October 28, 2007

You are currently browsing the daily archive for October 28, 2007.

Hugh Macleod posts some thoughts he’s experienced whilst going about what he does

.

7. When thinking about applying social media to companies, "What social media tools should we use" should not be the first question. "How do we wish to talk to people differently" should be the first question. If you don’t have an answer to this, quit your job and go find something else.

8. None of this stuff is rocket science. Most of it is glaringly obvious. And sadly for folks working in the social software industry, "The people who get it, don’t need us. And the people who need us, don’t get it." Which is why being a "blog consultant" or whatever is a lot less lucrative and rewarding than people often think.

.

Tags: , , ,

Powered by Qumana

Here’s the content of three introductory slides from IBM Lotus’ take on the emerging world of Enterprise 2.0 (principles and applications of Web 2.0 applied to knowledge work).

.
First Slide

The Virtual Workplace

- 58% of IT Executives consider their company to be a virtual workplace

- 90% of employees work in locations other than headquarters

- Between 60% and 70% of employees work in different locations from their bosses

- The number of virtual workers has increased by 800% over the past five years

.

Second Slide

IBM’s CEO Survey

- 750 CEOs cited collaborative innovation as the most important competitive advantage they must cultivate.

IBM 2010 CIO Outlook
1. Employee driven integration
2. Global collaborative innovation
3. Aggressive pursuit of simplicity and hosting

Priorities:
Digital Collaboration Infrastructure

.

Third Slide

Dealing With Technological & Cultural Change

• Technology savvy generation is entering the workforce

• The Consumer world and Enterprise world are merging

• Gaming can teach us a lot about collaboration

• Content includes much richer forms of media

• Knowledge workers can now assemble “do it yourself” applications.

• Communities are forming both inside and outside the firewall.

.

Tags: , , , , ,

Powered by Qumana

Random Citings …

Well, maybe not so random.  I did use Technorati, after all, to find this thoughtful blog post titled "Workplaces Internally and Externally" by Wade M. (Thoughts from a twenty-something guy living in Sydney, Australia - The Brain of Wade). 

If he really is twenty-something and is thinking as deeply and cogently as I infer from reading this blog post and others on the blog, I feel for him … because he’s seeing the big picture at a pretty early stage in life, I think, and there are times as you get older that the big picture can seem pretty disheartening.

On the other hand … there will not be any shortage of thorny complex problems with which to engage.

Always look on the bright side of life, ta-dum, ta-dum …

.

Workplaces Internally and Externally

[ Snip ... ]

From my limited direct experience, as well as second and third-hand understanding, the cubical and the process-worker still seems to be the way most workplaces are run. These structures seem to inhibit enjoyment, co-operation, communication, and happiness and effectively dis-able their employees.

When as people we feel involved, and responsible for our actions and output, we feel happier, and do a better job. When we are allowed to think, we become enabled nodes and peers, no longer following, but helping to shape and create something greater than before. From nothing comes something. The success of peer2peer file-sharing, and wikipedia shows the power of self-coordinating peers, when allowed to act and do.

An employee who feels passionate about his workplace, who enjoys the people and his work, is less likely to be sick, and more likely to stay a part of the developing company. The company gains even greater productivity as well as knowledge retention. Dialogue and communication take places, collaboratively they steer the ship to their common vision, not some top-down management approach that seems illogical to the employee. This is the wirearchy.

A workplace when buying (raw) resources looks at the capital investment required. Most often, the lowest costing resource is brought about through lowest/slave labour and the unsustainable pillaging of resources. This model in both the short and long term hurts the local economies hindering their development, keeping them trapped. They have no money to spend locally, they can’t buy anything locally, they can’t develop or invest money back into their economy. Resources that are taken at low margins from these places are converted elsewhere, and finally marked up sometimes 100’s of percent.

The workplace sees the buying of the resource and the selling of the finished produce as two unrelated events. The flow of profit, does not go back to where it’s needed to help bring local worker and economies out of poverty, instead it is kept for it’s own sake. Again we have the slave to the capital. It’s accumulation makes the companies slave to the dollar, no longer a tool for development. Please drink Dilmah tea.

.

Tags: , , ,

Powered by Qumana

Dave is a busy fellow.  Dave is also a very smart and very practical fellow.

The most recent issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR) carries an article by he and co-author Mary Boone titled "A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making".  One of the most interesting things about the framework to which the title refers is that is based upon and derived from complexity science.

Notwithstanding any speculation about the need for leaders that folks like me and Dave Pollard get up to, I am quite certain that we humans will keep using leaders as a fundamental part of how we make decisions and take actions for a while yet.  So providing leaders with a framework based on science rather than, say, gut feel seems (to me at least) like something worth investigating.

Given it’s likely that we won’t collectively jettison the placement of leaders at the head of our collective or organizational decision-making processes in the next short while, I am glad that Dave Snowden and Mary Boone’s framework is getting wider exposure.  It was developed over the past decade or so with help from some of his colleagues - I don’t know the full story of it’s development.

I took a three-day intense (!) course titled "Complexity, Narrative and Sensemaking" last February to become a certified Cognitive Edge practitioner.  The course, along with the significant volume of pre-course reading, outlined the theory, the methods and the application of the Cynefin Framework for sensemaking.

I have told any number of people that for me this framework has pulled together more than 20 years of pretty deep exploration and study of strategy, organizational development, cultural anthropology and organizational change theory and methods. 

It simply was one of the two best courses about core organizational and business issues that I have ever attended.  The other was a three-day master class with 10 other people in London in 1992, led by Charles Handy.  Dave is in good company there.

The excerpt below is from HBR’s editor’s review / introduction to the article, which is available here behind the HBR paywall.  Thomas Stewart has a pretty good grounding in these and related issues himself, having written the book "Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations" a decade or so ago.

.

What Kind of Decision Is It?

[ Snip ... ]

What they have learned, and what this article shows, is that often people respond to issues almost reflexively, like the proverbial man with a hammer to whom everything looks like a nail. Smart leaders choose their tools according to their sense of the kind of decision they face. Simple situations are best met with simple tools, like rules: "Don’t stick your finger into an electrical outlet," for instance. Other situations — for example, complicated problems with many different parts that nevertheless have a right answer — call for the services of an expert: If your wiring is bad, better call an electrician rather than try to fix it yourself. Still other cases are so chaotic, so senseless, that a leader should simply step in and do something, like a teacher wading in to stop a school yard squabble.

The situations leaders encounter most fall into none of these classes but rather into a fourth: circumstances that are complex, where the truth is not immediately evident even to an expert but emerges over time, where cause-and-effect relationships are not well established, where positive results come from offering incentives rather than issuing commands, and where, consequently, the tools of influence and decision making are subtle and ill-defined. Most leaders are told that it is important to be (or appear to be) decisive.

Fair enough — but how is one to reconcile the imperative of decisiveness with the reality of ambiguity? There’s a growing body of academic research about decision making under uncertainty. (If you Google the term, you will get — or I did — 284,000 hits.) Not much of this research has worked its way into practical frameworks for managers. To me, one of the great values of "A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making" is that it lives up to its title. In so doing, it connects sense-making to action in ways that are both wise and practical.

Thomas A. Stewart

.

Tags: , , , , ,

Powered by Qumana