SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
This collaboratively and collectively written book about Enterprise 2.0is the English version of the original French, published online at theend of last year. This translation was made possible by a partnershipwith the company LinguaSpirit, who carried out the work for us. Wewould like to thank them for it.LinguaSpirit is a translation agency with a particular focus on webcommunication, working to make translation adaptable andaccessible. Our team is made up of professional translators from avariety of backgrounds with wide-ranging language and technicalskills. We offer our services to NGOs and charities on a voluntarybasis via FreeSpirit and provide free translations to blogs of all kinds.Translation is our profession, but breaking down language barriers isour calling.
Social Innovation: The Power of Communities to InnovateThe enterprise lies at the heart of fast-paced social change. Consumerbehavior, lifestyles and uses are undergoing paradigm shifts. As productofferings are constantly rolled out, novel approaches are emerging to fosterloyalty and shape new services. Never before has so much information beenavailable to so many people at any one time. Not a day goes by without thelaunch of another innovative device that quickly becomes an ubiquitous part ofour everyday lives.In the enterprise, employee expectations are evolving as a new "wired"generation of Internet-savvy people enters the market. New business modelsare emerging to hone firms competitive edge, which in turn are spurring newneeds and uses.To stay agile and stay ahead of the curve, companies must open up and adjustto all this change. The answer lies in devising new ways of imagining, creatingand innovating collectively by connecting knowledge, skills and talent.Employers must also learn how to uncover, recognize and leverage talent moredynamically, harnessing both individual and collective contributions. Much morethan simply implementing specific tools, todays enterprise focuses more on
openness and a shared sense of purpose. Sharing and dynamically leveragingknowledge in this way implicitly puts employees at the heart of the process.In Enterprise 2.0 companies, employees are discovering new ways of learning,interacting and understanding. At the same time, it is up to the enterprise toprovide an environment conducive to exchanging and connecting ideas, as wellas organizing its wealth of intellectual property.The key to connecting teams, processes, information, data and virtualexperiences lies in empowering organizations and their various job families toexpand their horizons, allowing them to interact and collaborate acrossorganizational boundaries in order to spur innovation.As part of the quest for innovation, companies must also look beyond theconfines of their organizations to include their entire customer, partner and userecosystem, fusing the imagination of users and consumers with the insight oftheir design teams.Enabling everyone - from employees to customers, suppliers, users andconsumers in general - to play an active part in innovation processes is theunderlying principle behind the Dassault Systèmes (DS) Social Innovationstrategy. This approach was given renewed impetus two years ago following theworldwide deployment of the DS SwYm community platform across the Groupsentire organization.Several companies have already embraced 2.0 Transformation, which is wherethe future lies for enterprises of all sizes and in all business sectors. Enterprise2.0 is today recognized as a catalyst for sustainable innovation. Pascal Daloz is Executive Vice President, Strategy & Marketing, at Dassault Systèmes. Prior to this, he was Research & Development Director in charge of Business Development for the Group. Pascal has extensive experience in strategy with investment banking and consulting firms, including five years at Credit Suisse First Boston, where he served as a senior technology analyst, and five years at Arthur D. Little. He is a graduate of the École des Mines de Paris engineering school in Paris.
When we think of about "Enterprise 2.0" since 2006, the year that AndrewMcAfee coined the term, we see that there has been considerable experiencefeedback in France in 2010. The term is certainly employed more on the Webthan it is by companies, but whatever the term, the results cannot be ignored—there are a large and growing number of these types of projects. It seemedbeneficial to address the subject through a variety of lenses, supported byconsultants, operational staff, and editors.All too often the idea of Enterprise 2.0 is reduced to a set of tools that areapplied through a collaborative platform or an enterprise social network (ESN)and with a uniquely internal focus. That is to say, the implementation ofcollaborative processes surrounding these tools and the affect they can have onorganization and governance. I wanted to address each aspect of Enterprise
2.0 that make it an all-encompassing enterprise I believe to be made up of 3elements.The first and most common element is the creation of a business network, oftena community, in order for employees to work collaboratively. It is not a pilotproject or an extra layer added onto other processes, but rather the backbone ofan organization around which are organized all of the businesses processes.The second element, has to do with managing external stakeholders, such aspartners or clients in community management way. Unlike managing a socialmedia presence, this means the complete administration of a ―personal‖environment (not a Facebook page), where one is free to establish their ownrules and manage the community. It’s from this community that you’ll generallyfind your ambassadors. Once again, a collaborative working approach withstakeholders is needed in order to benefit everyone involved, perhaps resultingin co-creation.The third element has to do with engaging the business in social media.Business is not self sufficient, "no one is an island"; it is connected to the rest ofthe world, especially by social media. This engagement begins with monitoring,in preparation to interact—whether it be to find an idea, to increase yourexposure, to find clients, to respond to criticisms etc. You need to create valuefor your business, not only through the use of a conversation manager, but witheach and every colleague in the business.In closing Id like to thank two people who helped me with the practical details ofthis project: Frédéric Domon for the layout and the graphics and Tarik Lebtahifor his help in obtaining such a prestigious preface author. Of course Id also liketo thank all those who contributed to make this project possible.Happy reading
pg. 3 Preface by Pascal Dalozpg. 10 Training by Claire Leblondpg. 15 Positioning in IT by Cécil Dijouxpg. 21 Collaborative Platforms by Arnaud Raynolepg. 26 ROI by Bertrand Duperrinpg. 31 Change Management by Frédéric Charlespg. 39 Labour Relations by Vincent Berthelotpg. 44 Governance and Management by Anthony Poncierpg. 49 Monitoring by Aref Jdey
pg. 53 Knowledge Management by Christophe Deschampspg. 57 Storytelling by Camille Alloingpg. 61 Social Learning by Frédéric Domonpg. 67 Integrated and Responsible Participative Innovation by Muriel Garciapg. 72 Internal Communities and CSR by Fabrice Poiraud-Lambertpg.79 BtoB by Alain Garnierpg. 83 Personal Branding by Fadhila Brahimipg. 89 Generation Y by Julien Pougetpg. 93 Employer Brand by Franck La Pintapg. 98 Social CRM by Mark Tamispg. 105 Social Media by Emilie Ogez
SKEMA Business School is the result of the merger between CERAM Sophiaand ESC-Lille. SKEMA’s strategy prioritizes training future managers, pioneersof the knowledge economy who are "able to understand and adapt to theirenvironment and create sustainable performance."The role of the school’s faculty is therefore to "train 2.0 managers" whocooperate and share in order to create value together. The task is not limited tousing tools, but also involves mastering the practices that make the participatingstudents evangelists within the workplace, able to fulfil the expectations ofbusinesses whilst being aware of impacts on the environment.
The Geemiks (a team of community organisers and research assistants atSKEMA), have up to this point focused on connecting individuals withinformation (publications, databases, learning platforms, information portals,thematic environments, resources training…), but from now on they will turntheir attention to a second level of connections: connecting individuals toeach other (students-teachers-speakers-colleagues-businesses). This involvesmaking introductions, promoting connections between people in networks andcreating spaces and tools to facilitate sharing, exchange and involvement.The aim is for each individual to develop their own ecosystem, which is notonly informational but also social, building on the professionalization ofinternet customs and practices.This second phase is taking shape today with the development of a concept (LaFusée) designed to provide all the conditions necessary for the discovery andaffirmation of talent—giving the people at SKEMA the opportunity to make themost of their skills, passions and values.The development of this idea involves, on the one hand, creating a space whichencourages sharing while taking into account peoples work place, conditionsand hours; and on the other hand, offering new training formats that incorporatea process of distinguishing individuals as a benefit to the group.The space is located at the Lille campus and is unique in that it is multi-purposeand flexible. There is room for all the different stages of a project, frombrainstorming to final decision-making. Individual needs are also catered to,with a layout and an atmosphere encouraging relaxation, reading, the exchangeof ideas etc.The space is the result of a long period of reflection and is complemented by avirtual space that aims to use the web to break down physical barriers. SKEMAhas sites in many countries and it is therefore necessary to give remote teamsthe chance to participate.
Although the Paris campus does not yet have this physical space, the conceptis still being put into practice. Because there is not enough space at the twoParis campuses, we are trying to make use of other spaces elsewhere in thecity. This option often has advantages because it allows us to think outside the"academic" box, encouraging innovation.With regard to learning models, we are setting up training-discoverymodules, which allow a different way of learning. These modules have severaldifferent forms, adapted to various needs and preferences.Amongst these modules there will be: Digital workshops: 45 minutes designed to discuss professional applications of the internet. We offer topics such as managing digital identity, use and validation of digital resources, monitoring techniques and a presentation on the law and the internet. These workshops do not have a defined programme. The aim is for the programme to adapt to demands made by students in order to better meet their needs and make them active in their education. Cafés découvertes: share a coffee with some interesting people (artists, travellers, entrepreneurs…) in a friendly environment. As with the other modules, the content should eventually be determined by the students. Babel café: learn a language in a friendly atmosphere by discussing current affairs with people from different backgrounds. Training to develop creative potential, personality and talent; learn to overcome fears; understand how to form a team with reference to complementary skills; experience and develop creativity in order to innovate. This time-consuming training is offered by Isabelle NORMAND to a small number of students. However, this approach is also reflected in projects that we are setting up with students, such as the Creatinove
project. This will be a year of discussions on MOBILITY, with approximately 30 students working on the many dimensions of the word, creating content from meetings and readings, to eventually organize and stage an event in March 2011. The establishment of a shared monitoring system to learn how to share knowledge on target topics and co-operate in the creation of a common knowledge base. The exchange and implementation of modules on managing digital identity. These will raise awareness and help students understand internet mechanisms and logic and to develop intelligent habits. Today we are immersed in the internet from a younger and younger age and do not always have a detached view of our activities.Lastly, making the student an actor and also an author presupposes that theywill be allowed to share their vision and knowledge and use skills within thegroup that they do not usually use in an academic or even a professionalenvironment.To do this we encourage students to lead workshops, organise cafésdécouvertes, write tutorials, share their experiences in a blog entry, tocontribute to a wiki school of established themes, to collaborate on projects withteams in different places etc. The introductory training module becomes theirown module, which they lead and develop.At the end of the day, doing is the best way to learn.The modules are designed with our ―school audience‖ in mind. This not onlyincludes students, but teachers, researchers, partner businesses andprofessional networks. The ultimate goal is to participate in the creation of aknowledge and know-how network, involving both the school and external
participants, and is led not only by employees, teachers and the media library,but also by the students themselves.What can Web 2.0 bring to all this? Basically, by facilitating the development ofthese practices by building on tools often used simply for fun, participation in thecommunity is encouraged.The next step: bringing together know-how! Claire LEBLOND is a "Geemik" and a Facilitator for the "entrepreneurial" community at the SKEMA Business School— where students, researchers, professors, businesses and people with business projects from the TONIC business incubator all come together. Part of Claires role as a Facilitator is to promote a dynamic of sharing within the community. She usually works from one of SKEMAs two Paris campuses (at La Villette and LaDéfense) and also teaches courses in strategic monitoring and Business Intelligence at ITEEM.Claire is co-author of three blogs: "geemik", on our profession; "S’informer pour se former", aresult of monitoring entrepreneurial trends and news; and "YouOnTheWeb" (on professionalWeb uses).
Social networks are at the doors of the business world. The question we needto ask is how can these collaborative platforms be integrated into ITmanagement strategy?Over the last few years, companies have invested massively in analyticalsystems that enable them to streamline and optimize Enterprise ResourcesPlanning—ERP, Customer Relationship Management—CRM, Supply ChainManagement—SCM and Product Lifecycle Management—PLM.In his enlightening book on PLM (1), Michael Grieves proposes a map thatillustrates PLMs position in relation to other analytical systems within business.
The goal of this article is to extend the map in order to show how EnterpriseSocial Networks—ESN can be integrated into this strategy as well as how theycomplement existing systems.Business Systems 1.0 Figure #1: Enterprise Business Systems 1.0In Grieves chart, the Y-axis identifies the different functions and activities of thecompany, and the X-axis, the different areas of expertise.The simple diagram shows where the systems intersect as well as the essentialneed for integration.For educational purposes here, the diagram has been modified to illustrate abasic problem in business that does not appear in the one above: managingnon-captured tacit knowledge. The column widths (PLM, CRM, SCM) and theERP line have been reduced to emphasize the fact that the systems do notcover the entire scope of the activities.
The fluid nature of ESNsAs Andrew McAfee noted (2), these systems are designed to structure andcontrol the activities of knowledge workers; they have clear limitations and astrict framework of responsibilities.On the other hand, Enterprise Social Networks are completely different. If ERP,SCM, CRM or PLM are complicated products with limited responsibilities, ESNsare systems that are "easily accessible, open, emerging, and in principle,without structure" (A. McAfee).Via the internet, these tools have shown their amazing ability for a wide breadthof collaborative projects and their easy to use nature makes them easy toadopt. They capitalise on the network effect to bring out new uses and theirapplication can evolve according to need.In other terms, rather than forcing the user to adapt, ESNs adapt to the uses ofthe knowledge worker. This gives ESNs an element of fluidity that enables themto infiltrate and fill in the areas left unaddressed by other systems.ESNs have no predetermined form, they adapt to the form of the environment inwhich they operate: the type of activity and the area of business expertise or, atthe very least, the corresponding knowledge captured in the informationsystems.Knowledge CaptureESNs are particularly useful for information capture.First off, it much is easier for knowledge workers to capture informal units ofinformation into collaborative platforms (wikis, blogs, forums etc...) than as
formal entries into legacy enterprise systems whose reputation of complexityand lack of user friendliness intimidate users.Beside, these collaborative platforms also offer a single entry point forresearching information, no matter the type of document (blog, MS Office,announcement etc.). This contributes to significantly reducing the time spent onresearching information.Knowledge and Innovation CommunitiesThe second ESN core feature that contributes to this fluid nature is the idea ofcommunities. The collaborative tools naturally contribute to the creation and theactivity of transverse communities that, within the context of the company, arestructured around certain areas of expertise, trade knowledge and know-how.These communities put the abilities of different experts from various fields(technical, architectural, product marketing, commercial, consultative) side byside in one particular area. This allows for the construction (and the capture!) ofmulti-dimensional expertise for specialized problems.As a result, by encouraging conversations between a variety of experts indifferent branches of the organization, ESNs allow for the clash of viewpoints ondifferent ideas, which we know from Mark Granovetter (3) or Ronald Burt (4) isa great way to initiate innovation.Integrating ProcessFinally, the fluidity of these open platforms allows them an easy technicalintegration with other systems and by doing so, better integration of businessprocesses (*Business Process Management—BPM).On the internet, online services (API) like Flickr, Twitter or Facebook areenjoying considerable success, in large part because of their simplicity. For
BPM (5) purpose, social networks provide an alternative light and fluid strategyto heavy and complicated Service Oriented Architecture (SOA).Software vendors have quickly addressed the opportunity. SAP offersStreamWork, which integrates into its ERP ; Saleforces proposes Chatter anEnterprise Social platforms which integrates with their CRM while with3DSwYm, Dassault Systems proposes an integrative community platform for itsPLM V6 Platform.Business Systems 2.0 Figure #2: Enterprise Business Systems 2.0The position of an ESN in a companys IT structure: a driver that facilitatesknowledge capture and sharing, the creation of transverse communities and aneasier integration of work processes.
(1) Michael Grieves: Product Lifecycle Management, Driving the NextGeneration of Lean Thinking(2) Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Company ToughestChallenges - Harvard Business School Press(3) Mark Granovetter: The Strength of Weak Links(4) Ronald Burt: The Social Origin of Good Ideas(5) Forrester: Social Technologies Will Drive the Next Wave of BPM Cecil Dijoux has been working with Information Systems for more than 20 years. His work has taken him to large business groups, to start-ups, and abroad. He is currently in charge of the Development and Architecture Platform teams at Lectra for Lectra Fashion PLM, a Product Lifecycle Management solution for the fashion industry. Cecil has been blogging about culture, various organizations and social media for 3 years at #hypertextual.
Communication is OperationWhile some people see conversation and discussion as a futile exercise, in theera enterprise 2.0 engaging in communication will give an advantage toorganizations that learn to master it.Email is in fact todays primary manner of collaborationIts a fact: the primary means of communication within companies is emailmessaging. Information is exchanged, meetings are organized and documentsare sent. In the best cases, email is used to send notifications and contextualizedocuments that are accessible using a link. Its not wrong to have tried tostructure the approach by planning or equipping with groupware. Exchangetakes precedence over sharing. Primary needs rely more on exchange and
interaction than on disseminating or sharing resources. In any case, the extraeffort needed is prohibitive.Is it an inability to move towards collective austerity? or a pragmaticneed?When planning structuring projects, micro projects pop up, and these arespread out: their rollout is minimally planned and the people involved and theobjectives change. The sprawl of the project mode lead to a weakening ofmethodology: the requirement of collective work for communal practicesresulted in the smallest common denominator winning out. The idea ofcollaboration has changed due to increased communication possibilities, or hasat least become more broad.Or the limits of a document-centric approach?Is it the failure of structured collaborative processes? Or of traditional sharingplatforms, i.e. "Groupware"? In any case, it is an endpoint for their claim touniversality in the field.Lets look at some of their limitations: document-centric platforms: difficult to share closely related information, even in the work version that allows for contextualisation that we just outlined for example. Sometimes we use a forum, but the segmented construction imposes disassociation between documents and discussion. So much so, that we use these spaces to create a complementary document reference system out of the platform of exchange that is still email messaging, creating extra complications in the transmission of resources for sharing within the project. platforms requiring pre-defined organization: diagrammed structure, member list, options for space etc. This indicates that organization and structure needs to be anticipated at the beginning of a project.
a space to be administrated: imposed so that all colleagues can have access. This option is generally avoided due to (justified) fear of the proliferation of interactive spaces or of centralized management of spaces that lack reactivity and are harmful to micro-collaborations.Collaborative management solutions remain adapted to project professionals,and may even be reserved for them. Our vision of collaboration has torecognize this and no longer systematically associate it with a need fordocument sharing.Introduction of organizational modes in a networkEnterprise 2.0, as a scope, generates new requirements for collaboration. Thisis linked in part to new easier methods of exchange and connection betweenindividuals.The new collaborative contextsEach project—or collaboration rather—leads us to work with new people.Motivation and level of involvement varies from one person to another.Less and less centred on process, the issues of collaboration are movingtoward the capability to identify good partners, unite them, involve and evenmobilize them.Practices that bring the social capital of each person to the fore are reinforced inproportion to the collaborative spaces that extend outside the borders of thecompany.Soft collaboration*In this context, new softer forms of collaboration that are focused onconversation and discussion are emerging, facilitating the understanding ofothers and based on organization within a network. It is up to each person to
initiate conversation and discussion with others in order to coordinate an actioninto which documents can eventually be inserted. By coming together, thediscussion within a community can be organized and, if necessary, theinformation even structured. Information management; the entry point of whichis the participants, the timeline and the keywords associated with the group.The presentation of the information is centred on the individual. Finally, itsabout an organized version of existing email practices today. Diagram: Social collaboration - Sharing all information that relates to an activity within a conversationA complementary addition for existing collaborative formsIt doesnt completely replace the existing tools—email or document sharing. Itcompletes and works well with them, in a way that refocuses usage on thestrong points of each one. This soft collaboration is upstream of the productionprocess. Ideas and coproduction can be organized around conversations andtheir production is poured into a reference document project. It also has to dowith less formal collaborations. It also allows for a refocusing of email use.
A paradoxical break in useThough this collaborative form is complementary to shared spaces and close toexisting email use, it also represents a break in use that is sometimes difficult todeal with. Until now, I explained this mainly to try and position a new toolalongside email and existing sharing tools without providing any realexplanation; the situation marked by the low adoption of 2.0 concepts and evenmore so by the lack of their implementation in business strategies. In otherwords, tooling steps often lack direction.I think that the issue surrounding the development of uses is better understoodin large organizations today. I also dont doubt that next, creators will proposegateways with traditional sharing spaces and email.*Term used to qualify the fact that these new collaborations begin mildly andimplicitly. They require no preparation and can start before any commitment to ateam or a project. Arnaud Rayrole is the founder and Director of Lecko. For 10 years now Lecko has been consulting and assisting organizations to modify and achieve their Web projects and to develop new target uses. Arnaud has led several benchmark studies in his field, including on business social networks. These can be downloaded for free from the USEO community.
The question of ROI is the most debated and controversial subject in enterprise2.0 due to the apparent contradiction of two basic premises.The first is that all investments are justified, whether in money, time or attention.The second is that the power of a 2.0 project lies in making an organizationmore adaptable, flexible and gives it the ability to react to unforeseencircumstances and solve problems that, in addition to regular tasks, are thenorm for todays employees. As the system is designed to better respond to theunexpected - which is fast becoming the norm - it is impossible to anticipate theresulting benefits, precisely because of the unpredictable nature of the eventswe are dealing with.
It has long been said that there is no need to prove ROI and that the value of aproject is intrinsic. General Electric acknowledged, after the fact, that theirintranet 2.0 was "the heartbeat of the company." Easy enough to recognize inhindsight, but difficult to grasp inside the majority of organizations becausethere is no need to justify or address the issue. Does this mean that these typesof projects can only see the light of day inside organizations that are "believers"or already convinced? Not at all. ROI needs only be studied and applied wheresuitable. Just because we cant plug the benefits into a model doesnt mean thatwe cant anticipate or measure them according to financial or other relevantcriteria in order to discuss their value.Enterprise 2.0 is never an end in itself. Its a tool for businesses, for theirstrategy and operating methods. It stands to reason therefore that if nothing haschanged after its implementation, the project probably shouldnt go ahead. Thisalso leads us to view the problem in another light: if the project is only a means,the project objectives must also be evaluated. Innovation? Reinforcing thesense of belonging? Collaboration? Coordination. These are all measured interms of ideas, of development cycles, of numbers of meetings, of the timeneeded to solve a problem, of the length of a sales cycle if targeting acommercial environment, of market conditions etc. The list of these micro-indicators, adapted to the working point of the company or of an individualemployee, is long. It is simply a matter of isolating the ones that make sense ina particular situation, then it will be easy to measure any changes over time.After the question of measure, there is the issue of forecasting. It must beunderstood that within the framework of an enterprise 2.0 project it isnt the tool,but the work practices and the operating methods it enables that renders value.From that moment on, any rationale to establish and formulate quantitativeindividual behaviour is biased and, if at all reassuring, guarantees neither theaccuracy of the forecast nor the improvement of the indicators mentionedabove. This doesnt necessarily mean that the value of the project will ultimatelydepend on the goodwill of certain individuals in a best-case scenario and onchance in the worst. The confidence of obtaining expected benefits increases
by developing new daily work practices; and more so on their adoption ratherthan on the tool itself.Many rules, implicit or explicit, that are followed on a day-to-day basis, aresubject to the restrictions of work tools that dont allow for certain methods ofinteraction or collaboration. When talking about tools that lift the restrictions inquestion, one has to consider rethinking the way we work. It is the only way ofactually guaranteeing that increased collaboration and more flexibility inorganization enable the achievement of the targeted objectives. It isnt aboutdemanding more sharing and collaboration from employees, but demandingthat they really think through the scenarios for employing the tools adapted tothe objectives, needs and limitations of each person, the small daily routinesthat little by little transform their work. Only on these terms can we start off onthe right foot.Enterprise 2.0 tools have no ROI; it is found in the new operating modes,procedures and processes the tools will support. Everything that is enterprise2.0 comes from what is called the companys intangible capital. This includesemployee skills that are developed, the ideas and solutions they bring to thetable, ties between employees that enable stronger collaboration, flexibility andinformation generation etc. Historically, companies struggle to capitalize on thispotential in which they make significant investments to create more value. Thereason is simple: until now, the tools available to employees hardly enabledthem to be identified, mobilized and therefore utilized. This is changing with"social software", but only if the processes used to create value through workrelearn how to take advantage of this capital that they couldnt count on before.Until now, the only goal of many "enterprise 2.0" strategies was for users toaccept and use new tools. Following some success, they didnt necessarilymanage to systematically create value. There is no use identifying an expertwhom no one has the right to consult or who doesnt have the right to makethemselves available. There is no use in developing ideas boxes to make anorganization more innovative if the people in charge of innovation dont even
consult them. And there is no use in promoting the exchange and sharing ofbest practices if employees arent allowed to use the new solutions in their dailywork.Alternatively, take for example a company like CISCO, where decision-makingand concept processes for new business models are constructed based on anetwork function and the ability to identify and mobilize a variety of expertise.The result is concrete numbers throughout the development of companyplans—on what benefit they brought to the company and on the capability of theorganization to take advantage of market opportunities. As Norton and Kaplanoutline in their work "Strategy Maps", intangible assets only bring value whenthey are used as an integral part of a business process.From now on, the question of enterprise 2.0 isnt about demonstrating automaticROI, but the transformation of human and social potential, made up ofknowledge, ideas, individual or collective problem-solving ability and a tangiblevalue at the operational level that will ultimately improve value creation. Wedont need to find or reveal the potential of value; we know and can identify it.Rather, it is the capacity for value to become more than just potential that is inquestion.All of which leads us to look at the question of the ROI of enterprise 2.0 from adifferent angle, starting with a good set of premises and asking the rightquestions: The "tools" of enterprise 2.0 have no intrinsic value. Rather than looking for the ROI of the tool, look at the ROI of the project(s) that the tool is facilitating. The question is no longer asking how a certain tool will create value but how an organization will use the tool to create more value. An "enterprise 2.0" tool doesnt create any value in the organizational status quo.
Rather than asking "what is the benefit of €1 invested in an enterprise 2.0 project", its better to establish clear strategic and operational objectives, elaborate them in practical terms and then identify the tools that make them possible. The ROI of the project is to achieve more ambitious objectives using new operating methods. To reduce the uncertainty that surrounds the realization of potential, the relationship between the enterprise 2.0 project and the company must be thought out in order for the projects contribution to the functioning of the company to be made as automatic and systematic as possible, even if other uses can no doubt be developed outside of this scope. Finally, the costs of inaction need to be taken into account: leaving fertile potential fallow while investing in its development, maintaining bottlenecks on collaboration, and depriving oneself of the potential for employee innovation in an economy whose cycles are growing increasingly shorter all has a price. Rather than thinking of ROI, think about added value and new methods of value creation. As a consultant at Nextmodernity, Bertrand Duperrin assists companies in establishing new collaborative processes and new methods for value creation. A recognized expert in issues concerning business social networks and their place in the process of value creation, Bertand is the author of a blog on the subject and participates in a number of conferences in France and abroad.
Change at the heart of the Business Social NetworkA business social network (BSN) connects employees within a company andthereby facilitates collective intelligence—the capacity to share informationand collectively produce knowledge and know-how. A BSN complementsdocument-centred activities, such as document or knowledge management. Itrelies on the ties between employees, and not on a search engine, to filter andmake sense of information, sometimes is quasi-real time.For a company to arrive at this level of operation, the dominant factor isdefinitely the human one. Implementing a BSN requires leading majorchanges. On the other hand, the network is a great lever for change and for
decompartmentalizing the company—especially for companies that need toadapt to markets that are going through major changes. This two-sided dynamicis fuelled by change; properly managing this over the medium-term is definitelya factor in a companys performance.This article focuses on the internal aspect of a company and doesnt touch onchange when it concerns the rollout of an external BSN with clients.What is change management?When talking about change management, we mean the capacity to implementand lead a support program that includes several aspects: ongoing and varied communication, developing skills (training, coaching, ...), developing organisation and operations, adapting management methods.Change management happens through the use of the system of the future, andin the case of BSN, on it being deeply rooted in company operations; thesingular goal being that a "critical mass" of users take advantage of all theBSN has to offer. Two failures to be avoided are under-use and misuse.Under-use, because putting a BSN in place is an investment. Even if return oninvestment is seldom the primary objective for its implementation, under-usereduces any potential gains accordingly. And in a more empirical way, to benefitfrom "Metcalfe’s Law", which states that the value of a telecommunicationsnetwork is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of thesystem: so if there are two times as many users, there is four times thevalue for each member. The ever-present risk of rejection can lead to under-use.
Misuse is a traditional failing of recently implemented systems. It remainssomething to watch for in the case of BSN but isnt always necessarilysomething negative and is therefore more difficult to value. If new, initiallyunanticipated, uses emerge, they can benefit the company through the use ofthe BSN and by the results they generate.How can we address these two risks?Lets start by identifying the changesThe first step in this type of program is identifying resulting changes; thethings that will impact the implementation of the network. The primary resultingchanges identified are: not knowing beforehand who will read what is written to them; a big difference compared to email, which remains the companys principal means of communication. the creation of an internal digital identity that includes a trace, open to everyone, of all someones comments. Also open to all are simple things like someones photo (unbelievable but true!) a reconsideration of established hierarchies—seeing as everyone can comment on any subject. Who is that and on what authority do they speak to that subject? changes in behaviour such as "the principle of sharing" and "the right to err"; uncertain answers like "I dont know but ask so-and-so..." increasing the speed of getting information out and around the company—observed several months after implementation, etc.It is also identifying opportunities for change that can be introduced byimplementing a BSN:
decompartmentalizing services, the possibility of addressing diverse and broad themes such as innovation, ethics and security, without needing to create a specific organisation in order to do so, the return into operations, with a greater visibility, of employees and networks that are sometimes "buried" in the company: archivists, knowledge managers, analysts etc. etc.The work of identifying these opportunities is difficult to execute in a"theoretical" manner prior to implementing the BSN. Experience feedback fromcompanies that are more advanced in their implementation should therefore becounted on as much and as early as possible, and then extrapolated to onesown business.Be smart from this point on when making comparisons within a certain businesssector and count more on the "cultural and social proximity" of a companybefore drawing any comparisons. That way, two entities from the same sector—one hyper-centralized with a national brand and employees who have been withthe company for 20 years, and the other hyper-decentralized with a localelement and a major recent recruiting push—wont have much in common whenit comes to the resulting changes and opportunities for change for implementinga BSN.The program for change managementBased on this analysis, were going to work on the 4 aspects of the supportprogram presented above: communication, skill development, organization andthe development of professions.Communication plan
Primary communication is essential. Its the name of the platform! and its logo if possible. It cant be neglected—its very hard to bring back. SwYm - See What You mean (Dassault Systems), Join (GDF SUEZ with the "in" de Linkedin), Engage (Alcatel-Lucent), LIO Plaza (Lyonnaise des Eaux) were the first ones to sign on (internally, understandably) and spur the question of whether or not to join a BSN. Get rid of the domain names associated with the business. Tomorrows BSN will no doubt be about collaborating with your partners under the framework of an extended enterprise 2.0 on the Web. For the "big bang" or "viral method" migration strategy, prepare communication that is adapted to the launch. In the first case, a countdown prior to the launch and a tease inside the company. In the second case, a kit (email, information pamphlet, tokens...) for the first participants to go out and recruit people themselves. Teach them how! The goal of early communication is to explain why the change is happening and why it isnt possible to remain static: too much knowledge loss within the company, email is becoming unmanageable, compartmentalization is obstructing innovation etc. Next, show why the change is attractive, what it will bring to the company and to each individual; this can be targeted and job-specific. Finally, demonstrate that no one will be left behind and that there will be an effort made to help bring everyone on board. In any project there are 10% who oppose it, 10% who are fans of it, and 80% undecided. Obviously, the priority is to convert those who are undecided into fans before trying to change the minds of those against it. At first, the latter will cite over-exaggerated risks (confidentiality, legal, social etc.) that dont reflect the reality of implementation. At that stage, the risks are only potential, so monitoring the level of actual risk is important in order to progressively adapt to increasing risks. But under no circumstances should you plan a security device from the beginning
taking part in something new before bringing it forward as an essential piece of the intranet. Skill development is also recognizing and placing value in good habits and know-how. It is a bit Pavlovian, but think about Foursquare, a growing social network that uses geolocation to indicate places the user has visited. What would it be without rewards and challenges for user actions; its Badges and the "ability" to become the mayor of a location?Development of Professions The main subject here is the change in management. It might be a bit early for feedback within the company to go into detail about specific actions, but the business of managing an enterprise 2.0 is changing (read through the chapter on Governance & Management). One impact will probably be less technical operational support (the employee can get it themselves through the BSN), but more personal coaching and development. Integrating "generation Y" into businesses would be very helpful for management to adapt—or not. The job of a "community manager", to lead external communities where clients (loyalty), communication, marketing and sales promotion all intersect. This job cant carried out by a "snipper" who is isolated and outside of the company, it needs an active internal component for the different jobs to increase efficiency and coordinate actions within external communities (Facebook, LinkedIn etc.).Organisation At the organizational level, the priority is to implement something that enables you to manage the BSN. Even if launched by a functional department such as Communications or IT, its essential that the platform becomes the company platform. A BSN governance committee has to guide the evolution and make decisions on rules as necessary. Should
Generation Y, Enterprise 2.0, online reputation and personal branding are allkey words. But they are above all customs and practices which have started toimpact the way that trade unions currently make demands. To understand thechallenges that trade unions are facing we must take a quick look at thedevelopments which have led to a situation in which fewer than 7% of Frenchemployees belong to a trade union.Labour relations have a long history in France, two centuries of trade unionsand their relationships with employer organisations and the ruling politicalbodies. The trade unions were forged in struggle and during exchanges whichhad more in common with conflict than dialogue, with bosses ill-inclined to
share or have their decision-making powers questioned. Trade unions had theirtrente glorieuses before a worrying decline: a decline related to changes inbusiness and the economy; to relationships that place the individual at the heartand weaken the collective; to globalisation, which has many effects, but theprincipal result of which is to distance the decisions applied on a local level fromthose really responsible for them.This decline, which has led to de-unionisation, goes hand in hand with lowturnout—not only in elections for industrial tribunals, but also in the general andpresidential elections.In this context, Enterprise 2.0 offers a new perspective on possibledevelopments in labour relations in business because it links at once thenotions of autonomy and collective, transparency and openness.There are a few questions that immediately spring to mind: What is the role of the trade union between a connected employee and a collaborative business? What will be the new forms of action, relationship and dialogue? Likewise, what role will mediation, guaranteed by the trade unions, play during a conflict between the collective and management?As we know, Enterprise 2.0 has been the victim of a rather rose-tinted, touchy-feely vision of business, in which everyone collaborates, communicates, worksand innovates for a better collective performance. Let’s forget role-playing
games, Iribarne’s logic of honour and Crozier’s actors theory1, and go back tothe fantasy of business without paralysing hierarchy, that allows autonomousindividuals to better fulfil their duties. So Enterprise 2.0 isn’t interested in labourrelations: it assumes that the question has become useless, becausetransparency and openness allow us to resolve the slightest problem almost inreal time.We reflect very little on the role of intermediaries, and therefore managers asstaff representatives in this version of the concept, as well as the NorthAmerican cultural assumptions introduced by the Enterprise 2.0 concept. A flatbusiness wants to become more communicative and simple, but destroysmechanisms in place since the start of the capitalist business model in trying todo so, without gaining any clue as to how to achieve the transition. The actualrepresentation of unions is already caught between the dissatisfaction ofemployees, dating back more than 15 years now, and the increasing power ofthe internet, which allows employees to side-step union spokespersons to maketheir voice heard. The hard truth is that this representation is only furtherweakened by the arrival of 2.0.Imagine that a trade union is telling you about employee dissatisfaction about acertain project, a reorganisation or another collective problem by telling you theviews of the rank and file. You, as a good 2.0 HR manager, show them theresults of your own internal social monitoring: a positive online survey; nonegative comments after your last blog entry on the subject or in the blogs ofother employees; and the topic didn’t come up during the last video chat thatyou organised... At the end of the day, who is more representative? In the eyesof the law, it will be the trade union, if it won more than 10% at the lastprofessional election. But what authority will it have to make suggestions, to1 http://qualiconsult.pagesperso-orange.fr/crozier.htm2 Distinction proposed by Michael Idinopoulos between activities in the flow and above the flow.
represent employees during the negotiations? Rejoicing in this fact, as manyjournalists and some politicians are doing, would be a grave error. They explainat great length that trade unions are out of date, in the way of change, tooexpensive and harmful to the competitiveness of businesses. The most short-sighted among them are even demanding that the right to strike be removed…Let’s not forget that the reduction in trade union leadership in a dispute oftenleads to radicalisation and the emergence of ephemeral coalitions with keyactors who have no training in negotiation, quickly becoming an obstacle to amanaged resolution of the crisis.We can retain a positive view of labour relations in a 2.0 business when werealise that there is a certain balance between the different forces and that theunions are not (as they too often are) a hiding place for employees withoutskills, leadership qualities or drive, who want to protect themselves. As a resultit is in the interests of management to develop methods for their employees toexpress themselves within the company, so that they are not driven to externalsites when they cannot make their voices heard internally. It must then adapt itssocial monitoring of these new tools. This will allow it to understand areas oftension as well as satisfaction amongst employees and pick up on the subtlesignals which make it possible to measure the quality of social dialogue. HRdepartments will have to define to rules of the game to encourage this dialoguewithin the company, training managers in close social dialogue and improvingon the use of these new tools, amongst other things. They can also produce ausers charter for social media and carry out community management ofdifferent spaces in cooperation with the communications department. For theirpart, unions should ensure a better mastery of the different communicationspaces put at their disposal by the company, whilst not depending on themcompletely, continuing to develop quality external communication and web toolsas part of their union marketing. It is essential that they manage to people inmanagement positions and work on the online reputation of the new ones so as
to inspire the confidence of employees and encourage them to come and seekadvice and support.It is vital that all these actors understand that a presence in the different spacesof the Web, 2.0 is at the same time a usage test and an avant-garde standing,giving them legitimacy in the eyes of new employees who work more and moreonline and are used to such practices. HR professionals, like union officials,need to use their professionalism and competence to position themselves asthe first port of call for an employee faced with a problem or a question, and notlet Google, Twitter or Facebook take their place. Enterprise 2.0 has to be therecognized social link, and should be constructed revitalise the work and todevelop long-term performance, putting the individual at the heart of business, afocus on the person, and not only as a way of making money.HR and unions may find common ground on which to develop a calmer socialclimate within the company and greater consideration of the need to listen toemployees, to allow them to express themselves and participate in the smoothrunning of the business whilst ensuring its economic development. Vincent Berthelot is a specialist in internal and external social web- use strategies, specifically in HR, skills, mobility, management and labour relations. Using his background in HR and Intercultural Communication, Vincent was the first to launch an HR intranet at a large French group. He shares his views via his personal blog, Conseilwebsocial, consults and advises in the business world and participates in various conferences.
Governance in enterprise 2.0When meeting with business managers on a collaborative project, the notionthat collaborative = anarchic or self-managed comes up often (even if this fearsubsides). The role of senior management in not disappearing; it will validatethe operational collaborative processes and collaborative components: internalparticipants, clients, partners etc. Even if there is a larger element of autonomy:it also means freedom and means of doing, and senior management is alwaysthere to establish business strategy and objectives.To develop collaborative working practices in a business, senior managementneeds to be more than a sponsor—it has to set an example, in attitude and inthe use of collaborative principles. This materializes in greater agility (reduceddecision-making times in line with operations and/or related to feedback),decompartmentalization, and transparency in line with a freer flow of
information. We can speak of an integrative organisation. The main differencewith a classic organization(al model) is therefore increased listening on the partof managers and the empowerment of their colleagues. Senior managementtherefore has to concentrate more on direction and results than on themicromanaging teams.The result is a reduction in the pyramid, to the benefit of a more horizontalorganization (based on the identity of those involved and multi-communities). AsJohn Chambers, the CEO of Cisco has pointed out, it is illusory to think that onecan manage 66,000 employees; which is why the rigid, bureaucratic side of anorganization that is tied to the pyramid structure of classic organizations(delegative according to Henry Mintzberg) needs to be reduced.So the transfer of this plan and how it is received can be accomplished directly,via the blog of the CEO, or more broadly through a collaborative platform thatprovides the employees with the opportunity to react and engage in dialogue.If governance evolves when establishing an enterprise 2.0 or a collaborativeorganization, it stands that the management methods must also evolve.Management 2.0 in your companyWhen speaking about collaborative work within a company, the term communitymanager quickly comes up. If the creation of communities is one of the mainresults of collaborative work, it doesn’t mean that traditional managementceases to exist: the "manager 2.0" model isn’t exclusively that of a communitymanager. For a long time (and still often the case), the manager was the onewith the information and they transmitted it to their teams based on the model ofinformation = power. So what can we expect from the "next generation"manager?First, they need to instil confidence in their teams. This means the freedom toexpress themselves and to share, which will lead to participatory management
and even collective decision-making by the groups, and therefore ultimatelymore engagement. But the role of manager can obviously not be conceived withonly power and hierarchy in mind; so the role will therefore be more the one of afacilitator or a coordinator. In any group dynamic, there is the potential fortensions and issues to be resolved; the person who is able to stay above thefray can help move things forward. If management participates, we can alsoassume that the level of daily delegation is substantial. The manager is actuallythere to help their teams grow and achieve results, and therefore to leademployees in the direction that the business wants to go, giving them theautonomy they need to grow individually and collectively. This means givingsupport, advice or offering help when needed. The time and attention given todoing this enables the manager to improve their team and take time to thinkabout the direction of activities and above all, prioritize them in order orimportance (important, urgent etc.)But more than delegation, the manager develops the willingness of their teamsto work collaboratively and provides them with the means to do so (knowledgeand capability). They will be a promoter. The manager will be the oneconnecting with their n+1 or n+2 in order to promote the work of their colleaguesand to emphasize the personal and collective achievements of their teams.Even within a network system, we are much closer to "internal personalbranding" that will capitalize on employee reputation within the company.This brings us to some key ideas: respect rather than dominance confidence rather than discipline transparency rather than secrecy the collective rather than the individual
to value rather than to appropriate All of this is nothing new, much like collaborative work practices or communities (web 2.0 didn’t invented that). But many mangers are worried about their status in a collaborative company. If their role evolves, their actions will also have to evolve; being a manager doesnt mean displaying leadership. Nevertheless, managers within the structure of a collaborative company will no doubt have to display leadership. This means changing perspectives from a managerial skills standpoint. Managers will need to respond to two specific challenges: coordinating without centralizing; and doing so outside of a hierarchy. Both of these challenges present problems for managing a project and having a project manage you. To tackle these, and to allow everyone to develop their potential, you need to inspire the following: a sense of freedom, by accepting to let got of—and "lose"—control; a sense of community, by reinforcing the sense of belonging; a sense of direction, so colleagues can completely invest in their work. By assuming this leadership posture, the manager will become an enabler that inspires their colleagues; freeing their energy; knowing when to make a decision or to reach a consensus when needed. This might mean going along with their colleagues in order to demonstrate an open mind, and enabling them to grow by allowing them to make mistakes (meaning delegation), without which confidence and risk-taking isnt possible. A favourable environment for individual success is created. This often scares managers. They are worried about what their superiors and their colleagues might think. Delegation doesnt result in decreased authority, doesnt take away recognition from, or of, superiors and colleagues. On the contrary—recognition and support provides motivation. The goal of a manager is to organize a team and to help them develop. A manager is judged in the way
they manage a team, not on their ability to do so. In the words of Peter Drucker:"So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for peopleto work. In the new world of management I see frontline employees being incontrol of their own workload and calling upon the coach for advice when theyneed it."As a conclusionSome managers wont know how—or want—to take on this dramatic change in"culture". The role isnt necessarily for them, because it is sometimes too farremoved from their own history and culture. Management therefore needs to beinvolved and exposed to different points of view. The more managers areinvolved early on, the less they will feel like "the fifth wheel" and will be open tochange. Managers need to play a role in this change in culture and berecognized for its contribution to the collaborative company. They will also bethe main liaison in implementing communities or collaborative work processeswithin the company. As I said before, enterprise 2.0 is integrated and doesntpush managers aside. For those who arent able to adapt, the company owes itto them to give them other roles; providing their expertise for example. Anthony Poncier has a PhD in Contemporary History and a Masters degree in Strategic Management and Competitive Intelligence. He has taught International Relations at Paris X Nanterre and NICT at IUFM Paris. Anthony is Director/Consultant of management and enterprise 2.0 (management 2.0, collaborative projects, SCRM, social media strategy, etc.) at LECKO. He regularly participates at conferences in France and abroad, delivers university seminars at HEC and SKEMA, is a business consultant, regularly publishes articles for online magazines and maintains a blog.
Monitoring for enterprise 2.0Attempting to define enterprise 2.0 would be a useless effort to force it into aframework, effectively going against its intrinsic characteristics. Its more usefulto speak about what makes an enterprise 2.0 what it is: agility, the function ofand a reliance on a skill network, using so-called social software applications attheir fair value. A 2.0 business is fertile ground for exchanging skills betweenpeers and knowledge between employees and professionals. At this level,information becomes the keystone for individual and collective performance—itcirculates, is enriched and transformed into knowledge.
As such, monitoring in the broad sense, research, oversight and studies, will befocused on adapting to the characteristics of an enterprise 2.0. Withoutnecessarily speaking of monitoring 2.0, the activity should include three keyparameters in order to be able to bring real added value to the company: An approach for governance and management Intelligent implementation of internal skills Technological support focused on the companys professionsFirst off, its important to think about the activity of monitoring in its entirety,across all aspects and functions of the company. An efficient and effectivemonitoring mechanism requires an approach for governance and managementof the resources used and the activities put into practice according tocollaboratively created processes. This type of governance will enable theevaluation of monitoring actions on three levels: operational, tactical andstrategic. Management via key quantitative indicators also allows for theapplication of corrective actions.Moreover, an approach to governance enables the coordination of allmonitoring activities in a 2.0 business and ensures a certain interoperability ofindividual and collective monitoring systems. This interoperability is all the morenecessary in a 2.0 business; its impossible that monitoring be entrusted to asingle central body, or delegated without a minimum of participation andcoordination of all employees. As it happens, it is a second criterion formonitoring in enterprise 2.0.Given the agility and the flexibility of a 2.0 business, the most appropriate modelfor carrying out monitoring activities would be a deft, delicate mix ofcentralization and decentralization; intelligently implementing internal skills,professions and support in an overall monitoring dynamic. This means thatinformation-documentarian professional profiles like archivists and monitors willbe oriented towards specific aspects such as qualifying sources, methodologicaltransfers, internal coaching, managing software tools etc.
As for the professionals—engineers, researchers, product heads, marketingstaff etc.—and their growing demands for autonomy in regards to research andoversight, they will be appealed to on the grounds of professional, evenstrategic, analysis. Based on their positions and their activities, theseknowledge workers often request specialized, tailor-made monitoring in additionto their desire for autonomy when using and working with collected information.Its essential to come up with suitable collaboration methods to satisfy this groupwhile subscribing to performance logic and professional processes.This happens principally by establishing practical and knowledge-sharingcommunities that bring together specialists and experts that could, for example,be led by information professionals. Collaboration can also occur through theimplementation of analysis committees, by organizing a variety of professionalsto deliver communal value added production: outlook, activity reports etc.Now collaboration becomes indispensible, above all in a context where a singleemployee cant provide all the working methods and techniques, the analysisand the production. Its more reasonable then to trust in this collectiveintelligence to provide and create added value that is adapted to all of theprofessions involved. With the desire to optimize performance and efficiency,this collaboration is impossible without basic technological support, in line withthe global Information System of the company.Technological support occurs through the implementation of collaborativeapplications for content production (like wikis) or collective publishing tools (likeGoogle Docs), but also occurs via Business Social Networks (BSN). A BSN canbring real added value, especially if it is used within the framework of specificprofessional projects: launching a new product, designing a layout, defining abenchmark etc. Through content sharing, physical and digital, and viaannotation and comments, a BSN allows employees to give direction to sharedinformation, tackle the different visions of the marketer, the engineer, thecommunications specialist and the product head. With a single interface toaccess Internet and hardcopy information, traceability and an activity history in
addition to co-production of content and direction, a BSN contributes to thecreation of economies of scale and is synonymous with gaining time andefficiency, improving margins of error and therefore performance.As a conclusion, monitoring for an enterprise 2.0 is in essence collaborative. Itbenefits from social software infrastructure and, in particular, does so whileunderstanding governance and management so as to ensure consistency and adynamic that directly ties into the companys business. Aref JDEY is a consultant-researcher specializing in oversight systems and information management. Aref has an authoritative blog, Demain la veille, on monitoring and issues that come up as it relates to Web 2.0, social networks and enterprise 2.0.
Knowledge management is not a new subject. About 15 years ago Nonaka andTakeuchi published an article explaining how tacit knowledge could be captured,shared and recorded, mainly through the use of nascent intranet technology. From thenon, knowledge management projects continued to multiply until it became apparentthey weren’t living up to expectations, leading ultimately to disappointment and wastedmoney. What happened? Under pressure from publishers to sell software, we hadforgotten a fundamental truth, as stated by Peter Drucker: ―Knowledge is between twoears and only between two ears.‖ The apple of knowledge is just an ordinary apple untilyou eat it. It is necessary therefore to find it, pick it and eat it to get the energy neededfor action. In other words, you need to actively look (monitoring, filtering usefulinformation) and then learn (analysis/synthesis, learning, ―rehashing‖) before beingable to benefit (implementation, know-how, integration into a new theory). By acting onwhat was information, that is to say, knowledge-in-waiting, it becomes working know-how, i.e. knowledge.
What’s up, doc?The arrival five years ago of a new generation of Internet-derived tools has completelytransformed the landscape of knowledge management. The fact that they came fromthe web is not insignificant. It means that very often they were created by individualdevelopers (to begin with, at least) in order to meet their own needs: improvedinformation sharing in a group project (Ward Cunningham’s wikis) or managingfavourites (Joshua Schacter’s Muxway/Delicious). These tools were designed to meetindividual needs—a very different situation from the first generation of knowledgemanagement tools, which were focused on the sacrosanct document and placed thegroup (project team, department) ahead of the individual. Enterprise social networks(ESN) and the tools associated with them (wikis, blogs, microblogging) are focused,once again, on the individual; every action they execute in the system is automaticallyassociated with their profile either visibly (group notification that So-and-So has sharedsuch-and-such document) or invisibly (recording and combining clicks in an Amazon-style collaborative filtering system). The primary aim of these tools is to meet both thepersonal needs of the individual—finding useful information or the right person in-house—and their collaborative needs: working in project mode, creating a practicecommunity etc. We always forget that collaborating for the sake of collaborating is notthe goal, at least not in the business world. Groups, networks, communities and teamsare, initially, no more or less than the sum of their individual members. With time, if allgoes well and the environment is favourable, this sum may become a multiplication oftalents. However, this is rare, strongly linked to the chemistry of the individualsinvolved, and rather unpredictable. This is not to say that we should not try to createthe conditions to encourage it. If the features of the tool used are designed to serve theneeds of the group before those of the individual, the individual will not be inclined touse it (the ―that thing is useless‖ syndrome).With ESNs, the individual is central because they initiate the conversation. By sharing alink to an important article, the individual generates reactions, discussion, argumentsand objections... added value in other words.In doing so, these systems that enable information to circulate hold potentially valuableelements. Snippets of information stored here and there have the potential, oncegrouped together by an internal search engine, for example, to provide useful decision-making tools. This is the reason why, in our opinion, the next elements to incorporate
into ESNs are natural language processing applications (text mining via graphicalinterfaces for example) which will allow the user to use this internal databasequantitatively.Returning to the comparison with the first generation tools, we must note theemergence of simple but indispensable ergonomic developments. One of the majorproblems was the fact that an employee had to duplicate information: I send the file tomy project group and then I file it in the company’s KM system. This ensured that theindividual spent most of their time working via email and hardly any time sharingknowledge by making contributions to the organisation2. Simple features now allowthem to carry out these two acts at the same time.Chronicle of a death foretoldLet’s be clear about this, enterprise 2.0 and the ESN have signed the death warrant forKM as we know it. Soon no one will be ―doing‖ knowledge management. We will goabout our business and let the system gather information, restructure it, classify it,index it and notify anyone who has set up an alert etc.But is this enough? Not all the information that an organisation needs can be turnedinto a conversation. Technical data, job descriptions, standards and other ―serious‖documents are hard to accommodate within conversations. There is therefore a bodyof documents that a ESN isnt able to handle. But is this new? For a long time in factthis information has been managed by professional applications, according to recordsmanagement and archiving procedures that are much better adapted. Moreover, it isnot knowledge that is more active than it was before, simply potential knowledge. Thisleads us to the conclusion that our systems have never managed (and will nevermanage) knowledge, and the question of knowledge management breaks down here.Both types of document are needed by organisations, however. Technical and formaldocuments must be managed because they ensure the quality of the output of the―production machine‖ that is the company. Conversations must also be managed2 Distinction proposed by Michael Idinopoulos between activities in the flow and above the flow.
because they ensure the smooth running of another machine equally vital to theorganisation’s survival, the ―innovation machine‖. This machine, because it is made upof people who think, look for and share information, doesn’t fit into a method ofinformation management which is standardised, normalised and codified. Trying toapply methods that have emerged from production management to the sphere ofinnovation and ideas renders them sterile. This is where 2.0 technology plays its role;by making the hierarchy more flexible and more adaptable to the complexities of reallife, thereby allowing the emergence of a 2.0 business, or more simply, of a businesswhich has succeeded in adapting to its environment. Christophe Deschamps is an independent consultant and training expert in information management and strategic monitoring. He is a professor at ICOMTEC and has blogged about Competitive Intelligence at Outils Froids since 2003. In 2009 Christophe published Le nouveau management de linformation - La gestion des connaissances au coeur de lentreprise 2.0 (The New Information Management - Knowledge management at the heart of enterprise 2.0) from FYP Editions.
Relating knowledge, the place of storytelling in Enterprise 2.0The objective of a so-called enterprise 2.0 can be oversimplified to facilitatingcollaborative relations between various actors in the organization. This is doneto enable discursive interactions (through "interactive applications") and tacitknowledge sharing, generally formalized as "experience feedback" (through"integrative applications3"; a DMS for instance). This is knowledgemanagement.According to Wikipedia, knowledge management can be defined as "a range ofstrategies and practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent,distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences." The goal ofsystems, managerial or technical, associated with enterprise 2.0 can be tofacilitate the circulation of employee knowledge in a company. One question toask is: how can this knowledge be formalized through a perspective of sharingthat is accessible to as many people as possible rather than for the reuse of"documents" (organized by defined, universal rules)?3 Charlot J-M., Lancini A., Faire de la recherche en système dinformation, Vuibert, 2002, Paris
"Storytelling" (as we will define it) is an interesting way to formalize thecirculation of knowledge within business networks (intranet, BSN etc.). Whatsmore is that these networks make it easier for various employees to interact andcommunicate.Storytelling: a narrative approach to knowledge sharingBasically, storytelling is a narrative communication approach: present themessage in the form of a story (tale, legend etc.) so the listeners can findreference points (analogies) that enable them to understand the meaning andespecially adopt the intended message more easily. Speaking more"conceptually", storytelling can be seen as a "strong cognitive hypothesis for theway in which we organize our experiences and therefore bring out meaning inour interactions.4" In other words: a way of formalizing our experiences, notaccording to their potential use (or reuse), but through the lens of interactionsand exchanges that enabled knowledge generation etc.More pragmatically, to paraphrase Edgard Morin, there is no given objectivereality; all of the knowledge that we develop is tied to the various interactionsthat weve had with others. For example, the process of creating a certainproduct is not innate; it is a result of the exchanges that take place betweenvarious project contributors. The interest is therefore to find and identify theinteractions (discussions within a BSN, exchanges on an internal blog, sharinginformation and points of view on a wiki) in order to then transmit them to otheremployees as a narrative. And therein lies the question of operating in an"enterprise 2.0": encourage and enable digital exchanges so they can beformalized, memorized and communicated to the people they affect the most(company newcomers for example). The goal of storytelling in enterprise 2.0 isto emphasize interactions and conversations as a way of supporting the transferof knowledge and tacit knowledge.What are the tangible uses within an organisation?4 Soulier. E (sous la dir), Le storytelling : concepts, outils et applications, Hermès Science, 2006, Paris
When talking about businesses operating on a collaborative 2.0 model, thereisnt a lot of feedback for storytelling strategies that have been implemented (atthe technical and managerial levels) for knowledge management purposes.Nevertheless, in a 2006 article from a French management review on theknowledge management system as a support for storytelling in business ("Lesystème de gestion des connaissances pour soutenir le storytelling danslentreprise.", Revue Française de Gestion), E. Soulier, a French researcherworking on the problem proposes several paths to develop a knowledgemanagement system based on storytelling. Here are some of those paths,together with some other thoughts and facts on the ground: Encourage narration during feedback by using video (video conferences, podcasting etc.): have an employee transmit their knowledge on a given issue using a video interview. "Staging" the experience feedback by encouraging an employee to propose a logical implementation explained in a narrative form facilitates the use of the "storytelling approach" for the transmission of their experience and knowledge. Propose, during individual feedback sessions or once a project has been completed, interviews (filmed or not) wherein each employee talks about their vision of the project. The goal is to bring out similar "stories", analogies that are used by everyone that can then be made available (using appropriate tools like a blog). Get moving again on the interactions and exchanges generated using internal 2.0 tools to try and "capture" the knowledge that comes up throughout the conversations. The use of tags can be useful (and reemphasize their role with certain tools) when they are inserted into a predetermined narrative. If the organisation has a BSN, allow employees to clearly define their own "digital identity". History is written by people, so every employee can be seen as having a fixed role in a project (for example). Their "personality"
characteristics—their skills, needs etc.—are promoted when they register on the network. Organising a project doesnt go through "who can do what?", but "which personality/digital identity will advance the story?" Present a project as an event within internal 2.0 tools.To sum up, dont present a "catalogue" of information about a project, but agroup of narratives that happen between the information. Right now, the use ofstorytelling within enterprise 2.0 is more of a theoretical vision than a practicalone. In order to be applied effectively, storytelling needs strong conversationand digital exchanges between employees: an honest conversational approachwhen working on company projects. The main idea is to render an operationalact subjective and to use the often informal conversations that take place usingthe organisation’s 2.0 tools to do so.Nevertheless, this approach (in a hypothesis wherein there is fertile terrain for itto grow) seems the best suited to the transmission of knowledge, tometaphorically reformulating the actions and knowledge of every person. Afterall, who hasnt listened to the head of a large company begin a "corporate"speech with an anecdote about the how and the why of their success?More than formalising practical knowledge, the narrative approach enables thetransmission of values unique to each organisation, values that are necessaryfor good collaborative practices in the company. Camille Alloing is a R&D researcher and author of CaddE- Réputation, a blog dedicated to online reputation-management tools and methodologies.
Learning is social by natureWithout going all the way back to the theories of Vygotsky or Albert Bandura,the simplest way to explain social learning is perhaps to look at the work ofRichard J. Legers (Harvard Graduate School of Education), who has shown thatone of the most important factors for success in higher education is a student’sability to form and/or participate in small study groups. In comparison to thosewho had worked alone, those students who had studied in a group, even onlyonce a week, were more involved and better prepared. The students from thesegroups were able to ask questions to resolve uncertainties and improve theirown understanding of the subject by hearing the answers to other students’questions. The most powerful element was the ability to play the role of teacherto other students, as it has been shown that the best way to learn is to teach.
The philosophy of social learning is in contrast to the traditional Cartesian viewof education. In the Cartesian model, knowledge is a kind of substance andlearning is a way for teachers to transfer this substance to their students.Instead of basing itself on the Cartesian principle "I think, therefore I am", thesocial conception of learning holds that "We participate, therefore we are".It is in society that we learn. Observation, discussion and collaboration are alsoopportunities to learn. The social aspect of learning is fundamental. Sociallearning is therefore not a novelty that has appeared alongside Web 2.0.Learning is not an eventWhen we talk about learning, we immediately think about formal learning; inother words, about training and education. However, this kind of organizedlearning only represents about 20% of everything we learn in our lives (see theworks of Cofer).Solving problems, design, creativity, research, experimentation and innovationare full-fledged learning experiences. Sharing experiences, observations,discussion, helping one another and cooperation are also kinds of learning.80% of our learning is therefore unexpected, unplanned and informal.From this point of view, the emphasis is less on the content and more on theactivities and the human interactions that take place around the content.Indeed, real learning can be found in all the nuances of our way ofcollaborating, sharing and working. Learning is not something that takes placeoutside of work. Learning and work are in fact part of a single stream; it’s acontinuous process, a skill, an ability to act.Enterprise 2.0 = Learning 2.0In our businesses, we know that informal learning takes place all the time, mostof the time however, the answers and the experts most capable of solving a
problem are not connected with the person who is attempting to tackle it. Sociallearning networks can remedy this situation by giving everyone access to amuch larger group of people who can help them.2.0 technologies are enabling technologies that connect us with each other,facilitating communication and collaboration. But they are not only technologies;and social learning, by allowing us to capitalise on the ever-increasing streamsof knowledge that have made the walls of our organisations porous, fills theempty barrels of 2.0.4Cs for Enterprise 2.0Because social learning necessitates design, training, support, leadership,oversight and highlighting successes both big and small, we have developed aninnovative and pragmatic approach in order to support our clients throughouttheir projects, both internally (tools and collaborative learning) and externally(social media). This approach facilitates acquiring and diffusing knowledgewithin social networks via an iterative and fractal process that can besummarised in four steps: Comprehension, Conversation, Collaboration andCapitalization.
Our 4C method is based on two indirect consequences of 2.0, which are vital forthe success of any Enterprise 2.0 project: visibility and transparency.Making work visible and transparentOne unexpected and rarely-acknowledged consequence of the first generationof IT tools (email, word processing) which make up our day-to-day workenvironment is to render the work process less visible, precisely at the momentwhen we need it to be as visible as possible.The end products of our work are highly refined abstractions. For example, thisarticle tells you nothing about the initial idea or its evolution. Likewise, it doesn’tgive you any information about the exchanges I may have had with my peers(via social networks or face-to-face), or about my own experiences that haveshaped my thinking.In business, the gains in personal productivity produced by these IT tools areoften made at the detriment of organisational learning.In the 1.0 world, I worked in an events management company. I was in chargeof organizing a professional trade show, and for a beginner like myself, thesales targets seemed unreachable. The only way to meet them was to bringtogether all the stakeholders of the project whilst meeting their needs (explicit orotherwise). I couldn’t rely on the planning boards from previous years’ shows, oron the sales databases, and even less on the dry minutes of old meetings tohelp me understand.I was lucky enough to have a managing director who gave me access to hisoffice for several months. I was able to access all his notes, emails and hisaddress book. I participated in all the formal and informal exchanges on thetopic. Within a few months I was able to sketch a reasonably accurate map of
the world of Florence that I had to navigate and proposed a strategy to makethis trade show an unmissable event. By allowing me to observe his work, thedirector gave me an invaluable learning opportunity.Transparency is the key to social learning and to Enterprise 2.0. Thistransparency encourages access to the people and information that we mayneed to make good decisions. It is the consequence of the open andmultidirectional communication made possible by social tools. It can’t beimposed or forced. Transparency in Enterprise 2.0 involves making our actionsand decisions visible to others. It’s about sharing information and knowing whohas provided it. We’re talking about accountability and recognition. By bringingpeople and their experiences and ideas together, social learning allows us toincrease our confidence in the shared information and in those who created it.Changing models: from "command & control" to"connect & animate"It is transparency that is proving the greatest challenge to the classic "commandand control" management model. Managers have to accept that information iscreated and spread more quickly over networks. They must also accept that thismovement will most often happen outside of their control.Lately, one of our clients told me that "the problem with your approach is that ifyou give everyone the right to speak, they might just take you up on it!" It’sprecisely this commitment to openness and transparency, which goes hand inhand with Enterprise 2.0, which must pressure management to innovate andadopt a "connect and animate" model.Your IT department and in-house lawyers will tell you that it’s risky. But theserisks can be managed. The value created by greater transparency in businessis much greater than the potential cost. On the contrary, the real risks areattached to a lack of transparency, to bad decision-making, to making the same