21st Century Organization

Enterprise 2.0 RAVE Session 2 After Thoughts: Moving Organizations

May 22 I participated in Enterprise RAVE 2.0 Session 2.  Thank you Francois Goisseaux for an opportunity to be challenged by Harvard Business School's Andrew McAfee's questions, Euan Semple''s grounded thinking, and converse with Jim McGee and Jerry Bowles for the first time. The recording of a wide ranging discussion is now available. My highlights included:

• Andrew McAfee talking about Facebook and potential lessons for social workiing within enterprises
• Euan Semple expanding on his "Do Nothing" post describing behind the scenes conversations and politicking to support adoption of social tools within the BBC
• Jim McGee, and Andrew McAfee discussing the "messiness" of wikis, blogs, forums and executives' desire to impose structure
• Jerry Bowles reflecting on the value of "messy vitality over unity".

RAVE participants Michael Clarke and Lee White, in their event blog reports point to the Enterprise 2.0 RAVE conversation I'd like to continue: adapting organizations to the challenges social technologies provide.

Michael Clarke wrote:

"More generally, though, I couldn’t help feeling that the session as a whole shows that there is still something of a gulf between the consumer-driven, bottom-up focus of web 2.0 and the ambitions of the proponents of Enterprise 2.0 to bring about a similar level of change and disruption (a positive word in my lexicon) to the habits of organisations. I do believe that it’s possible to deploy the insights of community driven practice to bring about all manner of change within an organisation but I don’t think that it can be done without a deep understanding of the nature and dynamics of organisations. Still, early days."

and Lee White concluded:

"This thing we are calling Enterprise 2.0 is necessarily messy. It cannot be effectively created/implemented by a controlled, managed process. It has to be emergent. This will be a hard concept to swallow by those that are currently in power."

Andrew McAfee discussing Facebook reminded me of the "Social Life of Information" and Julian Orr's pioneering anthropological study of a high performing team of Xerox technicians it describes (page 99):

"The rep's work is critical to the company's overall purpose and so falls well within the class of value-adding processes. Nonetheless, as Orr found out, the reps might almost be said to succeed despite the company's best intentions. Their success is in good part a triumph of practice over the limits of process."

The technician's success resulted from close collaboration and knowledge sharing (including outside official working hours), and Xerox responded by developing technologies, including two-way radios (the forerunner of Nextel), to support their ability to connect.

In Social Life of Information John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid write (p8):

"The way forward is paradoxically to look not ahead, but to look around."

Looking around I see collaborative technologies have been nudging enterprises for around 4 decades:

• Doug Engelbart's 1968 demonstration debuted the computer mouse and shared screen collaboration.
• Bob Metcalfe invented Ethernet 3.5 decades ago (1972)
• Tim Berners Lee revealed the World Wide Web in 1991
• Ward Cunningham's wiki creation began in 1994
• Pyra Labs debuted Blogger in 1999
• 2003 del.icio.us launched
• 2003 Google acquired Pyra Labs/Blogger
• 2006 Trampoline Systems released Enron Explorer, revealing the 200,000 Enron emails used as their technology testbed AND the social networks of Enron executives
• 2006 Andrew McAfee described "Enterprise 2.0" and SLATES.

Yet, as the RAVE conversation indicated and participants Michael Clarke and Lee White confirmed, organizations resist adapting.  This is despite a growing body of knowledge about understanding and managing the socially networked organizations that computer network connections enable:

• Mid 1980's studies begin revealing the social nature of Xerox technicians' work
• 1987 Valdis Krebs starts practicing social network analysis in organizations
• 1992 Ronald Burt publishes "Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition"
• 1993 David Krackhardt & Jeffrey Hansen's "Informal Networks: The Company Behind the Chart" appears in Harvard Business Review
• 2001 Don Cohen & Larry Prusak release "In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work"
• 2003 Rob Cross & Andrew Parker produce 'The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations"
• 2004 Network Roundtable founded
• 2007 Duncan Watts "Accidental Influentials" number 1 Harvard Business Review "Breakthrough Idea".
• 2007 Patti Anklam publishes "Net Work: A Practical Guide to Creating and Sustaining Networks at Work and in the World"

The RAVE conversation exposed the challenge of social tools to organizations.  To me issues around "CONTROL" are key. (Slide 3 in presentation to the OD Network GNY December 2006.) The discussion also set me thinking about the importance of rebuilding management's TRUST in employees to maximize the potential of Web 2.0 tools for organizations. Andrew McAfee's student poll results have me considering the role of INCENTIVES, especiallly in light of lessons from the open source movement and Xerox's early Eureka project learning about the importance of RECOGNITION for encouraging PARTICIPATION.

During the RAVE Jerry Bowles indicated he is seeing an inflection point for the impact of social technologies in organizations.  Time will tell but regardless my main take away was thinking people with job titles like organizational "design" or "development" need to pay close attention.  If you are not already focused on "network weaving", "organizational network analysis" and understanding "collective intelligence" then it's time to take Euan Semple's counsel from Enterprise 2.0 RAVE Session 1 to "get moving". Otherwise prepare to be made obsolete by smart, Web 2.0 tool empowered employees, seeking forgiveness rather than permission, busily creating value through anthills of innovative activity, and in the process, reinventing your organization around you in ways you can't even imagine.

What have I missed?

What do you see when you look around at your organization and the impact and potential for the latest generation of social working tools? 

~ Jenny Ambrozek

Enterprise 2.0 RAVE Session 1 Nuggets: Flipping Perspectives

Seth Godin in promoting viral marketing practices talks about "Flipping the Funnel". It occurred to me during the first Enterprise 2.0 RAVE session May 21 the real value was in "flipping", through lived experiences in organizations, some popular misperceptions about enterprise use of social tools.

Euan Semple provided the following examples:

1. Perception: Social Tools don't fit with regulated industries.

   Response: On the contrary, wikis for example are probably the most easily audited conversation tool there is, especially compared to email.

2. Participatory tools undermine authority in organizations

   Response: When tools prove valuable to people lead users act to preserve their use when, for example, inappropriate use by individual participants threatens their future.

3. Social Tools Facilitate Idle Chatter and Waste Time

    Response: Indeed employees spend time sharing using participatory media but it is no more than happens in water cooler and hallway conversations in organizations.

Plus:

i. Information shared is public and can be useful to more colleagues than from 1 to 1 conversations

ii. As exchanges are public, people are less likely to disparage others.

Monday's RAVE conversation benefitted from a focus on real experience and lessons for implementing. It confirmed what we've come to understand, that the most successful approach for adopting Enterprise 2.0 technologies is validating by starting small, choosing initiatives where you can be successful, and building from there.

Host Francois Goisseaux requested parting "words of wisdom" from featured speakers. Here's a taste of the discussion: 

EUAN: "Keep moving"*. Stay in touch and head for the high ground.

JOE:  Enterprises are losely coupled systems. Interoperable. Businesses are brokers, collections of services. Need social computing to bring together teams on ad hoc basis to address business needs for delivering a product or service.

BILL:  Good way to start is using a wiki to plan an event. Prove the concept.

SUSAN:  Do anything low risk try something new. FaceBook. Twitter.

The Enterprise 2.0 RAVE discussion continues Tuesday May 22 at 11am EDT.  It's an opportunity to hear directly from Andrew McAfee in addition to the RAVE panelists. I'll be participating and welcome your company.

- Jenny Ambrozek

* 5.22.07 - Edit to insert "keep moving" following speaker review.

FAS Research: Visualizations of a Hypernetworked World

Thanks to Jeffrey Keefer for alerting me to FAS Research social network analysis and especially their Visualizations Gallery.  Jeffrey heard FAS spoke at Friday's Personal Decomocracy Forum. Judging from the program it was quite the event, starting with an opening keynote from Eric Schmidt and Thomas Friedman. although interesting ratings from the first commenters on the opening session.

FAS shares attention getting visualizations showing social network analysis applied to a range of business and political influence networks.

Thought provoking viewing.

~ Jenny Ambrozek

"They Rule" but where does the POWER really lie?

Via Michael Clarke's "Lazyboy blogging" post a terrific collection of interesting sites.  (If this is "Lazyboy" blogging clearly Michael sets a high posting standard.)

I was inspired to start a "Tumblelog" and will see if Tumblr delivers on their promise of:

"the refreshingly simple new way to share anything you find, love, hate or create".

What really caught my attention was "TheyRule" briefly explained this way:

"They Rule allows you to create maps of the interlocking directories of the top companies in the US in 2004.
The data was collected from their websites and SEC filings in early 2004, so it may not be completely accurate - companies merge and disappear and directors shift boards."

I found the interface a little confusing at first but how intriguing are the searches.

"TheyRule" and the transparency into boards it provides reminded me of Forbes recently launched Corporate OrgChart Wiki. (My colleague Victoria Axelrod blogged about the special Forbes 90th Anniversary edition on "Networks" that announced the Orgchart wiki.)

Has anyone seen traditional media coverage of either "TheyRule" or the Forbes Corporate OrgChart Wiki for I haven't and I'm wondering about this. I rather imagined the Forbes Wiki would make corporate executives uneasy.

Searching for reactions to both I did find an interesting BusinessWeek blog comment by Stephen Barker who found the OrgChart Wiki disappointing. Why? Because:

"I'm more interested in the informal structures of companies. OK, sew-and-sew is supposed to report to this person, but she actually has most of her interaction with that one. And in fact, there's a whole cluster of people who appear to be under the influence of... Is that an outside contractor?

Those are the sorts of relationships I'm looking for. The org charts in the Forbes Wiki outline the sidewalks and flagstones of corporate world as they're designed from on high. But how about the short cuts people take, those pathways where the grass has been worn away? Those show where people are really walking. They point to real power inside a company. How do we get that information up on a wiki?"

Great point and I have to believe David Krackhardt and Jeffrey Hansen would agree.

~ Jenny Ambrozek

Enterprise 2.0 RAVE Virtual Events May 21-22: Schedule & Survey Invitation

The Enterprise 2.0 RAVE, originally planned as a physical event to take place in NYC has gone virtual.

2 sessions are planned May 21-22 with Andrew McAfee opening the discussion Monday 21 at 2pm EDT on:

Enterprise 2.0: Getting started and measuring success:  Is it better to start small and iterate fast or plan for an enterprise-wide deployment? How do you balance the need for organic, self-organized growth with other enterprise requirements?

The conversation continues Tuesday May 22 at at 11am EDT on:

Adoption issues related to Enterprise 2.0 deployments, ranging from people processes, to the tools themselves.

I look forward to participating in the Tuesday discussion and hope you will join us.

Please register here.

To provide meat for the conversations a market readiness survey is being conducted.  Your contribution and insights are appreciated.

The Enterprise 2.0 RAVE discussions provide a great opportunity to hear from Andrew McAfee and share your perspective about the reality of Enterprise 2.0 adoption.  I hope busy schedules will allow time to participate.

~ Jenny Ambrozek

Target: "Creative Chic" & Partnerships

While there's no Target store in my neighborhood I do know Smith & Hawken as a high end speciality retailer so what a surprize discovering through a New York Times advertising insert this weekend the two companies are partners.  A January 2006 Target press release describes the partnership.  Casual Living, a Reed Business site reveals the arrangement dates to 2005.

Target's brand differentiation and design partnerships already gained attention from Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge in 2004:

"Target's outside-the-box strategy made it the No. 2 discounter behind you-know-who. "Tar-zhay's" success is examined in this excerpt from the new book Simply Better, from Harvard Business School Press."

describing how:

"In 2002 the Minneapolis-based Target Corporation leapfrogged Kmart to become the United States's second-biggest discounter behind the $218 billion giant Wal-Mart."

and the strategic decisionmaking that lead to it's ascendance with the "cheap chic" positioning:

"The first choice would have thwarted future growth, and Wal-Mart was already a low-cost producer, so Target chose the third option and decided to reposition itself as a mass merchandiser of affordable chic goods."

Target's name as an innovator was on my mind having heard from fellow Australian and PRODIGY alum Kirsty Hamilton during a recent New York City visit that Target Australia was distributing a line of clothing by Stella McCartney. (A post to an Adelaide Now blog suggests that launch gained unintended news coverage.)

Regardless, a 5 year TGT stock chart indicates Target's creative partnerships strategy with high end designers and established brands continues to work. And the Kodak Gallery deal today reveals the partnering continues. Evidence for the wisdom of Ranjay Gulati's presentation to the November 4 2004 Network Roundtable on "Realizing the Value of Networks Outside Organizations" through expanded external relationships. I wonder how Target keeps the creativity alive.

~ Jenny Ambrozek

Web 2.0 Reality: "Not a fad". "Far-off" questions. And Jeffrey Neuburger has legal checklists

Buzz around Web 2.0 and rate of adoption continues.

The following caught my recent attention:

1. Patricia Seybold- THE WEB 2.0 WAVE--WHY IT’S NOT A FAD

Reports the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco particularly addressing the Web 2.0 "culture". "technology", and end goal of empowering customers and employees. While my head spins at "2.0" and "3.0" lexicon additions, the related post: WHAT’S BEYOND WEB 2.0 AND ENTERPRISE 2.0? BIZ 3.0! also recommended reading.

2. Stowe Boyd: Reflections from Cutter Conference Presentation

A dose of down to earth as Stowe reports questions described as coming from "far-off places" about Wikipedia accuracy and narcissitic blogging. Interesting observations about generational differences in social media adoption and what blogging is really about.

3.  Jeffrey Neuburger on Web 2.0 and the Law

Each year New York law firm Brown Raysman, (now Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner) hosts a not to be missed "New Media and Emerging Technologies" briefing.  The April 17 event was no exception with firm leaders summarizing key industry legal cases and their implications.  Jeffrey Neuburger's opening slide showing a Web 2.0 technology tags cloud and walk through of legal matters around:

i. Collaborative content in the enteprise, and externally

ii. Crowdsourcing

iii. Open Source 

iv. Personally identifiable information

v. Technical infrastructure transition agreements

made clear Web 2.0 is serious business.

~  Jenny Ambrozek

Simon Wardley & Tim O'Reilly are talking, & I'm thinking about "Whole New Minds"

Simon Wardley has kindly and thought provokingly responded to my questions about open source lessons for organizations more broadly. My challenge this past week:

When Simon talks there is so much to ponder. Where does one start?

The joy of the Web, wise advisors to fuel thinking without their even knowing it.  Deb Schultz making the case for creativity and authenticity trumping technology, and Jon Husband' writing about more or less hierarchy helped but listening to Tim O'Reilly's interview with Steve Hargadon made me wonder:

Is the key lesson from listening to Simon Wardley and the open source movement about new talents and minds?

In a "Whole New Mind" Dan Pink makes the case for "Moving from the information age to the conceptual age".  Simon Wardley lists "a couple of Masters (Cambridge & Glasgow) that I don't believe are in computer science. In the Steve Hardagon interview Tim O'Reilly talks about his college education in Greek and the classics and argues for the value of "mental models of how the world works" and figuring it out.  O'Reilly also expresses skepticism about formal education, and describes observing in the computer industry how creativity comes from those with different backgrounds, with their formal education almost always not in the area where they have made an impact.  Important is the ability to apply knowledge in a new context, to bring fresh thinking.

Simon Wardley offers much to consider in his post expanding on: 

i. "you cannot efficiently plan out the process of development as it is more akin to research and therefore dynamic".
ii. "three axis of technology, people and requirements being relatively unknown"
iii. "try, measure and adapt".

I see open source movement lessons for organizations in how to balance managing core intellectual assets and brands, the equivalent of the "kernel", against encouraging grassroots collaboration and innovation to fuel continued growth. But having met Simon and listening to Tim O'Reilly I'm sensing open source movement successes also teach the importance of engaging people with fresh talents and mental models to addressing business problems.  Curious what you think.

~ Jenny Ambrozek

A Question about Influence: Murdoch's Effort to Buy the Wall Street Journal

Deb Schultz in a wonderful "backlogged" post describes living in:

"a constant state of "behind on posts"  - it's a dull thud in the back of my head."

One of my dull "thuds" grew from watching "INFLUENCE" appearing in multiple blog posts, particularly in Steve Rubel's "Become an Online Influencer by Modeling Tiger Woods" and Ross Dawson quoting Dave Snowden in writing about Enteprise 2.0 Adoption:

"If you aim to influence, but not design evolution you have more control than if you attempt to design an ideal system."

After meeting Heath Row at NYC Podcamp I discovered his Doubleclick report on "Influencing the Influencers: How Online Advertising and Media Impact Word of Mouth". And of course Harvard Business Review's making Duncan Watts "Accidental Influentials" the number 1 breakthrough idea for 2007 gets one's attention.

Hence I listened closely today to a CNBC interview exploring concern about Rupert Murdoch's increased political INFLUENCE if he succeeds in buying the Wall Street Journal.

The effect of INFLUENCE and how you map it has intrigued me since Rob Cross, Network Roundtable convenor and author of "The Hidden Power of Social Networks" helped Joe Cothrel and I craft an influence question for our Online Communities in Business 2004 Study. (The findings appear in Chapter 4 of our report.)

What I'm learning as my blogging colleague Victoria Axelrod and I fine tune our forthcoming research study, is that writing elegant questions to map "influence" networks is not as easy as I recalled working with Rob Cross and Joe Cothrel 3 years ago.  In fact I've concluded it is both art and experience.

~ Jenny Ambrozek

Looking back, PRODIGY: Looking forward, Enterprise 2.0

Thanks to fellow alumni I learned USA Today, in publishing its list of Things that Changed the Internet ranked the PRODIGY Service along with Compuserve, as number 13.

Confronted with AOL's newer technology, addition of chat and instant messaging, aggressive marketing and freer member content rules, PRODIGY lost it's industry leading status. Still being part of a pioneering organization with great people creating a new consumer online services industry, was an exciting and valued experience.

PRODIGY was the first online service to launch a Web browser in December 1994.  IBM still holds patents developed at PRODIGY, that are the basis for a recent infringement court case against Amazon. The PRODIGY name lives on in Mexico and the Caribbean as an Internet provider owned by Telmex.

May 21-22 I will be part of the Enterprise 2.0 RAVE conversation in New York.  It's easy to dismiss learning from earlier technologies. Still I believe PRODIGY alum will agree, (and please correct me if otherwise), lessons we learned nearly 2 decades ago remain relevant in discussing new technology adoption today. Specifically:

i.  Continuing to innovate is key to success. Once you set out on a technology adoption path, you are committed.

ii.  Having technology users invest in a technology is vital to continued and repeat use. I vividly recall our early learning about the retention power of online banking and travel reservations that required members to create profiles.

iii. New technologies strain established corporate cultures. In recent years this is evident as organizations confront blogging and tussle with comfortable corporate blogging guidelines. In PRODIGY days, corporate parents IBM and Sear's need to protect established brands could not compete with AOL's start up, nothing to lose, higher risk taking attitude.

~ Jenny Ambrozek