by Joe McKendrick
March 26, 2008 at 10:25 pm · Filed under
Donut, Enterprise 2.0, Mashups, Messy World, SOA, Web 2.0
Is Web 2.0 a potential peril to productivity? Is there a risk of employees spending their time on the company dime engaged in superfluous online activities, like trashing ex-girlfriends/boyfriends or watching music videos on YouTube?
Both Andrew McAfee and Dion Hinchcliffe have publicly stated that they are seeking examples of serious productivity issues resulting from Web 2.0 deployments. So far, Dion reports, “no one has come forward with a significant story around productivity loss, or misuse of these tools in the enterprise. “We have been unable to hear even one. So far, the evidence is looking favorable.”
Dion had recently joined Beth Gold-Bernstein, my colleague from ebizQ, who hosted a fascinating online panel discussion on the growing convergence between SOA and Web 2.0. Beth and Dion were joined by ZapThink’s Ron Schmelzer, and Doug Wilson, CTO of portals and collaboration products at IBM.
For those managers who fear the ramifications of productivity loss as a result of unleashing Web 2.0 into their enterprises, think back to the first Macs and Windows-based PCs 20 years ago, said Doug Wilson. “When we introduced GUIs 20 years ago, there was the same question. Weren’t we going to waste a lot of time, people moving the mouse around?”
Of course, PCs and Macs had a very different kind of an impact on productivity.
An even more delicious example is employee orientation at a candy factory, Doug added:
“Candy makers indoctrinate people by telling them to eat as much candy as they want off the line for the first day, or anytime else for that matter. After 20 minutes, people will have had their fill.”
Likewise, when a new technology or technique is introduced, it’s only natural for people to try and learn and teach themselves. That’s how human beings learn — they experiment and play.”
Dion also provided this example of how Web 2.0 sweeps through the enterprise:
“AOL rolled out…a very heavyweight content management platform. But users gravitated to a new media wiki platform, the same platform that powers Wikipedia. Within a couple of months, because the tool was so much easier to use, and had been proven on a very large scale, with all the adoption kinks worked out of it in that very large laboratory called the Web… it was successful to the point where 95% of their content management now occurs in those platforms.”
This is a fairly common story, Dion added — analogous to the way the PC came into the back door of organizations 20 years ago.
by Joe McKendrick
February 13, 2008 at 12:54 pm · Filed under
Donut, Economics, Messy World, New Realities, User Revolution, Web 2.0
A couple of weeks back, I ran a couple of posts (here and here) that talked about how social networking and Web 2.0 technologies may make things different for people in the next economic downturn — be it this year or some other time in the future. New technologies and online services may help empower people to forge through lean times with new opportunities, versus becoming victims of the economy — as has been the case in times gone by.
Rob Paterson just posted this account of a Yahoo employee who was Twittering his way out the door after being laid off. What better way to communicate your situation — and availability for new opportunities — to the world? Truly astounding, and an incredible , empowering resource. That dude probably won’t be spending too much time on the unemployment rolls.
Forrester’s Josh Bernoff has weighed in with some of his thoughts on how Web 2.0 would prevail through a down economy. “Things are different this time,” he opines. For example, we won’t a repeat of the devastation of the 2001 recession, because this is “not a tech bubble” as it was in 2000-2001. “Technology spending is not irrational,” he points out. Agreed.
Josh adds that social networking platforms will flourish in a down economy, however. While advertising may get cut, marketers will see greater value in blogs and social networks. And the best part is that social applications “can be nearly free (think blogs, Ning.com, facebook pages) and even more sophisticated communities are typically $30K to $200K — a lot cheaper than a significant sized ad campaign.” Plus, being all digital and all, social network-based responses are extremely measurable.
So the social networking platforms will do just fine in the event the economy were to go south for a while — and in fact, may even receive a boost from companies seeking inexpensive channels to their customers. And, as I mentioned previously, end users will have that power in their hands as well.
by Rob Paterson
October 5, 2007 at 1:41 pm · Filed under
2.0 Design Thinking, Business Model, Charles Handy, Conflict, David Kilkullen, Donut, Enterprise 2.0, Sponsored Post, Terror
I have been writing about how the “Donut” will replace the traditional organization.
Here is Kilkullen on how the “Donut” works in the Terror context:
I find it fascinating when I find that someone I don’t know has seen the same as I.
by Rob Paterson
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?
by Rob Paterson
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
