Collaborative Thinking

The Human Network: Adding Social Context To EA

If you are involved in enterprise architecture, collabortion, or Enterprise 2.0 initiatives, I will be presenting at the IASAWorld Summit 2010 in September. I'm looking forward to the conference - on Day 2 George Paras and Tim Westbrock (former Meta Group colleagues, now at EAdirections) will present "Variations on the Architecture Theme: Solutions, IT and Enterprise Architecture".

The Human Network: Adding Social Context To EA
The role of Enterprise Architecture has evolved over many years as a means to inter-connect business, information, and IT to enhance enterprise performance in ways that enable the organization to achieve its strategic objectives. Historically, a core emphasis of EA has focused on business capabilities involving process, information, and eventually – technology. However, with the advent of Web 2,0, Enterprise 2.0, and social media – the scale and scope of what EA strategists need to consider has dramatically expanded. Connecting people so they can effectively participate in a more social and dynamic business environment is becoming a critical organizational imperative that will fall into the EA realm. This session will explore:

• Why is the human network is a strategic opportunity for EA?
• How should an "architecture of participation" be defined?
• What are the risks and how should they be managed?
• What role can EA play to influence a more "participatory culture"?
• Are there any emerging best practices to learn from?

Powered by Qumana

Scenario Planning: Embracing Uncertainty

Some interesting posts on the topic that came through my feed reader over the past few months...

Eyes Wide Open: Embracing Uncertainty through Scenario Planning - Knowledge@Wharton

As protests in Iran last month drew the world's attention, the top executives at a large global industrial goods company held a teleconference to consider their options. The meeting was hastily called, but the participants were not starting from scratch. In fact, the events unfolding in the country were strikingly similar to a scenario that they had developed, along with a handful others, in a 2008 offsite meeting focused on potential changes in their competitive environment.

The workshop, the output, and the eventual impact on decision making represents a perfect illustration of how so-called scenario planning techniques can be utilized to help managers navigate in complex and uncertain environments. In the meeting the industrial company held last year, executives had discussed each scenario they developed, the potential triggers for each of them, and how the company should respond to each of these situations if it were to arise. Pulling out the notes from these discussions, they already knew their options and had a view on how they would like to respond. In many ways, they were prepared -- and already one step ahead of some other companies.

Paul J. H. Schoemaker, research director of the Wharton School's Mack Center for Technological Innovation, says such examples illustrate a continuing shift in how companies think about the future. He observes that when managers are facing the profound uncertainties increasingly seen today, they tend to adopt one of three strategic postures.

Eyes Wide Open: Embracing Uncertainty through Scenario Planning - Knowledge@Wharton

Wired and Personal Scenario Planning: Be Cautious About Certainty - Windows Live

Peter Schwartz outlines personal scenario planning in the current Wired (Your Future in 5 Easy Steps: Wired Guide to Personal Scenario Planning). As a fellow scenario planner, though, I have to say readers should be cautious. One break I have from traditional scenario planning is any inclination to say that anything is certain. Especially something that isn’t built into the way the world works. I take pure demographics as pretty certain, but even these numbers can be subject to unexpected changes (Everything you know about demographics is wrong, Sam Kington). We need to be cautious about applying certainty.

The point of scenario planning, after all, is not to be right, which is such a human inclination that we find it hard to overcome—the point of scenario planning is to see the future from perspectives we would have a difficult time forcing ourselves to imagine because of our bias toward rightness, and therefore imagine new possibilities or see threats we might otherwise miss.

.....

So my advice to would-be personal scenario planners is to listen to the future (see my book Listening to the Future), and, as Schwartz advices in a later book, that we look for “inevitable surprises.” The trick is to know we will always be wrong as we speculate about the future. We need to learn to be diligent in how we watch for signals, but perhaps more importantly, how we navigate uncertain terrain, never knowing what will turn up after the next event, be it global or personal.

Wired and Personal Scenario Planning: Be Cautious About Certainty - Windows Live

Think anew, Act anew: Scenario Planning

Some time ago I outlined the basic principles of managing a complex system and promised to use them to explore a range of management issues. It's been longer than I intended, partly because it's starting to look as if each of these requires a minor essay, or possibly (dare I say it) a book chapter. My first subject is scenario planning, although I am thinking of that in a wider strategic context that the generation of a series of structured narratives about possible and credible futures. The conclusion of all of this will link back to the Seneca quote above; I will be arguing that we should be finding ways to better describe the current situation, in order to manage the emergent possibilities of the present; further that we need to find ways to create a process of thinking about scenarios that is highly dynamic, engages large populations in evaluation and speculation. In particular I want to talk about moving from anticipation to a state of anticipatory awareness.

Given the time since I first introduced this topic (I planned a couple of weeks, but its panned out as the best part of half a year) I'd suggest a quick read of the original post, which concluded with three necessary, although not necessarily sufficient conditions for any strategy based on complexity theory. The three were: (i) distributed cognition, (ii) using fine granularity objects and (iii) disintermediation (connecting decision makers with raw data in real time). A final warning before you read on - this posting has not been fully proof read and will be modified with additional material over the next week or so. Consider it an invitation to participate in a work in progress.

Cognitive Edge

A Culture Of Ownership

Interesting read... point to ponder: "We have learned repeatedly that there is a pattern in the actions and activities involved in developing strong and adaptive ownership cultures. When an organization consistently builds and reinforces such a culture, it creates a competitive edge that is hard to replicate."

10 Reasons to Design a Better Corporate Culture — HBS Working Knowledge

Editor's Note: Why is it that many of the same companies appear repeatedly on lists of the best places to work, the best providers of customer service, and the most profitable in their industries? In their new book, The Ownership Quotient, HBS professors Jim Heskett and Earl Sasser and coauthor Joe Wheeler assert the answer lies in recognizing that strong, adaptive cultures can foster innovation, productivity, and a sense of ownership among employees and customers. They also outlast any individual charismatic leader.

But how can you as a manager create and nurture that special culture? In the following excerpt, the authors outline the top 10 lessons of the best practitioners, from ING Direct to Build-A-Bear Workshop to Harrah's Entertainment.

10 Reasons to Design a Better Corporate Culture — HBS Working Knowledge

The New World of Work

Insightful interview with Dan Rasmus who shares his perspective on globalization and its impact on business and the workplace. Note: requires Silverlight to be installed.

One of the other interesting things that Dan talks about is the different types of generation that are now in the workplace and the expectations of these workers and also how they are accustomed to work and how technology can complement these new styles.  Delving into mobile working and the concept of "always on, always connected" world,  Emma asks what the opportunities and challenges are for doing business in this new and exciting environment.

Partner-TV: telling it like it is : Partner TV: The New World of Work

The Times They Are A-Changin'...

Worth reading (or at least scanning), the entire report (registration required). There's also this link Global CEO Study: The Enterprise of the Future. Note: right now the registration link seems broken but I assume someone will notice and fix it.

IBM Global CEO Study: CEOs Battle to Keep Up With the Pace of Change

... Overall, 83 percent of surveyed CEOs expect substantial change in the future, an increase of 28 percent in just two years. However, CEOs report their ability to effectively manage change is increasing at a far slower pace.

... CEOs point specifically to their own customer base as the source of the most important changes they will have to address, as two new and more demanding classes of customers emerged: the 'information omnivore,' and the 'socially-minded' customer. Of all the trends identified in the study, surveyed CEOs plan their most substantial increases in investment in response to these customer sets.

... The "information omnivore" craves all types of information and often broadcasts its views and expectations worldwide via the Internet. These customers are swapping passive roles for much deeper involvement. "Consumers" are becoming "producers," often creating entertainment and advertising content for their peers, while demanding flexibility and responsiveness from companies with whom they choose to do business. Although these customers are more demanding, the majority of CEOs do not see them as a threat, but as an opportunity for differentiation based on meeting the heightened expectations of this group, and capitalizing on new market opportunities that will emerge.

... CEOs agreed that customer expectations around corporate social responsibility ('CSR') are increasing, and that CSR will play an important role in differentiating an enterprise in the future. Customers are coalescing around organizations' CSR profile -- including, but not limited to "green" initiatives -- and are increasingly demanding socially-minded products, services, and even supply chains.

... Overall, the CEOs see opportunities in CSR and are using it for their competitive advantage. They indicated that CSR is critical to maintaining current market share.

... Eighty-six percent of the CEOs surveyed plan substantial changes in the capabilities that distinguish leading organizations -- their knowledge and asset mix. CEOs expect to carefully calibrate business model designs based on principles of global integration, which includes global searches for sources of expertise, resources and assets that can help it differentiate.

... For more information on additional findings from the study, visit www.ibm.com/enterpriseofthefuture.

IBM Global CEO Study: CEOs Battle to Keep Up With the Pace of Change

Think Beyond Per Tool Usage Policies

A good article to scan on the topic of blog usage policies that also includes some informative links to follow. However, this is not a new problem. Most organizations have had to address technology usage policies for some time (you can go all the way back to people participating on CompuServe forums and other bulletin board systems over dial-up). So the first thing to check is whether your enterprise has an overall information technology usage policy that handles internal and external situations. It is also important to also verify whether employees have been properly notified and have acknowledged in some way that they are aware of such policies (which might also intersect with code of conduct and related procedures). Specific policies (for instance, on blogs) can then be defined within this framework to provide people with more specific information. It is important that all of these policy and procedure efforts outline how the organization handles monitoring and enforcement methods since those employer practices might touch on topics such as employee privacy rights and HR activities (e.g., supervisor notification, employee warning, termination process for certain types of infringement).

That "online communication policy," released in November 2006, sets standards for employees when they're acting as "a delegate of the company."

Specifically, they're expected to disclose their association with Dell whenever they do any sort of blogging, social networking, Wikipedia entry-editing, or other online activities related to or on behalf of the company. If the subject matter crosses over into hobbies or people's personal lives, "there would be no rationale for us to get involved in that," Pearson said in a phone interview Tuesday.

Translation: "If someone is a fisherman and they want to talk about fly fishing outside of work, then that's not our business, it's personal," said Pearson. "But if someone is going to talk about notebooks and anything related to Dell, they have to say they're from Dell."

Corporate employee blogs: Lawsuits waiting to happen? | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Getting People On The Same Page

A challenge for many large organizations and not just vendors:

Tim O'Brien must have one of the more difficult jobs at Microsoft. As senior director of Microsoft Platforms, he is tasked with getting different parts of Microsoft to dance to the same tune. "Part of my role in the company is to help groups understand what the paths are," O'Brien said during an interview at Mix '08 earlier this month. "If the groups are heading down random paths, at the risk of oversimplification, we try to get on a common trajectory."

It sounds like a herding cats job. Microsoft has multiple platforms and agendas, and strong personalities. "The evangelism organization was conceived to get people to adopt technology when it doesn't necessarily seem rational, when there are no tools or documentation. Evangelism can help envision the possibilities. My role is to look at up and coming technology in the product groups and piece together an end-to-end story for developers and create a call to action," O'Brien explained.

Herding cats at Microsoft | Outside the Lines - CNET News.com

Societal & Economic Factors Establish IT Context

Interesting series of articles that strategists should keep in mind. While some of the information addresses trends that might seem disconnected from the immediate "pain of the day", there are interesting narratives in these stories that perhaps have some metaphorical correlation with similar activities that transpire (albeit at a micro scale) within a particular enterprise:

Survival Over The Long Term

Global companies that have delivered strong share price growth over the past three years are more proactive on corporate sustainability issues than those that have seen their share price stagnate or decline, according to a major new research report from the Economist Intelligence Unit.

.....

Overall, the majority of global businesses do not seem to be performing particularly well when it comes to implementing sustainability policies or programmes. Out of a list of 16 sustainable policies, which encompassed issues ranging from energy consumption and carbon emissions to diversity and governance, companies polled for this report had implemented an average of just five. Many executives also rated the quality of their company's sustainability efforts as poor—with only a smaller number saying that they are doing well.

.....

Other key findings from the research include:

• Business leaders are open to more regulation on social and environmental issues.
• Communication, then the environment, are top corporate priorities on sustainability.
• The supply chain is the weakest link.
• Sustainability reporting needs more work.
• Sustainability does pay.

EIU.com

The Pro/Con Of Technology To Leapfrog Progress

The World Bank's researchers looked at 28 examples of new technologies that achieved a market penetration of at least 5% in the developed world, and found that 23 of them went on to manage a penetration of over 50%. Once early adopters latch onto something new and useful, in other words, the rest of the population can quickly follow. The researchers then considered 67 new technologies that had achieved a 5% penetration in the developing world, and found that only six of them went on to reach 50%. That suggests that although new technologies are often adopted by a small minority of people in poor countries, they then fail to achieve widespread diffusion, so their benefits do not become more generally available.

Lavatories before laptops

The World Bank concludes that a country's capacity to absorb and benefit from new technology depends on the availability of more basic forms of infrastructure. This has clear implications for development policy. Building a fibre-optic backbone or putting plasma screens into schools may be much more glamorous than building electrical grids, sewerage systems, water pipelines, roads, railways and schools. It would be great if you could always jump straight to the high-tech solution, as you can with mobile phones. But with technology, as with education, health care and economic development, such short-cuts are rare. Most of the time, to go high-tech, you need to have gone medium-tech first.

Technology and development | The limits of leapfrogging | Economist.com

Early Adoption Does Not Guarantee Mainstream Success

Emerging economies are better at adopting new technologies than at putting them into widespread use

.....

Broadly, two sets of obstacles stand in the way of technological progress in emerging economies. The first is their technological inheritance. Most advances are based on the labours of previous generations: you need electricity to run computers and reliable communications for modern health care, for instance. So countries that failed to adopt old technologies are at a disadvantage when it comes to new ones. Mobile phones, which require no wires, are a prominent exception.

.....

The other set of problems has to do with the intangible things that affect a country's capacity to absorb technology: education; R&D; financial systems; the quality of government. In general, developing countries' educational levels have soared in the past decade or so. Middle-income countries have achieved universal primary-school enrolment and poor countries have increased the number of children completing primary school dramatically. Even so, illiteracy still bedevils some middle-income countries and many poor ones.

.....

Yet it would be wrong to be gloomy about the technological outlook of emerging economies. The channels of technology transfer have widened enormously over the past ten years. Technological literacy has risen, especially among the young. But all this has helped emerging economies mainly in the first stage: absorption. The second stage—diffusion—has so far proved much more testing.

Technology in emerging economies | Of internet cafés and power cuts | Economist.com

Social Computing: Time To Update Policies & Procedures

Actually - it is absolutely appropriate for an organization to define policies and procedures on the use of certain technology by its employees as it relates to the enterprise. There is nothing new here. Organizations have defined such policies concerning technology since the days of CompuServe and dial-up bulletin board systems as well as AOL, GeoCities and so on. Such policies provide a method to make employees aware of company expectations - especially necessary in certain regulated industries.

This is not about control, it's about establishing parameters beforehand to alleviate the need to deal with problems afterwards. The manner in which policies and procedures are established and evolve over time however should be re-examined in light of social computing trend. In fact, policies and procedures related to technology usage should be updated on a regular basis, or when a particular technology trend demands that such practices be modified. What should be avoided, and is perhaps what the post below is really addressing, is the knee-jerk reaction that some companies undertake to simply publishing a edict ("though shalt not use") rather than engage its workforce in a dialog about the need for certain types of tools. The short-sighted, command/control approach has numerous negative aspects in terms of culture, employee engagement and so on. But, as bad as the command/control perspective may seem, so is the opposite viewpoint that an enterprise does not have the right to govern use of its technology environment. 

I don't think a responsible way to handle improper Facebook usage is to negotiate a conduct policy with employee representatives. Rather, employees should be trusted to use Facebook appropriately. In the cases where there are misuses, those issues should be resolved in a private manner between a manager and his/her direct report. Don't control unless there's an absolute need to control.

The Workplace Blog

Innovation: Managing, Creating, Disrupting & Open Sourcing

All the articles in this latest post from HBS are worth reading. Some excerpts below and some "open thinking" that ran through my mind as I read through the stories (more random thoughts, reactions and ideas): 

Sharpening Your Skills: Managing Innovation — HBS Working Knowledge

Sharpening Your Skills dives into the HBS Working Knowledge archives to bring together articles on ways to improve your business skills.

Questions to be answered:

• Can innovation and creativity be managed?
• Where do creative ideas come from?
• Can I take advantage of disruption?
• Where can I find innovative solutions?

Sharpening Your Skills: Managing Innovation — HBS Working Knowledge

High Note: Managing the Medici String Quartet

I've always equated "great collaboration" as the result of the "great choreography" that occurs when a team finds its rhythm - high performing teams have a myriad of social contracts between themselves where actions and behaviors are undertaken without reliance on "command and control" mechanisms. As I read through this article, I was linking these concepts to some of the organization issues associated with Enterprise 2.0 and the importance of fostering emergence vs. stewards who may try to reign things in...

During the course, we put together a panel called Stewards versus Creators. Managers often have steward mentalities. They try to be responsible in their expenditure of funds, trying not to invest a dollar if it won't earn more than a dollar back. ... Managing a golden goose individual is an increasingly common issue. Industrial Revolution thinking tries to get around it by trying to extract expertise from individuals and systematize it; the golden goose doesn't exist because everybody is viewed as just a cog in a machine. But when we talk about innovative performance, we can't talk about systematization in the traditional sense because systematization implies producing consistent outcome. I prefer to believe that innovation is about producing inconsistency of outcome, and valuable inconsistency at that. ... As HBS professor Richard Nolan and I wrote earlier this year in the MIT Sloan Management Review, if the steward mentality is obsessed with a breakeven point, a point of diminishing returns, the creator types don't know where that point is and don't care. The idea of "good enough" isn't something they're terribly interested in. As a business, you can't run flat out all the time, but it's important for innovative businesses to have some of that energy inside.

High Note: Managing the Medici String Quartet — HBS Working Knowledge

How Kayak Users Built a New Industry

I love the concept of "dominant design" - are we reaching that with collaborative workspaces - discussion forums, group calendar, document library, et. al. So is SharePoint a reflection of  that dominant design? And it so, is that why the dominant design is having problems incorporating new social capabilities - are vendors delivering dominant designs based on collaboration requirements circa 2000-2003 struggling to protect revenue streams and perhaps stifle innovation from smaller vendors? Or being very careful/pragmatic about which innovative vendors that elect to partner with to add capabilities missing in the dominant design? Intriguing... what does this mean for internal IT groups - are they preserving an existing dominant design and therefore much more hesitant to look at different computing models or smaller vendors that while innovative, threaten existing assumptions - going with the dominant design is just more politically correct than chancing a career limiting move by going against the grain and adopting new architectures from emerging vendors... no clear right or wrong but identifying the transitions onto and off of dominant designs - we tend not to handle these inflection points well...

A dominant design is a standard architecture for a product system that almost all firms in an industry adhere to. For example, the dominant design in automobiles today has a gasoline engine, four wheels with rubber tires, a steering wheel, a closed body, and automatic transmission. Designers may change the attributes of automobiles, but it's considered very radical to depart from these standards. ... Bill Abernathy of HBS and Jim Utterback of MIT defined dominant designs back in the 1970s. They went on to theorize that the nature of innovation and competition changes after a dominant design emerges. Specifically, they said, before a dominant design emerges, there will be lots of product innovation carried out by many small firms. Once the dominant design is established, however, the focus of innovative effort will switch to cost reduction and process improvements. Cost-reducing process innovations benefit large firms most; hence the emergence of a dominant design will trigger an industry shakeout and consolidation.

How Kayak Users Built a New Industry — HBS Working Knowledge

Jumpstarting Innovation: Using Disruption to Your Advantage

Similar thoughts to the above story. Are emerging Web 2.0 / Enterprise 2.0 companies trying to disrupt the status quo by building social media platforms that compete with established vendors whose existing "dominant designs" are not as adaptable to newer collaboration, community and social networking patterns? If corporate IT groups lack change management disciplines and processes to address echnology disruption - then does that partially explain the reluctance to "look outside the tunnel" at consumer market trends and emerging social computing technologies?

But established companies often approach innovation and disruption much differently. Having worked hard to align strategy and organization to support the current business, they develop tunnel vision, encouraging employees, customers, suppliers, and partners to work together to deliver today's business results. Even when disruptive opportunities are identified, tightly aligned organizations, business models, and industry relationships make it tough to respond quickly and effectively. As a result, executives in established firms often frame disruption as a threat. When they see changes happening, they work to defend their existing business model and ask, "How can I insulate against these disruptive threats and preserve my current business model?"

Jumpstarting Innovation: Using Disruption to Your Advantage — HBS Working Knowledge

Open Source Science: A New Model for Innovation

How many walled gardens (the ones that wrongly exist) do we need to break down in order to achieve greater levels of transparency within organizations to gain some of the benefits alluded to in this article... so many breakthroughs are the result of catalyzing cultural dynamics more so than technology...

Innovations happen at the intersection of disciplines. People have talked about that a lot and I think we're providing some systematic evidence now with this study. ... We see this in many different places. The insight is that what you want to do is open up your problem to other people—not just to serendipity, but in some systematic way. ... What we don't know is whether some firms may be large enough by themselves to already have the requisite variety and heterogeneity inside the firm. Could they first start by broadcasting problems inside? ... There are always issues around managerial incentives, silos, and so forth, but certainly by the way we see open source communities and InnoCentive work, in fact, by broadcasting a problem you can actually attract a lot of people. And what's also important to note is that the problem solving being done is not "We'll spend five years coming up with a solution." Most people take knowledge and information from their back pockets and transfer it to the problem at hand. In our study the average time spent by successful solvers was two weeks, so that's fairly little in the scheme of things.

Open Source Science: A New Model for Innovation — HBS Working Knowledge