Building the Enterprise 2.0 Business Case, One Collaboration at a Time

July 3, 2009 at 4:36 pm · Filed under 2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, SOA, Social Computing, andrew mcafee

When Harvard’s Andrew McAfee, the spiritual leader of the Enterprise 2.0 movement, first heard the term “Web 2.0″ back in the early part of the decade, he metaphorically rolled his eyes. After all, the much-hyped dot-com economy had just imploded, and the Y2K scare turned out to be a lot of fear-mongering.

As he recounts in his new book, Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges, his initial reaction to Web 2.0 talk was “Oh, give it a rest, would you?” He confessed that he ” wanted to spend as little time as possible investigating Web 2.0 because I was so convinced that it was nothing more than a new marketing buzzphrase invented by a vendor or member of one of the helper industries, and that it was yet another example of the tech sector’s tendency to put old wine in new bottles.”

However, exploring Wikipedia in 2005, he discovered that 2.0 was a phenomenon that had legs — and vast, untapped potential for the enterprise. McAfee states that the real opportunity behind Enterprise 2.0 isn’t the Internet, nor what the technology offers to entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, coders, or CIOs. Instead, Enterprise 2.0 holds profound promise for operational or line managers — who “have frequently been left out of IT discussions, which in my view is a serious mistake.”

The promises of Enterprise 2.0 include “significant improvements, not just incremental ones, in areas such as generating, capturing, and sharing knowledge; letting people find helpful colleagues; tapping into new sources of innovation and expertise; and harnessing the ‘wisdom of crowds,’” McAfee writes.

However, getting to Enterprise 2.0 and making it work for organizations requires high levels of commitment from management. As McAfee also points out in the book, “the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 are available to any organization. These benefits, however, are not automatic. Experience shows that it’s surprisingly difficult for people and organizations to move away from their current collaborative tools and habits and adopt new ones. Managers must involve themselves in this transition if they want it to be successful.” Many organizations, he adds, “feel that they’re currently stumbling rather than excelling” at Enterprise 2.0.”

Perhaps even the most complicated challenges — such as unraveling years of bad management decisions — could be tackled with greater collaboration, bringing all the minds of the business together.

(The first chapter Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges is available for free download here, with registration.)

Comments

Enterprise 2.0 ‘Changes the Game’ for Business Process Management

July 2, 2009 at 8:37 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

No matter how automated a workflow may get, there are always stages in which things need to stop for an exception, an approval or a quality check. The role of human interactions has always been a complicating factor in business processes. Introducing Enterprise 2.0 approaches may help shift the emphasis from business process re-engineering to business process re-energizing.

Pete Swabey has documented instances in which major companies started addressing critical business problems with enterprise 2.0 approaches. There is growing evidence that social software is changing the way companies design and execute business processes.

For example, at Aviva, a UK-based insurance company, employees have been collaborating online around “smart spaces” to come up with new ideas.

To quote Toby Redshaw, CIO of Aviva:

“A good, well-positioned Web 2.0 platform bypasses the obstacles in a hierarchy; it changes the game. You want expertise to be virally available. You want smart interactions to happen horizontally, not up a hierarchy, across a boundary and back down.”

Enterprise 2.0 approaches synch more closely with human interaction across enterprises — something traditional business process re-engineering misses. As Phil Gilbert of Lombardi Software put it, business process re-engineering is “a rigid sequence of events is one that does not suit human beings. The traditional notion of a business process comes from the manufacturing world where you can standardize the inputs and outputs of a given process.”

Harvard’s Andrew McAfee, the guru of Enterprise 2.0, pops up in Swabey’s article as well, explaining how typical business processes are too inflexible for exceptions. Enterprise 2.0 tools can “help employees work together to manage  unexpected exceptions to business processes.”

You know organizations are getting serious about Enterprise 2.0 when people start talking about building social networking into business processes.

Comments (2)

The New is not “Self Evident” Nor is it found at the Centre - The Disruptive Media lives in Philadelphia

July 2, 2009 at 7:55 am · Filed under Adoption, Clayton Christenson, Culture, Enterprise 2.0, Innovator's Dilemma, Interview, Media, Movie Making, Organizational Design, Public Media, Social Media

One thing I know is true- real innovation - the disruptive idea that declares independence from the old system - can only happen at the edge.

So this spring when I got a call from Howard Blumenthal CEO of MiND, in Philadelphia, my instincts told me that this was a very very important call.

No TV operation is more unique than MiND (or, properly, MiND: Media Independence).

MiND is not a PBS affiliate. It broadcasts a stream of 5-minute programs, many made by MiND’s staff producers, some made by members of the public who attend MiND’s production Boot Camps. MiND is both on air and on the web. The staff have their own voice in a way that I have never seen anywhere before in media or ANY other place of work. It was not only a novel TV operation - it was a novel organization. It was what a 2.0 organization would be like- inside and outside. As an independent community licensee, MiND makes the most of its freedom–and engages everyone who walks through the door.

So I booked my flight and flew down to see Howard and his team.

So what did I find? How to make TV, the Gutenberg of our time.

You don’t believe me? Please invest 5 minutes in this film.

Did you get it? I found it compelling. A beautifully crafted story. Here is a heartfelt comment on IMDB. Made by a real pro - right? No - made by a regular citizen, Leontyne Anglin, whose passion is the topic but who had never made a film before.

The impact of Gutenberg’s technology in the 1500’s was to give people a voice. If video and TV are the main means of communication today, then the “New TV” must give people a voice. This is surely more than uploading to YouTube or adding comments to a web video. Merely pointing and shooting does not make you a filmmaker. When you have the ability to tell a story well - then you need a place where your early work reaches an audience with an already-established relationship with a trusted brand.

This is what happens at MiND. Day-in and day-out. It’s the reason why the system was built. And it’s working.

The key to MiND is found in its willingness to help the public learn how to be real video storytellers. MiND’s core members have joined a tribe of filmmakers with something to say. MiND’s eagerness to provide every storyteller access to its Trusted Space makes all the difference—MiND is a branded space that adds real depth and texture to the word “public” in the term “public television.”

How does MiND do this?

First of all, MiND employs a production staff drawn from the public and not from the priesthood. It has attracted such a staff by its culture and by its remarkable intern-and-volunteer system. While many stations regard interns as more trouble than they are worth, MiND has transformed coping with, and training, more than 200 interns into common practice. As such, the keen are fed into the system and the cream rise to the top. Nearly a third of MiND’s current staff members started as either volunteers or interns.

Secondly, MiND has built a transformational training system modeled on and called ‘Boot Camp.’ It is transformational in that a citizen comes in with all sorts of wild expectations about television and media; after six hours of intensive training, she is on the path to making a real MiND program that will go on the air and become part of MiND’s extensive internet library of 5-minute programs. In time, she becomes an enabled storyteller.

Leontyne went to a MiND Boot Camp. She was a doubter - MiND’s promise seemed too good to be true. But Leontyne and two others at the Boot Camp took up the challenge. They developed an idea, checked back with MiND to make sure they were on the right track, and made a terrific MiND program.

As a result, Leontyne is a new person–and now, one of MiND’s most vocal advocates. On her own terms, she has become video- and story- literate. She possesses new power in the most powerful medium of our age.

She is not an anomaly.

Here is a short documentary film made by another MiND intern. It’s broadcast quality in every way - a strong story line and intricate editing combine old and new footage. The person who made this film has become an accomplished filmmaker–and is now a teacher at a small college in New England.

MiND is creating a core of accomplished story/film makers who can help their community as storytellers. In time, with MiND’s support, Philly (and in time, other cities that may carry a local version of MiND as their own service) can develop a cadre of the new, media-literate creative workers engaged in the betterment of their home, their neighborhood, their city. It does not take much to imagine what they could do.

The incentive that MiND offers its “students” and interns is that not only will they gain the skills that they will need for our time, but that the work will be showcased on TV and the web–by a Trusted Brand.

All artists want their work to have an audience. TV is 1.0 but it offers a reward like no other. “Hey Mom my work is on TV!” So MiND is expanding its reach to other markets. It is building a national alliance in most of the key markets of the US - details here. The bigger the audience, the greater the impact.

So what next?

It is no secret that all the public stations in Pennsylvania are under pressure because their Governor plans to cut all state funding. MiND’s low cost approach makes it especially vulnerable–just completing its first year, MiND has focused on operational efficiency, programming and community; MiND’s first revenue programs are just beginning, and are insufficient to cover a 40% cut in the total budget. MiND will not stop–but it will slow down as resources disappear.

This is the reason for my post today–to encourage the public television community to consider what MiND has done in its first year, and how its ideas might be used to reinvigorate a tired system. MiND is not the full answer but it contains most of the DNA for the full answer and so I felt compelled to tell its story now.

What can we all learn from this?

Set up a new organization to do this - The station culture is key. MiND is a 2.0 Culture. Here is how it sees itself. These are not simply words on a page. With 30 plus years in the field of culture - I observed first hand that this is no bull - what they say is how they are. So you cannot change all your station culture to be like this. I also know that to be true. So what can you do? Clay Christenson is clear - set up a separate organization to house this aspect of the new - your transformational organization. I know of several stations that are thinking along these lines. You cannot make this shift inside the old–but you can make the shift if the new is allowed to grow alongside the old.

The Goal Is Self Reliance - The goal is to transform your community to be self-reliant - to do that you have to be able to tell the collective story of how people are bringing about change in your community. To do that you need to develop real storytellers by teaching them how to tell stories– and you have to imbue their stories with the added value of your brand. Create a “school” for the new literacy. Bring in the people as interns and volunteers. Bring in the young. Use your digital channels and the web as the “channel.” Or, let MiND show you how; they are willing and capable guides. And, please, don’t get caught up in the validity of five-minute programs–not before watching MiND or considering the sheer number of unique five-minute programs that can be produced in a year.

Gain strength and power by connecting. Connect to the institutions organizations in your community who need this kind of help - use your storytellers to give them a voice. How might non-profits be involved? How about schools (K-12 and higher education)? What if everyone really did have a voice–and what if that voice defined the future of public media? Imagine connecting with other stations across America and the world–perhaps create a national network with MiND at the core - and jointly build MiND as an initiative that engages people at the local, regional, national, even global level. It’s clear that MiND was built with precisely that strategy at its core. Increase the power of the collective story by comparing what’s happening in Philadelphia with what’s happening in Chicago or Denver, and ultimately, with Mumbai or Warsaw.

MiND benefits from a wonderful gift–it is one of the few truly independent agents within public media–in fact, the company’s official name is (you guessed it) Independence Media. From that independence has grown true innovation. Make no mistake–this is not a play by a tiny public TV station operating at the edge of reality. Instead, it is likely the center of a new solar system with increasingly powerful gravitational pull.

We will not get through the turbulence of our times by relying on the status quo in any part of our lives. So I do my bit to tell the story of Howard and his band of sisters and brothers at MiND.

Bless them all. And for my American friends, about to celebrate their annual holiday, do consider the value, opportunity and responsibilities associated with independence.

Comments

Reinventing Silos

June 29, 2009 at 3:07 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise Social Computing

I’m interrupting a couple of pieces in progress, because this topic is too significant to wait on. It raised its head as I was listening to a great panel discussion from the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference, facilitated by Peter Kim, featuring the Social ’stuff’ experiences of Allstate, Jet Blue and Humana. One caveat, as with all 2.0 conversations, it’s important to separate the B2C and C2C-focused examples from other focuses (B2E, E2E etc.). There’s a heavy B2C/C2C slant to the discussion.

Ben Foster from Allstate made two great comments:

Enterprises and practitioners are often guilty of using Social Media as a cure chasing a disease.

We’re moving past the experimentation stage…

There were many more great insights shared as these companies find their own ’success’ around these technologies. There was something between what was shared that scared me — a repeat of the evolution of IT: fostering isolationism — reinventing silos. One panelist even mentioned the word “silos” but I believe his meaning was in transcending organizational (or other) silos via open conversation. While conversations may be more ‘open’, they’re only as ‘open’ as the application or format by which they’re bound.

This is an old issue — one I posed to Bill Gates circa 1990 (when he was the ‘guest speaker’ for nearly every event in Seattle, and common folk had direct access to him). I asked him, “When are you going to separate the files you create from the applications that create them?” His response, “I don’t understand your question.” He didn’t wait for me to explain either. The main issue: the things applications create are ‘locked into’ the format of the application that creates them.

Blogs and wikis provide specific formats to content. There are behavioral format clues that differentiate a blog from a wiki, but under the covers it’s all content. Content elements have value beyond the formats and applications that hold them hostage  — they’re enterprise assets that can be repurposed in other formats. The specific format of content (.pdf .doc .html) is really only relevant for consumption — to associate the ‘viewing’ of the content with an application that can display it. The semantics of the content itself doesn’t really care about the format (don’t hold me to that when I’m telling you how to create semantically-relevant formats), just ask your favorite search engine — it’s all words to them.

The significance and potential power of a format-agnostic architecture is evidenced in the recent demos of Google Wave. What we don’t have are the corresponding ‘drivers ed car crash movies’ to illustrate the disastrous end to conversations that are locked and isolated in disparate tools and formats.

Sadly, the significance of a well-architected application platform was something that was understood by the designers of Ventura Publisher, which applied format to the content via SGML — text, graphics, etc. were all managed in their raw form, and ‘assembled’ into the desired presentation format — in 1986. These were some of the same people from Xerox PARC who created the original graphical UI elements that Microsoft and Apple later fought over in court.

Consider a simple ‘hostage’ example (one that I’ve been aghast as many UX designers have missed the significance of), a UI with the labels “Blog” and “Wiki” as two separate options for navigation. If I’m looking for something (pick anything), which one should I look at to find what I’m looking for? You may suggest that I use the search feature (conveniently bypassing the original design issue altogether). This would have to assume that search constantly indexes all the conversations in real time — the results are typically grim, adoption fails.

Clearly, Microsoft contributed to ‘isolationism’ again with SharePoint — everything all neatly packaged in individual projects, with no ability to ‘watch’ for redundancies or facilitate cross-fertilization of conversations (ignoring for a moment that ‘conversations’ weren’t really supported anyway). And as David Armano pointed out in a Harvard Business Press post today, it all requires a healthy dose of seeding, feeding and weeding along the way (the continuous wetware element that IT rarely accounts for).

Sure, 2.0 technologies can increase transparency across organizations, but that’s all lost as you move across ‘closed’ solutions or formats, with no architectural layer to synthesize it all. One silo is simply replaced by another.

To capitalize on the potential of Enterprise 2.0, there has to be a total architecture that considers the full lifecycle and use of content, as it is leveraged for action (the part KM missed).

Comments (4)

A reader’s guide to Clay Christensen and disruptive innovation

June 27, 2009 at 12:22 pm · Filed under Clayton Christenson, Enterprise 2.0

A dozen years ago, at the height of the dotcom boom, Harvard Business School professor Clay Christensen published The Innovator’s Dilemma. It started from a simple observation that transformative innovations that reshaped competitive landscapes and created new industries almost invariable came from new organizations. Conventional wisdom held that this was a reflection of poor management and decision making on the part of incumbents. Christensen started with a more interesting, and ultimately more productive, question. What if it was sound management practice on the part of incumbents that prevented them from investing in those innovations that went on to create new industries? This question and Christensen’s research led to his distinguishing disruptive vs. sustaining forms of innovation. I originally reviewed the book in the Spring 1998 issue of Context Magazine. It became the bible of consulting firms working in the dotcom space. Every proposed idea was labeled as disruptive. Who knows, some of those consultant’s might even have read the book.

Meanwhile, Christensen and his colleagues and collaborators continued to work out the ideas and implications of his emerging theoretical framework. The Innovator’s Dilemma was followed by

• The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth.

  In this book, Christensen begins to lay out how you can take the notions of disruptive innovation and use them to design a reasonable course of action in the absence of the kind of analytical data strategy consultants desire. Disruptive innovations attack either the lower ends of existing markets where there are customers willing to settle for less performance at less cost, or new markets where a new packaging and design of available technologies creates an alternative to non-consumption. The example I found easiest to understand here was Sony’s invention of the portable transistor radio. Compared to vacuum tube radios the first transistor radios were crappy, but good enough for teenagers and others on the go whose alternative was no music at all.

•  Seeing What’s Next: Using Theories of Innovation to Predict Industry Change.

  In this third effort to work out the implications of distinguishing between sustaining and disruptive innovation, Christensen and his collaborators shift their attention from individual competitors to industry level analysis. They take their theoretical structures and apply them across several industry settings and ask how those particular industries (education, aviation, health care, semiconductors, and telecommunications) are more or less vulnerable to disruptive innovation strategies. What Christensen and colleagues are doing here is to begin integrating their innovation theories and Porter’s theories of competitive strategy. This is not so much a case of seeing whether their new theoretical hammer can pound strategy nails as it is of whether they are making progress in creating a new and robust toolkit for strategy problems.

• The Innovator’s Guide to Growth: Putting Disruptive Innovation to Work, Anthony, Scott D.

  This volume is written by Scott Anthony and several other collaborators of Christensen who are putting his ideas to work at the consulting firm Innosight. They develop the next level of operational detail to transform strategic insights into execution details. If you’re an organization seeking to develop its own disruptive strategy, the authors here have worked out the next level questions and identified the supporting analyses and design steps you would need to answer and complete. This volume is not a teaser; it’s complete and coherent. You could pretty much take the book as a recipe and use it to develop your project plans. On the other hand, the plans by themselves won’t guarantee that you can assemble a team with the necessary qualifications to execute the plan successfully. The other thing that this book does quite nicely is identify the kinds of organizational support structures and processes that you would want to put in place to institutionalize systematic disruptive innovation.

This core of books would equip you with a robust set of insights and practical techniques to begin thinking about when and where you might attempt to develop and deploy new products, services, and business models in disruptively innovative ways. The one area that is underdeveloped in this framework is that of design. There is an implicit bias in the material that tends to keep design in the "perform magic" category. I believe this is part and parcel of the general execution bias of business literature in general. Design is flaky, creative, stuff and real managers distinguish themselves on execution. But that is a topic for another post. These books belong on your shelf and the ideas belong in your toolkit.

Comments (6)

Deloitte Study Warns About Social Networking Ethics

June 22, 2009 at 3:48 pm · Filed under Enterprise 2.0

Does employee participation in social networking sites put companies at risk? A new study from Deloitte LLP says yes, there is considerable risk, and companies need to be more proactive in fostering awareness of social networking ethics.

Deloitte LLP’s 2009 Ethics & Workplace Survey (PDF available here.) found that 30% of employees and managers say that social networking is now a vital part of their business and operations strategy.  However, Deloitte also finds “there is great reputational risk” associated with social networking, as 74% of respondents believe it is “easy to damage a brand’s reputation via sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.”

Forty-nine percent of employees say company policy wouldn’t change their online behavior. Twenty-seven percent don’t consider the ethical consequences of posting comments, photos, or videos online. More than one-third don’t consider what their boss, their colleagues, or their clients may think of postings.

And what should be done? “The easy answer is to establish policies and protocols,” Deloitte says. “However, the survey also finds that clearly defined company guidelines will not change how nearly half of respondents behave in cyberspace.”

Deloitte urges organizations to mitigate reputational risk in social networks by emphasizing “culture, values, and ethics within an organization.” Deloitte advises that discussion of the risks associated with Enterprise 2.0 be elevated to the highest levels of leadership within an organization.

Deloitte did not define how “culture, values, and ethics” should be emphasized to address social networking ethics issues, but it can be assumed this means more active involvement by senior management, addressing these concerns from the top on down.

Though far from the majority, there are companies trying to keep an eye on things, however.  According to the Deloitte survey, 27% say that their executive team “regularly discusses how we can best leverage social networks to our advantage while mitigating risks.” Another 22% say their companies have “formal policies that dictate how employees can use social networking tools.” Another 22% say their senior leadership team “addresses issues related to company-wide social networking.”

It doesn’t make sense to only accentuate the negative at a time when Enterprise 2.0 approaches offer so much potential for employee productivity and organizational advancement.  The Deloitte study does confirm that 56% of executive respondents agree that using social networking sites helps their employees achieve better work-life balance. Interestingly, though, only 31% of the employee respondents agree with this statement — pointing the perceptual gap that exists when it comes to Enterprise 2.0 approaches.

Comments (1)

Zappos: A 2.0 Company

June 12, 2009 at 8:44 am · Filed under 2.0 Business Model, Business Model, Enterprise 2.0, FASTforward'09, Innovation, Organizational Design, Social Work-net-ing, Socialprise

Just before flying home from FASTforward ‘09, in February, I took advantage of being in Las Vegas to visit Zappos, an online retailer that has been repeatedly recognized for its unique culture (not to mention their own book on the subject) and embracing social media. CEO, Tony Hsieh, was even on Oprah last October. So what more could I possibly add here?

I focused ‘between the lines’ and ‘outside the box’ — the larger experience of what makes Zappos, well, Zappos. I’ve watched a lot of videos about the place, follow Tony on Twitter, and even did a brief piece on them before, but as with other 2.0 experiences, immersion makes all the difference.

The ‘get to the chase’ version:

• The Zappos environment is a full-blown corporate anomaly: full of things that most corporations would dismiss as being “unproductive”, “chaotic”, “unmanageable” and “unprofitable”.

Between the Lines: Note on video…the flags on poles…critical artifacts of the culture.

• People LOVE to work here (earning a spot on Fortune’s coveted”100 Best Companies to Work For” 2008 list). Why not? They get to follow their passions (even if they want to invite Ellen to come to Zappos) and evolve their own path of doing ‘work’, all while having LOTS of fun.
• The results: 2008 sales = over $1BIL
• Bottom Line: This crazy stuff works and they’ll even tell you how to do the same.

The ‘insights’ version:

• The Zappos experience begins way before the on-site tour. Even vendors coming on sales calls are picked up in Zappos-branded vehicles (3 SUVs and a bus in the fleet) at the airport or their hotel.
• My driver, Zack, was the Shuttle Manager. He was eager to talk about just how much he loves the company and its culture (even as a New York transplant). He worked his way into his job because he just likes to drive, which he sees a lot of: 4-5 drivers make 150-200 runs a week!
• During major conventions shuttle runs get a bit hectic, but Zack was proud that they were able to ramp up and cover 300 runs during the February 2009 CES convention (having a work culture that allows them to tap into volunteers throughout the company, makes a huge difference).
• Walking through the doors is not like entering any other company: people in motion and endless visual stimulus. Everything has been thought of, including checking in your luggage, complete with a ticket, and getting you a drink.
• Tours at Zappos are like a parade — tour guides carry a flag/banner, which alerts employees to greet guests. My guide, Jerry, while retired from Nordstrom (a company also founded on great shoe sales and service) had infectous energy that belies his ’silver’ exterior. The tour itself cannot adequately be described in words — the videos are a must watch.

Between the Lines: Our tour was cut short as CEO Tony Hsieh was available, so we headed straight for the ‘jungle’ (the location of his office) to catch Tony for his interview where he reminded me again of their ‘other’ brand 6PM.com.

• Not to downplay my chat with Tony (he gets so much press already), I was anxious to talk briefly with Alfred Lin (@Zappos_Alfred) because he holds both the COO and CFO roles, which I asked him about. His answers were insightful and his presence clearly belies his kid-like avatar on Twitter.

• I was a bit surprised to find out just how far they take their Core Value “Do More With Less”. Clearly operating as a 2.0 company, internally they leverage only very basic technology (email, wiki, blog, newsletter, word-of-mouth), in very simplistic ways — allowing for natural collaboration and connections of a tight culture to carry the rest.
• To dip yourself into the Zappos culture on an ongoing basis, be sure to check out employee voices via their many blogs.
• Oh, and did I mention, they sell shoes, accessories and clothing?

The last half of the Tour is shared in two parts.

• On average, 4-8 tours come through every day — more during the annual shoe conventions. While Jerry and Donavon are the primary tour guides, any employee can take the tour guide course and serve as a fill-in. This wasn’t staged — this is the ‘norm’ in their culture.
• The entire environment is a testament to their culture, of constant motion, immersion and learning. There are 4 bookcases at the entrance with multiple copies of ‘current reads’ for employees to grab and enlighten themselves — including Tribal Leadership (Zappos sponsors a downloadable audiobook version).
• Learning is for EVERYONE, on both sides of the coin — giving and receiving. Classes are ‘live’ and taught by employees. If you’re moving ‘up’ to a role, you’ll be taught by people currently ‘in’ the role. Likewise, you’ll teach those coming in behind you.
• Inspired by some of the things gleaned from Tribal Leadership, a more structured “Pipeline” path was created for classes. Training Supervisor, Loren Becker, readily shared the outline of the Pipeline program (which she merely had to print from the Zappos Wiki and had in my hands within minutes). Simplistic, there are:
  • Core-Level Classes (in 6-month segments)
    For the first 18 months of employment, a total of 213 required hours — the majority of which is “Customer Loyalty Training”, plus books to be read.
  • Management-Level Classes
    Includes 37 required hours (with department-specific specialization added in) and 6 recommended books
  • Leadership-Level Classes
    Includes 32 required hours (including hours to ‘teach’ classes, as noted previously).
• “Introduction to Coaching” is taught by their own full-time coach for employees, Dr. Vik — who sold his Northern California Chiropractic practice to join the team (in the Part 2 video, just before we arrive at Dr. Vik’s office, someone asks Jerry to have Dr. Vik ‘come down’ when he has a moment — there are a lot of word-of-mouth activities going on all the time). Not only did I get my own Zappos Vision planner, I also got a copy of Dr. Vik’s DVD “Taking It to the Next Level” (explained briefly here).

Special thanks to Elizabeth Gregersen who handled all of my arrangements and who was patient with my questions after the fact (here’s Liz and Jerry just having fun — its encouraged to do so). My apologies that it took so long to get this posted (it’s been a steep learning curve to edit/load the videos). If there is any information in the videos that is out of date, please let me know.

For a ‘more professional’ version, check out the ABC Nightline segment.

Comments (2)

Challenges to Enterprise 2.0 adoption

June 11, 2009 at 9:53 pm · Filed under 2.0 Design Thinking, Enterprise 2.0, User Revolution

Enterprise 2.0 adoption is on the rise, with a majority of companies in a new survey planning to increase their funding of E2.0 projects. These are the results of a survey conducted by organizers of the upcoming Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston. (Details provided in a white paper available at the E2.0 site.)

The survey also found organizations are slow to change to E2.0-style thinking. The leading impediments to E2.0 include the following:

Note that two out of five respondents are concerned about measuring return on investment. This is a matter that’s being hotly debated amomg E2.0 proponents.

Comments