes in a crowded place has to find its own place, would it be in replacement or as a complement to what was there first.

Then, because they symbolize two opposite approaches : automation and, as some say, enslaving or even denying people for the one, liberating the human potential and more autonomy for the other.

Last because it’s so hard to agree on a “positive” definition of enterprise 2.0 that it’s easier to build a “negative” one, to define it according to what it’s not. In this context, ERP and the concepts that come with are the absolute reference. When things are built the one against the other, antagonism and rejection feelings comes in the discussion, either justified or not.

What is it about ?

According to the elements I gathered and the many discussions I had, it’s about three things

• Philosophy :is it possibl for a business that believes in full automation, that wants everything to be perfectly repeatable to have, at the same time, the needed mindset to implement something that is the contrary ?

• Organization : is it possible on an organizational and management point of view, to make both logics co-exist ?

• Technical : must there be integration, exchanges, communication between the tools that support both approaches ? And how ?

What’s the impact of the discussion ?

At first sight it’s only an experts discussion that has no interest for real people, something that has nothing to do with businesses concerns. The “yes…but what to do with my ERP” question is not one of those that emerge when a business think about what to do in the “soft collaboration” field.

On the other hand, that’s not neutral once the reflection goes further. Not on the ERP angle but on the articulation angle. That’s about articulating structured and repeatable activities with unpredictable and adhoc ones. Whatever the conclusion of the philosophical debate is, reality forces us to admit that both have to co-exist because both are needed, sometimes jointly, sometimes separately, some people having to deal with both.

Data coming from the one may also be a matter of discussions and conversations in the other.

Beyond any ideological “a priori” that may make people idealize the one and demonize the other, organizations must be aware of not making the wrong battle. Coming to the conclusion that the one precludes the other is not an acceptable answer because it’s a subjective judgement that, even if it makes it easier for some to deliver their message and beliefs, does not bring any solution to the actual concern : how to articulate both to get the most from the organization ressources and competences in complex and always varying contexts.

There are things that are endlessly repeatable and that have to be turned into strict processes that will be run by dedicated systems. It’s essential to save time and ressources where people have nothing to add to the machine and where they are often the cause of mistakes, errors and bad quality. But there’s also all the rest, where a new logic is needed. And, regardless to any personal belief, the enterprise is at the confluence of both.

On the other hand, some limiys have to be taken into account : as not everything can be translated into processes, not everything can be done in a free an informal way. What led (and is still leading) to failure is not bad logics or tools, it the fact to make them support activities that were not theirs.

Food for though

On the complementary nature, I’d say that

- among all the things from which conversations start, there is no reason to think that no one will come from an ERP (or any expert system).

- that if there were no tools able to run processes, we would spend so many time processing datas with such a large margin of error so we would have to time to deal with things that no machine can do instead of us : innovate and solve problems.

Moreover, one of the biggest success in the field of enterprise social software, is GE’s SupportCentral that’s neither people-centric, document-centric nor process-centric but reconciliates the three ?

Let’s remember that if the ERP driven organization reached its limits, enterprise 2.0 is also incomplete and can’t handle everything in an organization. But the Enterprise (without adjective or version) has to conciliate both. That’s not a matter for debate but an imperative.

Related posts

• Enterprise 2.0’s weakness ? Decision (3)
• You want your employees to be more “social” ? Rely on their selfishness (0)
• Will Evangelists turn into Evangalysts ? (2)
• Will 2.0 learn the enterprise ? (0)
• Who’s looking for a magik stick on the clouds only gets showers (0)

When talking about community management, internal and external, there are risks and constraints to take into consideration not to waste its potential. Many things (and sometimes rubbish) can be read about it and think there is a real risk for the concept to be thrown away because of too much charlatanism.

In my opinion, some things have to be kept in mind :

- Community management is not the answer to every organization problem, either with employees or with a wider ecosystem. But it’s a way to make new things or to do in a new and more effective way things that used to be made in an unappropriate fashion. In short it allows to explore new fields of value which we’re not aware of the extent. It’s also something that has to articulate with the rest of the organization.

- it’s a more serious business than a “noise-maker” or “energizer” job. Those who’ll read the excellent Social Networking for business will discover an great mindmap of the responsabilities that belong to the role that should make the awae of the complexity and the richness of the role.

I don’t know how things are doing in other countries (in fact I do…and that what’s scares me) but the fact that, in France, the fact that community management is often a job for young employees or even interns is really worrying. My opinion made one of my readers angry once (on the french version of this post I almost was insulted by someone telling me that youngs were better community managers than experimented peple, that they had the mindset, the 2.0 attitude and knew the tools but posts like this one  [fr] makes me think I’m right (for non french speaking people, in this post the author was discussing the fact community management positions often were junior ones and often poorly paid while it’s said being so strategic…).

The good news is that lots of people are taking it very seriously and share enough things in an ongoing improvement approach that they could build a corpus of knowledge and best practices related to community management. The second good news is that they decided to share it with us in a report than can be downloaded for free : “The State of Community management report“.

In such a technical and human matter, there can’t be any magical recipe. On the other hand there are things that have to be taken into account to work one’s strategy and operating model out. Then, it has to be turned into faction, what need adaptation to each particular context. At this point, feedbacks from those who faced similar situations are key. That’s what the Community Roundtable offers in its report :

- know what we’re talking about

- know the challenges that have to be faced

- have “food for thought” to face them and be successful in one’s context.

This may be seem quite simple but the value is impressive for both community managers (even experienced) and organization who want to define their strategy, hire the right person and need insights to carry on. When tackling such a challenge, better try to understand its complexity first instead of trying anything and say “if only I had known…..”

Enjoy your reading !

Related posts

• Sometimes you need a community manager. Sometimes a manager is enough… (2)
• Community management is about business, not claptrap (2)
• What place for communities in collaboration ? (3)
• So you love your customers…and you let others take care of them (0)
• New jobs description for Enterprise 2.0 ? Try the Enterprise 2.0 job profiler (0)

The postulate is now well known. Companies have more tools to interact with customers than they ever had and customers want more than ever to tell businesses what they think about their products. To stay competitive is such a context, the focus has to be set on quickly bringing customers to a transaction but to build a long term relationship that may generate less value at the beginnig but more in the future. (On this point, I highly recommend you to read my takes on social CRM here and this HBR paper on consumer capitalism).

One of the interesting things that emerges from the article is the “Customer manager” with a clear definition : someone with a deep knowledge of the products, knows how to analyze both structured and unstructured informations (blogs, forums…), who is more interested in brand perception than in audience numbers. They need good skills in social science (psychology, sociology), in economics and may have some knowledge in marketing.

http://www.duperrin.com/english/wp-admin/post-new.phpSo the idea is to stop pushing the product to the client but consider this latter as a stakeholder in the enterprise develpment and co-build the offer with him.

Obviously, it questions the role of this customer manager compared to a trendy one : the community manager. Is it the same thing ? Are they complementary ?

I already exposed my fear to see the role of community manager lead astray and become nothing more than the good old push marketing with a facelift. In my opinion, a good community manager (or a community manager which employer really gets the purpose of the approach) is a customer manager. In the other case, the difference between both is at the same time slight and essential : the one is here to generate conversation and attract attention, the other is here to create value. Creating value means : turning conversations into action and make the organization determine itselft according to its customer relationship, what implies to question many processes and certainties. This also implies some seniority for the customer manager who has to deal with an heavy responsability.

Anyway, it’s already an ongoing change. As said in the articile, B2B businessses are more advanced but B2C are jumping on the bandwagon. That’s true that many organizations have already started to learn how to co-operate with their customers and suppliers to improve the efficiency of their supply chain while, because of their weak individual economical wieght regarding to the market sizez, individual customers have often been neglecting and asked to buy and shut up.

Times change.

NB : in this post I considered the community manager in a customer relationship approach. Internal community managers have their own specificities.

Related posts

• From Social Media to Social CRM : a recent experience with airlines (4)
• With Social CRM, enterprise 2.0 goes out of the black box and marketing gains importance (0)
• Will you have to throw your marketing outside of the window ? (0)
• What place for communities in collaboration ? (3)
• What CRM is and what it should be (3)

Enterprise 2.0 is a big bag full of interesting concepts but its downside is that people are often tempted to apply everything everywhere instead of applying only a part of it to some needs, depending on their relevance to the context. But that’s not because not everything is community that some logics may not be used separately, with less ambition. Doing this means starting from people’s needs and context instead of throwing them in an unknown world which sense is hard to perceive. As a matter of fact, the goal, that must not be overlooked, is to help people to be more efficient in their workaday tasks. Before being told what they could do with new tools and business practices, they’d rather be taught how, as a starting point, they could do better what they already know.

• At the individual level

Being more efficient collectively while being alone may be a surprising point. But the fundamentals that will help to go further have to be built here. Even social or collaborative, tools may first serve an individual need.

Example : bookmarks management in browsers is a nightmare. It’s not hard to show how a good social bookmarking tool does it better…even if not used socially. People will start to use it because it’s better, more easy to use, that it makes it easier to find what you’re looking for, without sharing. Using an online version of a word processor is good too. Nothing changes except it can be used through a browser (or a desktop app if syncing is possible). On the other hand, sharing for viewing or editing instead of sending an email will always be one click away, when the need will come.

Minor changes, mainly about tools, but that are essential for the next steps because individual users and their whole ecosystem will be one click away (and not one mail away) without focing them to share and it will make it easier for them to go to next stage.

• At the teamwork level

As surprising as it may be, before doing miracles into networks, people work into defined and structured teams. These teams have a defined perimeter, a defined manager, and clear objectives. Working with colleague, being supervised by a manager instead of networking and having discussions with colleagues may be old school but, believe me, that’s the reality for many people and is the heart of organization’s concerns.

What can make people’s life easier here ? Everything that would help them to find what they need, starting with very simple things (who’s doing what, what’s their colleague’s work status…). At this stage, we only talk about status updates, in a microblogging style. No large discussion or exposition : people only share answers to questions they can’t stand answering ten times a day (what are you doing ? what’s the status of your to-do), things they want others to know. That’s about “technical”, factual exchanges and looks a little bit like the post-its that are left on a colleague’s desk or on the office’s wall. Some will need less time than others to do that, but let’s bet it will be very contagious. Benefit : stop loosing one’s time giving visibility on one’s work and run after others.  Team members are not asked to be blog columnists or to turn themselves into a content agency. Definitely not !

Using a wiki for meeting reports and follow-up may be a good idea too. Or using a word processor that allows co-editing. Then step by step, by sharing documents or bookmarks, maybe some will allow other to see all their bookmarks, give edition rights. First one document and one person at a time and occasionnally. And then…more people, more often on more kind of information ?

Maybe they’ll even grow bolder and open a team blog (with restricted access of course), or projects blogs, or a “group”, to document what they do, whare their questions, find answers. Maybe they’ll become crazy enough to dare to share ideas. Anyway, forcing them is useless. They should find their own pace while being aware of what they can do.

The “activities” module that is a part of some enterprise platforms also fits very well a task oriented context while also being flexible and allowing some kind of social interactions and may be useful in such contexts.

In such cases, making sure (and proving) that time is saved on coordination, meetings etc.. is essential. With time, the effects on knowledge and information capture for future reuse will also been obvious. But it will come a little bit later.

No one should forget that the purpose it to help a team to meet his objectives without any philosophical consideration. This is more about coordination and signal (social signal of course) than about anything else, at least at the beginning. Having a look at how IBM’s blueIQ team focus on helping people to accomplish workaday tasks first is also very instructive.

Of course, it happens under the authority of a manager.

One day, teams may need more specific things like Salesforce Chatter for sales people,  12sprints for decision making., Gravity to help them to build and refine their own processes. The list will surely grow in a near future…

• At the communities and social network level

That’s the point where things become really interesting. Sometimes, that’s the point many people would like to start from. But we have to admit that the people that are the more comfortable in this context don’t need any help to play this game and that the others need a progress that goes through the previous steps. In some positive and opportunistic cultures, it may happen differently but, according to what I can see everyday, most employees need to follow this logic of progressive broadening of the perimeter of their interactions (at both human, behavioral and functiunal levels) to be comfortable here.

For some, it’s the occasion to enrich their work by adding a new and deeper dimension, to engage into reflections, to make propositions, to discover new people, to engage new relationships. They’ll be the leader of these spaces, factual community managers. Sometimes a dedicated community manager will also be there to energize these dynamics. Ideally, the organization will rely on both.

At this level, everything is about exchanges, discussions, the pursuit of a personal benefit that’s neitheir quantifiable nor datable, which happening is not predictable.

For the others, who care more about their personal involvement and beware of exposing themselves too much, they will consider these spaces as places for experts where they’ll punctually find answers to their questions. Maybe, by spending more and more time in these communties, some will get the virus. The others will come punctually, get what they need, and go back to the reassuring context of their team. Their involvement may increase as they are shown how it’s easier to get what they need instead of losing their way in the meanderings of the organization chart.

Here, community managers replace managers and converations replace interactions. Other objectives, other postures, other roles. If organizations create value at the team level, they find solutions to the limit of the teams into communities. Communities are the place where organization develop their knowledge, invent their future, in short, it’s where tomorrow’s value and wealth incubates. If the social dimension fails (or does not exist), the organization looses its ability to adapt, to reinvetn itself in the future. If people overlook that it has to serve the rest of the organization, to feed teams, if it’s seen as an end rather than a means, it will be a hudge but unexploited field of value.

I’m only talking about internal things here. Organizations may want to involve people from the outside, but it will fall into one of the above mentioned logics : collaboration with partners will follow the rules of teamwork, co-building and innovating with clients is rather a community approach.

What I meant here is that improving the organizational performance by leveraging collective work is a logic that has to deal with many different contexts even if the underlying approach is quite the same. It implies not to think in terms of standard behaviors but into context / objective / role driven ones. It also implies that these contexts have to articulate at the employee level. The change process also has to take into account the different steps any employee need to be efficient in all contexts. Last, but not least, means and ends must not be mistaken one for the others so many energy will be wasted to do thing that will not improve the performance of the organization (what is the final purpose, isn’t it ?)

Related posts

• What place for communities in collaboration ? (3)
• Social medias : don’t mistake revenue for organizational performance (0)
• Networking and collaboration : is enterprise a land of trust or distrust ? (0)
• Who’s looking for a magik stick on the clouds only gets showers (0)
• Which future for middle managers ? (0)

But is “transformation” a relevant word ?

First because collaboration has many differents levels and scopes that not exclusive but complementary. Enterprise 2.0 does not mean the end of groups and groupware but brings a new dimension that helps getting rid of the known boudaries and addressed problematics that could not be before, or not in such an easy way. Then, and that’s a consequence of the previous point, because employees’ logic is to find a path to go from one logic to another without denying what they used to know and do before and still makes sense.

Communities form on a topic and is crowded by conversations about this topic. People’s driver is to share, learn, find solutions, make ideas emerge that will not immediately apply to something, answers to problems what may not have emerget yet. Unlike traditionnal formal structures, these communities have no objective to achieve at a given due date. They are more likely to be defined as background and ongoing processes than by defined things that have to be delivered at a given moment. Meanwhile, employees also collaborate into formal structures and there’s no doubt that their participation into communities improves their ability to bring the right answers into their everyday collaborative activities.

Compared with the web, 10% employees are very comfortable to participate in vibrant communities. The other 90% will only join them to find answers to problems that happened and could not be solved in the in their workaday perimeter.

This is not trivial at all and is the evidence that enterprise 2.0 only makes sense in a global framework that takes into account all the contexts people face.

• the approach must not only focus on the social dimension but on bringing some coherence to all the contexts, explain them to employees and help them to position in each one.

• tools may support a fluid circulation through all these contexts for both people and information without any break in flows and dynamics.

• the intensity of of the new practices may differ according to the context. Each context has its social side and needs but in a more and or less intense fashion. That’s not an “all or nothing” deal.

Let’s also admit than, on a cultural point of view, many organizations are not comfortable with communities and conversations but a first step maybe to focus on team efficiency, on day to day tasks, to help people and culture grow bolder.

For instance we often hear managers saying “people are here to work and not to have conversations” what is quite se same as the “I’m not here to run a social club” that Andrew McAfee used to illustrate how the “social” word was hard to het. For these people, maybe a workaday/task/project driven approach to “social” may make more sense, reassure and would help to demonstrate some benefits even if the challenge in terms of behaviors is more modest than in the “social big bang” approach.

Booz Allen Hamilton is one of the best example of successful enterprise 2.0. They started with the social and community approach. At the last Virtual enterprise 2.0 conference they told more about their future roadmap : integrated document management solution, incorporate the benefits of E2.0 methodology into structured projects and team sites. Be sure that other companies which are not BAH, this would have been the start. A few weeks ago I was on a panel a large company told that its main concern was to start from the existing and build on it.

So, we have to be aware that communities are not an end. It’s a component of a global framework and has to be considered as such and not as an exception to the way the organization operates. This also mean that community management is only a part of a global management problematic and, without articulation, community management may have few value.

Related posts

• Adopting new practices in multiple contexts (1)
• Who’s looking for a magik stick on the clouds only gets showers (0)
• When 2.0 dissolves into businesses (2)
• Sometimes you need a community manager. Sometimes a manager is enough… (2)
• Networking and collaboration : is enterprise a land of trust or distrust ? (0)