John Robb on the effects of the “Donut”

September 30, 2007 at 6:34 am · Filed under 2.0 Design Thinking, Business Model, Charles Handy, Donut, Emergent, Enterprise 2.0, John Robb, Public Media, Social Media, Wisdom of Crowds

How often have you see an organizations tell itself and the world that it is “The Best” and has the best people? Of course – this can never be true because in a complex world we can never know everything. And knowing does not mean that you read a good book or took a course. Knowing means that you are immersed. For instance of the thousands of excellent people in public radio and TV, or the hundreds of thousands in marketing – who is immersed in social media? In the public media area I would venture less than 30.
No matter how smart we are – we all need help? So how do you get the help? Shift to the “Donut” – taking this route will open up access to the talent you need at a price you can afford.

One of the cleverest people I know is John Robb. Here is a nugget from him that clarifies this point:

Here’s three simple insights for organizational success in a chaotic, complex, and hyper-competitive environment (and a way to use the wisdom of crowds to unearth talent that you need to thrive):

• The best people (to solve any given problem) don’t work for your organization. A corollary to this: if you don’t have the best people working for you, you will fail.
• Use transparency and the marketplace to find the best people located outside your organization (simple test: whose ideas capture the greatest mindshare within your organization?). NY City’s contest is a great example of using transparency as a means of finding great talent.
• Buy all of the time they have available.

NOTE (on when being good isn’t enough): Another trend is that an increasing number of problems are information/knowledge intensive. This means that an old rule from the software world applies: a couple of great programmers are more valuable than a room full of good ones. Apply this rule to any complex information-intense problem you face and you will get much faster, cheaper, and better results.

None of us have the best people for any of the myriad issues that confront our organizations. But the best people do exist. Why not use the “Donut” to bring them in to help you?

Comments

Organization – Choreography or Energy? Machine or Natural?

September 29, 2007 at 9:46 am · Filed under 2.0 Design Thinking, Business Model, Charles Handy, Donut, Emergent, Enterprise 2.0, Web 2.0

In the Ptolemaic Org design world – every move and every person is choreographed

Here is a clip from Chorus line showing the process – note that really experienced dancers are struggling. Imagine if on the night the music changed?

Here is a clip from UFIT – see how the group transition from one move to another. The class lasts for an hour and nothing is choreographed and most of the class are just regular folks.

I think that this shows me the essential difference between an energetic organization and a machine organization.

With social media you too can dance

Comments (2)

More on the reality of the “Donut”

September 29, 2007 at 7:27 am · Filed under 2.0 Design Thinking, Business Model, Charles Handy, Donut, Emergent, Enterprise 2.0, Relationships

[photopress:UFIT_circle.png,full,centered]

As I have been attending my client UFIT’s classes recently I have had a “Donut” moment. All at once the theory leapt into reality.

The picture above gives you a rough idea of the set up. As a newbie, I hang out trying not to be seen on the periphery. Gord is in the centre. Seen from this angle it would appear that we all follow him. But in practice this is not possible.

[photopress:Ufit_circle2.png,full,centered]

In practice, you have to follow the folks in the inner ring. These folks tend to be not only very experienced but are amplifying what Gord does. Note the guy in the red shirt – he is in the centre but is not connected. he is in effect working against the energy.

We have just noticed that while the instructor has to be energetically powerful, she or he is not very effective unless they have attracted this inner circle to themselves. We see this with new instructors – who have all the moves etc but not disciples. When Julie came as a guest to Charlottetown from her home base in Summerside, she brought her inner circle that has even named itself – Team Sweaty!.

[photopress:UFIT_Julie1.png,full,centered]

Julie is a great instructor but having her Crew with her lifted the entire experience. It appears that the inner circle interact with each other and with the point in the centre. They create a “Sun” that attracts the outer rings with their “light”, energy and gravity.

[photopress:Donut.png,full,centered]

So what does this mean?

I think that it means that we can now see how to operate the new organizational model. The new model is not a mechanical model that has friction and demands effort. It does not have to control every move and component. It is “Energetic”. If the centre and the inner circle are dense enough and in tune enough – the resulting energy will fill the system. My bet is that such an insight is behind the new reality of the 1% Rule for Networks such as for Wikipedia.

If we are correct – all of the current organizational theory can be thrown out the window. The current theory is like the old Ptolemaic (put the Earth in the centre) system. It was OK for a less complex world. But once people traveled around the globe – it became too complex. (They had to use very complex math to make it work giving the planets little orbits called epicycles) Our current organizational theory is based on a fallacy as was the Ptolemaic system – human organizations are not mechanical or kinetic – they are energetic. We all “Know” that really. Think of the days when the boss in at the office or away – think about the difference in “feel”. To make a mechanical system work, you have to have a non complex environment. A mass market ideal can be seen as being essentially “simple”.

But in a complex reality – as our interconnected world is today – a simple mechanical model can only work by making the processes over complex. Imagine trying to choreograph a UFIT class? The only way a UFIT class can work is an an organism that is connected energetically.

People moan on all the time about how hard change is. That is because in a machine model change is hard – it demands that parts are broken or that too much effort is put in choreography. But in a UFIT class, or in an organization that is set up energetically, change is fun, is easy and is natural.

So what then is the new work of the leaders in the energetic model?

• The person in the centre has to listen to the music and feel the energy of the system – they have to not only have the moves but be in tune with the group
• The person in the centre has to have their own Team Sweaty or inner circle. This group also have to be able to know the moves and to listen well.
• The larger and the more connected Team Sweaty is – the more powerful the energy is to attract the system
• So the organization is simplified as the Copernican Revolution simplified the universe. All the leader has to do is to hold the key ideas and attract and nurture the inner circle – the resulting energy will drive the system. No more attempting to choreograph and drill every part. Most of the effort, friction and labor goes away. With it most of the cost and the anguish.

[photopress:steam_engine.jpg,full,centered]
The old model is like this steam engine. It’s big, noisy, hot and very very inefficient. It has to run on tracks on a schedule. There is little flexibility. The smallest mistake in scheduling can lead to a big crash. Without constant reinvestment of outside resources it cannot grow.

[photopress:Earth_s_Solar_system_1.jpg,full,centered]

The new system is like this. It follows the 14 billion year old design that nature uses. It is so much more powerful than any machine. It is is a life creating system. It has a timetable measured in millenia.

So my friends the choice is clear and it is yours.

Do you want to run a railway or a solar system?

Comments (1)

1960 Organization Man Meets 2007 Social Network

September 26, 2007 at 10:17 am · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

Stanley Bing, who’s column regularly graces the back page of Fortune, brings old-world thinking to the brave new world of techno-business. In fact, he seems like a guy stuck in 1960, looking forward to his three-martini lunch. He probably spends the afternoon in his office practicing golf putts into a floor cup, just like the executives in those old movies, or Darren’s boss Larry at McMahon & Tate.

Yet, Bing’s the boss at a modern-day corporation. In this latest column, Bing gets some social networking religion. “These days a person without a social network is an island,” he decides.

However, being the face-to-face, drink-in-hand schmoozer he is, Bing decides he wasn’t cut out for such global electronic interactions. He didn’t like the idea of personal details “rocketing around a community the size of Sweden, available to a vast pool of people trolling the electronic landscape.”

How many other bosses out there would have be happier in a 1960 corporation than dealing with today’s digital realities? Plenty, I’m sure.

Comments

A New Twist on Enterprise 2.0 – aka Using Extranet 2.0 to Collect the Wisdom of Customer Crowds

September 25, 2007 at 1:22 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

Enterprise 2.0, like Web 2.0, is in part, about user-generated content, and increasing participation in key conversations. It is also about making all of this participation more accessible to bring more voices to enterprise decision making. Here is a company that is taking a different, and so far somewhat unique, approach to these goals.

Working in what might be called Extranet 2.0, Communispace builds, manages, and facilitates private, online customer communities allowing for ongoing customer conversations. It is a three way dialog with the company, the customers, and the Communispace facilitators.

An online customer community typically involves 300-500 invited prospects and customers who regularly spend time brainstorming ideas, sharing emotions and experiences, discussing trends, and helping a company figure out marketing and business issues. Unlike public customer forums, the private online communities are facilitated by Communispace with the goal of providing greater focus to the conversations and driving deeper insight.

I recently spoke with Debi Kleiman, Director of Product Marketing at Communispace who said, “we are one part private social network of brand advisors, one part insight engine – literally hardwiring the voice of the customer into their business. We find that those companies who get the most out of their communities, and make it a valuable asset to the enterprise, are those that use their communities strategically. In other words, they leverage it cross-functionally in their organization, involving many departments and disciplines, allowing first-hand access to the unfiltered voice of the customer to those who can really use it. And they use the community as a “hub” for their initiatives – whether with their agency partners or other working partners – it becomes the central point of thinking when framing and developing key marketing initiatives.”

The concept began in the spirit of co-creation as one of their customers suggested that they set up one of their online communities with their customers. The first community was successful and now there are over 275 communities with a 96% renewal rate, a nice validation of the co-creation concept.

One example is the HP IPG PhotoSpace community which provides access to an advisory board of target consumers who shared their opinions, wants, reactions, and ideas within this private group, allowing for greater candor. The HP group participants can also observe customer member interactions for insight into unmet needs. Using the online community makes it possible to generate user information and continuously test the HP customer experience. It also built customer interest and loyalty because of the sense of participation in sharing ideas but also in influencing product decisions. I also found this user involvement was always key to any enterprise initiative. It is nice to see it facilitated through these communities. As a result of the sense of co-creation, satisfaction ranked high in the HP community. The community won an HP internal competition for Best in Category for Innovative Customer Marketing Research.

In another example, the CDW community recently received an award from the Information Technology Services Marketing Association (ITSMA). Calvin Vass, Senior Manager, Market Research at CDW said, “Through our online communities, CDW receives continuous customer feedback from IT decision makers that allows us to include the voice of the customer in our day-to-day business decisions. We are able to act quickly on what customers are telling us and this allows us to develop stronger relationships.”

This is a nice business application of the James Surowiecki’s Wisdom of Crowds concept. These online communities offer another proof point for his well-known thesis that the aggregation of information in groups results in decisions that are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The collective conversation of a large group of customers certainly adds content well beyond what the marketing people, the product development people, the sales people, and the customer service people could do on their own. It is nice to see that the process of collecting these online customer conversations also helps bring together these individual groups within the enterprise. I think this approach demonstrates some of the diversity possible under the Enterprise 2.0 umbrella. It is a way of doing business more that a particular technology.

Comments (2)