Library clips

I was interviewed by Cathrin Gill on the Enterprise 2.0 Open blog as part of their E2.0 Expert Profiles.

The Enterprise2Open blog was initiated for the Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT.

It’s not easy summarizing over 5 years of my thought blogging and reading…this was something I needed to do. I have learnt about many things by reading bloggers, commenting and blogging myself…nothing better than DIY interactive education…I thank Cathrin for giving me motivation to do that…

Here’s the main bits below. I hope it’s OK that I’m re-posting…I don’t want to lose this summary

What is your understanding of the core concept of the Enterprise 2.0 idea?

• A new operating system based on different ideals, designs and structures
• For people to be engaged at work, rather than be seen as assets
• A focus on engagement rather than sharing…through design and facilitation you have better conditions to achieve your goal… sharing and heightened awareness will happen by default
• A somewhat role-based network organisational structure where people connect and are aware, have diverse input, acknowledge and action emergent outcomes, find suitable tasks and people…basically to exploit the collective knowledge to make better decisions and have an innovative edge
• A focus on complexity theory based on experimenting, manipulating for favourable conditions, monitoring and feeding back, rather than an addiction to plans and outcomes, targets and rewards. Being more transparent, adaptive, agile, and resilient

5.) What are the main potentials of the Enterprise 2.0 idea?

• As Euan Semple says these new social platforms can finally legitimise informal networks. Closing the gap between the c-level and the frontline (”we” rather than “us” and “them”), a more transparent, two-way communication, feedback and bypassing the levels of hierarchy. Preventing blockage of information and re-interpretations, welcoming and capitalising on feedback.
• This is a new approach and leveling, and can be amplified by the use of social tools. Two things come to my mind: Improve awareness and the seminal lack of communication syndrome, and co-create change so it’s relevant to the frontline.
• It also means working socially productive in silos and bridging silos using visible and open group tools, and connecting silos via enterprise-wide networks.
• E 2.0 provides workers with tools to communicate and share their exceptions to processes…let’s face it procedures are not clairvoyant, every context brings up unique aspects to current processes.
• E 2.0 leads to social productivity and activities like crowdsourcing are now achievable by connecting and conversing in public by default, rather than private by default (like the current email way). This is a move from PC (Personal computing) to SC (Social computing).
  But I’m not too sure how decision making being done in a social way will pan out; if we really want to talk about democracy that is…maybe a committee. It just depends on who owns the firm really.
• And since these interactions happen in the open, everyone learns for free on a daily basis, a pull system where workers pick up signals with their radar.
  Referencing Jim McGee: New social tools reprise the concept of observable work that we lost with the coming of the digital era. We now have the potential to tap into the “know-how” and “know-why”, rather than just the “know-what” we get in deliverables and documents. We are interested in the conversations and brainwork. When reading a deliverable we wonder why things are they way they are, what were the many micro-decisions and now we can go back to those fragments if we worked using social tools - this is the real corporate memory. The beauty of it is these fragments can be assembled together (re-mixed) for different contexts. Then the output of that work can be traced back to the artifacts (the workings out) and re-hashed, and so on. The whole idea is not re-use but re-mix…malleable objects that live in a flux…basically fragments as springboards to continuous knowledge creation.
  Ahhh, just read Oscar Berg’s post on social tools being our coping mechanism

6.) What are the main challenges, threats and issues of the Enterprise 2.0 idea?

Control…simple as that!
Bottom-up is not enough, we need a new organisational design, a top-down shift in ideals. At the moment we have worker 2.0 and group 2.0, but we need management 2.0 to make enterprise 2.0 happen.

My top 10

1. We share with people we trust, and share when we are engaged, rather than incentives and rewards, and now we have new social tools that appeal to intrinsic motivations
2. Some managers may feel dis-intermediated, especially those who rely on their status in controlling information flow, whereas managers who slant to the more leadership side of things welcome it. People worked a long time for their authority, and now comes along a way (eg blogs) to be influential by reputation
3. Transparency, two-way communication, and co-creation are key to engaged workers
4. We currently get rewarded for individual action, not collaboration or group output…or how much we help others on tasks we are not on…or how well we source the right people to help you on your task.
5. Different units compete for resources
6. Politics and power
7. This one can be slowly overcome, and that’s changing routines and habits from email to new tools (as long as the new tool is designed for ease of use)
8. A culture that is OK with sharing and learning from failure
9. Psychological safety (it’s OK to be wrong or to speak up)
10. In the past we only shared finished products in the open, and all the working out and know-why happens in closed email. There is now a change to “work-in-progress / status updates” happening in the open. With this we get more awareness, diverse feedback, reputation building, relationship building, learning… We can look back at a record of how things came to be…peripheral information, the conversations behind decisions. A report doesn’t compare as a raw record vs emails, phone, meetings…but all these things are behind closed doors.

Learnings since the interview

Here’s some snippets about the "real enterprise 2.0"…

Real enterprise 2.0 is about “service” "Because service is a person-to-person commitment rather than a goal-to-people one, it engages employees more, make the whole organization more responsive and make them less reluctant about caring about issues that are not directly theirs. Collaboration is something one do with someone else to achieve something. Service is quite different. Service is not something one do with another but something one do for another. The final purpose is, of course, to achieve something, but the immediate purpose is to help someone. And that changes everything. Fostering stronger relationships within the organization has few impact on collaboration because collaboration often commits people to a goal and not to other people. In a collaboration context, people don’t feel they help one another but rather that they’re on the same boat rowing to reach an island they don’t care about. In a service context, one is directly commited to help the other solve his problem and, then, relationships are more easily leveraged." - Bertrand Duperrin

Social Media goals are derived goals "I repeat. Your company does not need a social media strategy. What your company does need to do however, is to incorporate social media into almost every other strategy or plan that it has. This means that social media needs to be a part of your marketing strategy, public relations strategy, HR strategy, customer service strategy and maybe even your finance strategy. Maybe you do need someone to coordinate your company wide social media efforts, but that is not the same creating a social media strategy." - Asia Digital Map.com

Is this an aspect of capitalism 2.0? "Management in the 20th Century was about achieving a finite goal: delivering goods and services, to make money. Management in the 21st Century is about the infinite goal of delighting customers; the firm makes money, yes, but as a consequence of the delight that it creates for customers, not as the goal." - Steve Denning

Now this is the real enterprise 2.0 "The finite goal of delivering goods and services, in order to make money, was utterly boring and dispiriting…Because that goal dispirits those doing the work and often frustrates those for whom the work is done, it is inherently unsustainable. The infinite goal of delighting customers is inherently inspiring: helping other people is the essence of moral thinking. It is inherently uplifting for those doing the work, and invigorating to those for whom the work is done. Hence the goal is inherently sustainable. The new goal of delighting customers is a radical shift in the difficulty of what a firm is undertaking. The goal of a firm is no longer simple and linear and finite. Now the goal of the firm is difficult and complex and infinite. Now continuous innovation becomes a requirement, rather than a distraction and a de-stabilizer. Now we are in a world of continuous experimentation, to find out what works and what doesn’t, in terms of adding new value for clients. Now mistakes, instead of being elements that can be eliminated, are an essential element of the learning process. Now mistakes become crucial and welcome elements of the learning process. Instead of mistakes being punished, now mistakes are welcomed as essential opportunities for learning. Now everyone in the firm is focused on what can be done to add additional value to customers and clients. The firm is no longer an end in itself. The firm is now “other directed”: it is focused on meeting the needs of the clients and stakeholders whom it is purporting to serve." - Steve Denning

Real enterprise 2.0 is about letting go of “control” "Companies have to come to terms with the fact that the traditional model of managerial resource allocation and coordination (mainly coerced through extrinsic motivation in the form of rewards and punishments, such as payments, promotions, demotions, etc.) has become outdated and no longer reflects the social fabric of today’s workforce Commitment is fickle, reputation volatile, and loyalty scarce. In short: Companies have lost control – over their workforce, their customers, and as a result, their brands. Or, more precisely, as Charlene Li points out in her book Open Leadership, they have never really been in control – what they are actually forced to give up now is their need for control." - Tim Leberecht

Influence is replacing authority "If designers embrace the insight that influence is replacing authority as the new currency in the “pull economy” and that the best way to gain influence is to give up control…businesses can use “shaping strategies” to amplify and accelerate the inevitable loss of control in order to avoid employees and customers abandon them….levers of “access, attraction, and achievement” that provide the “creation spaces” and tools for employees and customers alike to design their own destiny, create their own meaning, and thus convert their very own skills and passions into productivity and loyalty" - Tim Leberecht

The need for both process and people-centric systems “A customer account manager receives a phone call from a client asking why an issue with their service has not been resolved and when it will be. The account manager can query a workflow-supported issue management system and learn that the issue has been assigned to a specific employee and that it has been assigned an “in-progress” status. However, that system does not tell the account manager what she really needs to know! She must turn to a communication system to ask the other employee what is the hold up and the current estimate of time to issue resolution. She emails, IM’s, phones, or maybe even tweets the employee to whom the issue has been assigned to get an answer she can give the customer. The employee to whom the issue was assigned most likely cannot use the issue management system to actually resolve the problem either. He uses a collaboration system to find documented information and individuals possessing knowledge that can help him deal with the issue. Once the problem is solved, the employee submits the solution to the issue management system, which feeds it to a someone who can make the necessary changes for the customer and inform the customer account manager that the issue is resolved. Case closed”. ad hoc communication and collaboration systems were the tools that drove actual results Without the cludgy, structured issue management system, the customer account manager would not have known to whom the issue had been assigned and, thus, been unable to contact a specific individual to get better information about its status - Larry Hawes

The mutation of capitalism "Every century or so, fundamental changes in the nature of consumption create new demand patterns that existing enterprises can’t meet. When a majority of people want things that remain priced at a premium under the old institutional regime—a condition I call the “premium puzzle”—the ground becomes extremely fertile for wholly new classes of competitors that can fulfill the new demands at an affordable price. A premium puzzle existed in the auto industry before Henry Ford and the Model T and in the music industry before Steve Jobs and the iPod. The consumption shift in Ford’s time was from the elite to the masses; today, we are moving from an era of mass consumption to one focused on the individual. The leading edge of consumption is now moving from products and services to tools and relationships enabled by interactive technologies. Innovations improve the framework in which enterprises produce and deliver goods and services. Mutations create new frameworks; they are not simply new technologies, though they do leverage technologies to do new things. Historically, mutations have superseded innovations when fundamental shifts in what people want require a new approach to enterprise: new purposes, new methods, new outcomes. The Model T embodied a mutation we now call mass production. It solved the premium puzzle of its time, reducing the price of an automobile by 60 percent or more, and thrived in the emerging environment of mass consumption. That potential for wealth creation remained invisible to those who clung to the 19th-century framework of small-factory, proprietary capitalism. In the same way that mass production moved the locus of industry from small shops to huge factories, today’s mutations have the potential to shift us away from business models based on economies of scale, asset intensification, concentration, and central control" - Shoshana Zuboff

The first wave of “distributed capitalism "The true source of value, which had been invisible to the music industry, resided in Apple’s ability to reinvent the consumption experience from the viewpoint of the individual, at a fraction of the old cost The iPod—and its successors, the iPhone and the iPad—are part of the first wave of what I call “distributed capitalism,” Winning mutations—those that create value by offering consumers individualized goods and services at a radically reduced cost—express a convergence of technological capabilities and the values associated with individual self-determination. Inversion The old logic of wealth creation worked from the perspective of the organization and its requirements—for efficiency, cost reductions, revenues, growth, earnings per share (EPS), and returns on investment (ROI)—and pointed inward. The new logic starts with the individual end user. Instead of “What do we have and how can we sell it to you?” good business practices start by asking “Who are you?” “What do you need?” and “How can we help?” This inverted thinking makes it possible to identify the assets that represent real value for each individual. Cash flow and profitability are derived from those assets. Reconfiguration Once individuals have the assets they want, they must be able to reconfigure those assets according to their own values, interests, convenience, and pleasure. A teenager, for instance, may use her iPod Touch and an application called Pandora to assemble an entire personalized “radio station” while at the same time learning Mandarin Chinese at the kitchen table on Sunday afternoon through an online classroom based thousands of miles from her home. Support The emerging logic of distributed capitalism rewards enterprises that realign their practices with the interests of the end consumer and punishes enterprises that try to impose their own internal requirements or, worse yet, maximize their own benefit at the expense of the individual end user" - Shoshana Zuboff

Next Generation Collaborative Enterprise (NGCE) "Collaboration encourages clusters of experts with diverse skills to make decisions quickly. The Next Generation Collaborative Enterprise allows experts at any level to propose, create and execute without hierarchical or geographical constraints. Priorities are set by clusters of experts that make decisions. Decisions are communicated real-time through social media applications…Individuals are able to apply themselves to the work based on their skills and availability, regardless of their geographic location…Funding is directed based on milestones. Direct accountability is embedded into the social network. Finally, organizational functions become less relevant and ‘Re-orgs’ become obsolete. Leadership is defined as the ability to influence, envision and execute ― rather than the authority to command and control." - Padmasree Warrior

My previous posts have indirectly been on "know-why."

They are about working on tasks in an open way where anyone can go along for the ride and see all the context and workings out to a solution…which as a by-product of this methodology is documented for future findings.

I just thought of a good metaphor for the concept of know-why.

By looking at the scoreboard of a sports match you "know-what" has happened but you don’t really get a sense of why it turned out like that (the know-why).

If you watch a re-run of the match you will then understand all the micro-decisions each player made, and how the team worked together.

There are also other complexities like: morale, a man short, a fight broke-out, a few players on the team have been in a bad light in the media recently, a team has new players that need to get into the groove…and complexities we don’t even know about (a player having a rough family patch, hidden rivalry between team mates, a player ate some bad food, whatever….)

Understanding all this context and what led up to the final score gives you more of an understanding on the "why" which helps you make a more informed decision on your next action.

Representation

This is also important when looking back at the past. Will reading a report give you a complete picture of all the complexities mentioned above that all contributed to the whole? I doubt it. But reading back on multiple stories and raw blog fragments will. Raw information has all the peripheral information that may not seem important to include in a report. It isn’t the job of a report to be a video recorder, a report has an aim or agenda (it has a narrative) as does a novel (it’s what you choose to say). What I like about blog fragments and conversations is we can piece together our own understanding or narrative from the raw artifacts that are always available (we don’t just want formal representations, we want raw information to make our own). Further to this a raw fragment can be found and re-mixed for a completely different subject matter.

Imagine if the coach for some reason was not able to watch the match (undergoing surgery or something). He/she is not interested in just the final score, rather they are interested in how it came to be (what went wrong, what went right), and to learn from that and move on with an understanding. It’s much harder to improve by just knowing the score alone, as it can only tell you so much (close to even result, a team got it’s ass kicked, it was level all the way until the last 20 minutes, etc…)

Reflection

This is the whole notion of AAR and Lessons Learned, where we talk about the brain work, the conversations and decisions the led to the final results. This is what sports coaching is all about, improving yourself and the team for the next game, learning and using that. This may relate well to business units in organisations (especially if measured on collaboration and group output), but not so much for projects. Why? Well project teams don’t have a thirsty motivation to improve as the team is only temporary (unlike a business unit). Once the project is over people move on to another. Yes you take away your individual lessons, but there is less drive to do this in open anecdote circles as your care factor drops due to you moving on to working with a bunch of new people on a new project. Lessons Learned is important for the organisation as a whole and project managers, but I’m not sure workers see it as an investment or of innate importance as the entity they are improving is about to disband.

At the least if we can document as we go using social computing, then these artifacts will be left behind. And I think this is what a sports coach does, besides reviewing the match, and training to improve performance, they are on the sidelines watching a match unfold and manipulate the conditions for an intended better result. This doesn’t always happen in the workplace, often a manager requests you to report as a representation or interpretation of your conversations and brainwork, rather than seeing and interacting with you as it unfolds, which was the point of my previous post.

Social computing environments are engaging from the "What’s In It For Me" factor, which perhaps is the intrinsic motivation that will help glean improvements from temporary units like projects.

What can we say about knowledge management (KM) in relation to this?

Sure we need end products, but the real juice is in the connections, conversations and context that went into these end products. We can better understand these end products when we have access (during and after) to the workings-out and people. Just like the coach back from surgery (or anyone else) can watch a re-run of the match, or the coach at the game can make decisions as the play is happening.

Is it important for managers to eavesdrop and interact on the workings-out on your path to your end-product so they can facilitate the work? If so, we can now do this in the most ambient way.

John Hagel talks about Stocks and Flows, and that we have to move from a stockpiling culture to a flow culture, where it’s important to connect to fragments in context. From these intersections our new conversations based on earlier fragments becomes a process of knowledge creation, which is simply a by-product of doing work.

"…the real value is in creating new knowledge, rather than simply "managing" existing knowledge. In this fast moving world, what we know - our "stocks" of knowledge - depreciate faster than they used to. So we’ve got to keep creating" "Most of us, as individuals, know this. That’s why we’re not keen to spend time entering our latest document into a knowledge management system. We know we’re better off engaging in the interactions and collaborations that create new knowledge about how to get things done.new knowledge in order to keep pace." "Knowledge management systems desperately try to persuade participants to invest time and effort to contribute existing knowledge with the vague and long-term promise that they themselves might eventually derive value from the contributions of others. In contrast, creation spaces focus on providing immediate value to participants in terms of helping them tackle difficult performance challenges while at the same time reducing the effort required to capture and disseminate the knowledge created."

This is KM for free, as we are creating conditions for "flow" based on how humans behave to get things done, rather than explicitly warehousing end products on the shelf hoping someone comes across them, blows the dust off them, and uses them before their expiry date. Only to find it only has hints of usability (if you dare read the 50 page document hoping to find relevancy to your context in the first place). Your next move is to find the author to re-frame this information into a workable context. When doing this you are not documenting these conversations as they happen (knowledge creation) so all people get in the end is your end product, the cycle goes on. In comes social computing….

John Hagel then talks about stocks and flows in relation to written information compared to observation, experience and conversation. Which is what is special about social computing as it’s a written form that is alive; getting as close as possible to offline interactions and learning.

"…think of tacit knowledge as the "know how" rather than the "know what." Imagine trying to perform brain surgery after having read all the books you can find on the subject. The books are the explicit knowledge telling you what to do but knowing how to perform this kind of surgery critically depends on an extended apprenticeship process in which tacit knowledge gets communicated through observation and then by participating on the periphery of these operations. Accessing this kind of knowledge typically requires long-term trust-based relationships. And, in times of rapid change, tacit knowledge becomes increasingly valuable: because it’s the newest knowledge, it’s the most helpful in dealing with the latest changes in a fast-moving business landscape.

Then he alludes to the ecosystem and symbiotic relationships…self-generating, self-organising, self-regulating. Something you get by facilitating conditions and monitoring the system to do it’s own thing rather than a managed approach:

"We can’t participate effectively in flows of knowledge–at least not for long–without contributing knowledge of our own. This occurs because participants in these knowledge flows don’t want free riding "takers"; they want to develop relationships with people and institutions that can contribute knowledge of their own. This is a huge hurdle for most executives who were trained to guard their knowledge carefully. Yet if they remain "takers" they will find themselves rapidly marginalized. Knowledge flows tend to concentrate among participants who are sharing with, and learning from, each other."

Above I have talked about KM embedded in doing work. Not having this is a loss, as from a KM perspective the workings-out are more valuable than the end product. KM of the past has known this but the right tools weren’t available so people were asked to write reports. Which is kind of like watching a two minute sports review of the match, which mostly show the goal scoring…the nature of this format leaves out content and context, and can also have their own agendas.

KM has been branded from a library science / information management side of managing and organising end products. But I think if social computing existed back in the day, then KM would of had the right tools for their aims. But it’s not just the tools, KM like anything else of the past has been approached with a scientific management style, whereas social computing is more about facilitating conditions, less about plans and targeted outcomes, and more about nurturing, experimenting, and emergence…not to say it can’t be incorporated to flavour business processes.

Capturing output is not KM

Let’s finish with reviewing an experience shared by Yigal Chamish, who says:

"knowledge is for action, not for warehousing"

Simon Bostock adds to this:

"You cant "manage" knowledge in a traditional sense. Its contextual, it resides in stories, its only valuable when it "flow" not when its stored, it cant be measured and its always, but always, Just In Time."

David Tebbutt has left a valuable comment on Yigals post:

"No doubt the outcomes could be captured and archived as useful information, especially if it were tagged adequately and made easy to find. But this is more content, or information management, not KM. Were the people (in the interests of cutting travel, CO2 emissions, whatever) able to cooperate through social tools, tele-presence, or whatever, this too would be part of the "management" role that of creating the right environment for knowledge sharing to flourish."

Anyway what was Yigals post about?

Yigal talks about a group of Europeans who were invited to a herb farm in Ethiopia to explain to them the process of growing herbs and sending them to Europe. Out of conversation the issue of dealing with (eliminating) insects that damage the herb crops was raised. This was not on the agenda but its a common interest. What ensued was lots of discussion, each sharing stories and experiences. This was not planned or led, it surfaced naturally, and is the makings of a Community of Practice…naturally forming at time of need.

Social computing can mimic this type of exchange. Conversations are no way limited to the offline world. Whether they form into a community or not is not important, what is, is that the people are able to find each other and the conversation is able to take place. These are conditions for sense-making, and helping each other at time of need. It’s all documented so the conversation has longevity and reach to new people, and this whole process creates new knowledge and leaves behind artifacts that can be found and become pieces of new conversations and knowledge creation processes, and the flux goes on.

Yigal makes an important point:

"I can only imagine trying to pump this new contextual knowledge and warehouse it in a form stored in a database."

Conclusion

Charles Jennings (via Harold Jarche) gives us a nice way to conclude:

"…we need to move away from a focus on knowledge transfer and acquisition, an approach rooted in Plato’s academy…we are moving to the world of the sons of Socrates, where dialogue and guidance are key competencies. It is a world where the capability to find information and turn it into knowledge at the point-of-need provides the key competitive advantage, where knowing the right people to ask the right questions of is more likely to lead to success than any amount of internally-held knowledge and skill."

This is a follow-up to my post Enterprise microblogging needs a facelift to rival email.

In that post I talked about adding an item in the stream to your Watchlist

• This way you can keep in the loop about a conversation without you having to be a poster or a commenter

I also talked about communally grouping items via contributors tagging them with a hashtag

• This way you can keep in the loop about the greater task that is generating all these items

Differences

• You are not being cc:ed, rather you "pull" the content to you (filtering your own information)
  • you can be @mentioned which is like the to: or cc: field
    • but this won’t happen in every post and comment, so it’s up to people to add it to their Watchlist
• The sender has an understanding of who needs to be involved in a conversation, but this is not always apparent at the start of a task, and there are plenty of people on the edges who need to be consulted that emerge
  • Now anyone can find a conversation, add it to their Watchlist, get involved

Deeper than In-the-flow and Above-the-flow

A while back a defining post was made on the difference between working Above-the-Flow (volunteering to share information and experiences based on engagement, trust, audience, reciprocity), and In-the-Flow (communicating and asking questions about tasks using social tools rather than email…doing what you are already doing in new tools).

Well what I want to describe here is going deeper than In-the-Flow…to the artifacts of the activity itself.

Example

We have a web conference about a task that involves people across teams.

We set up a group space.

We use this group space to ask the task team questions.

We use this group space to communicate our individual progress to the task members.

Why do I have to go to a blog to describe to other task members about my progress?

Let me explain…

An action item that came up in the initial meeting was for a member of the task to contact someone in IT to find out where we can host our database.

Once he found this out, he communicated back to the task members by fowarding his email conversation with the IT guy

OR

By blogging about this email conversation he had.

But you kind of feel silly blogging about something when you can just easily fwd it…it’s just easier.

Yes blogging it stores it for all to see, and keeps the conversation centralised…but it needs to feel natural. One positive step is to forward your email to the blogs email address, this way further comments about this is centralised around the blog post.

Deep In-the-Flow (Embedded In-the-Activity)

There is a better way…

Why report your progress by updating task members about it (whether in email or a blog)…

when instead they can see your conversation as it happens.

MICROBLOGGING AND HASHTAGS

Watch what happens when all task members follow the hashtag for this task:

Task Member B’s filtered stream of #DMS_dev Hi @ITguy we are looking for a place to host our new server…blah blah blah…#DMS_dev Posted by TaskMemberA Comments expanded ITguy - No probs we have room in our data centre in Australia TaskMemberC - When do you think this may happen ITguy - We will have a meeting tomorrow so can give you a date TaskMemberA - do you have a goto person that we can liase with ITguy - just got out of a meeting and @ITguysfriend will do the hands on work, no date yet ITguysfriend - I’m travelling soon, so it would be good to do this ASAP

Notice here how Task Member A does not have to write a blog post or forward an email to Task Member B or any of the other task members.

Why? Because all the task members are following the hashtag.

Task Member A is no longer the middleman to report the conversations he/she is having at the edges when doing their part of the task. They don’t have to forward an email or report progress as everyone can already know "as it happens."

ie. when on a task we don’t just converse with task members, we need to speak to random others in the organisation to get information from, authorise, or simply consult with as part of a task member doing their bit of the task

All task members (and anyone else) can now see the conversations each member is having with both task members and with indirect task members they need to consult with.

Indirect task members such as @ITguy can get involved at anytime without having to go through a task member; as long as they use the hashtag all task members will be in the loop.

What I’m getting to is you don’t need to report status or progress, as everyone can already see the conversations you are having.

Traditionally, if I were to report back to the group the progress of my task I would examine all my email conversations and write an email or a blog post on my progress…kind of like a real informal reporting. Or I would upload my emails which no-one will read.

But now people can have access to the artifacts without me having to forward them, or without me having to report about them.

This is a major difference between a closed system like email and an open microblogging system with the use of hashtags.

To reiterate the two main theme’s here:

1. People can now see the raw conversation as it happens, you no-longer have to report back to base…as people at base are privy to your conversation as it unfolds.

2. As a task member I am no longer a middleman in interpreting and communicating the progress of my part of the task, as you can see what I’m doing. Plus other task members can interact with the people on the edges (indirect task members) on the details of my part of the task.

Where it doesn’t apply

I’ve made clear that this works as a replacement to email, but when doing your part of a task you may have phone and face-to-face conversations with 3rd parties…in that case you do have to write a status update reporting your progress

Work products Deep In-the-Flow (Embedded In-the-Activity)

Aside from open conversations with both members of the task and people on the edges that are consulted about various parts of the task; we also have output documents eg. deliverables and supporting materials.

We no longer have to communicate (email or write a blog post) to people that we have just added a document related to our task. We simply do this at the time of adding the document.

The Activity stream of the microblogging app will suck in items added to the Document Management System (DMS) via an API

Task Member A is adding a document to the old DMS Click here to browse and and Add the document. Click here to add a description: Here’s the information sheet about our server #DMS_dev I thought I’d better @mention you @ITguysfriend as pushing this to you may get to you quicker as I recall you are travelling soon Posted by TaskMemberA CLICK TO SUBMIT

If we take another look at the hashtag stream we will see that the act of adding this document and a description has resulted in posting a new item into the stream (see the 5th post down)

Task Member B’s filtered stream of #DMS_dev Hi @ITguy we are looking for a place to host our new server…blah blah blah…#DMS_dev Posted by TaskMemberA [Expand Comments] Hey @Qualityguy I need you to sign off on this paper work…basically it says…blah blah blah…#DSM_dev Posted by TaskMemberC [Expand Comments] [Link to Document] Hey main members of this task, what do you think we can call the new DMS, any ideas #DSM_dev Hey @Marketingguy are you able to come up with a brand logo for our new product, I gave you background to this task on your voicemail…also see linked document #DSM_dev Posted by TaskMemberB [Expand Comments] [Link to Document] Here’s the information sheet about our server #DMS_dev I thought I’d better @mention you @ITguysfriend as pushing this to you may get to you quicker as I recall you are travelling soon Posted by TaskMemberA [Link to Document] Comments Expanded ITguysfriend - just about to hop on a plane, sorry, will login when I land ITguy - that’s OK I’m gonna get @ITguysotherfriend to do this if she has time ITguysotherfriend - no probs, I’ve added this to my watchlist and read up on other related posts in this hashtag, so I’m all up to speed TaskMemberC - is Thursday OK ITguy - I’ll be in the office on Friday so we’ll do it then ITguysotherfriend - OK with me TaskMemberC - great ITguysfriend - just landed, good to see it’s all sorted

Summary

This post focuses on a sweet spot in performing tasks.

Why?

It’s as easy as email.

You don’t have to set up a group space.

All you need to do is use microblogging (utlising Watchlists and Hashtags)

But the real focus of this post is about what happens on the edges.

All people on a task go off and do their bit and either report back on progress via email or a blog. They are the middleman between the task members and people on the edges who they are consulting with in doing the task.

Now we don’t have to report back, as task members (and anyone for that matter) can see the the raw conversations with people on the edges as it happens. Both other task members and people on the edges can interact without having to go through a particular task member.

Related

This is taking my ambient awareness post to proper task use, and brings back into fashion Jim McGee’s post on the loss of observable work.

Paula Thornton talks about artifacts of work, and this is exactly what I’m tackling:

"Conversations are artifacts of work. Do not confuse artifacts of work with work products. Work products often miss much of the “real work” that occurred. Any evidence of “real work” qualifies as an artifact. KM tended to focus on “work products” (often most closely aligned with ‘the explicit’). But the goal was never to document the “implicit” (as was often postulated), but simply to make it observable by others."

This post is not so much the difference between conversations and the end product (deliverable), but more so how the conversations happen, and how we don’t have to report progress on our daily work on achieving our task.

Well let me clear that up, sure if I’m doing my own brainwork I will report my results, but if I’m having conversations with people that I need to consult with to achieve my task, well then I don’t have to report that this took place, as other task members already know, due to me using the task channel (defined by assigning a hashtag) to converse with people on the edges…all without them having to be part of an official group space.

Thx to everyone for the retweets on my previous post about socialising processes, adhoc work, observable work and ACM.

If you are going to take something away let it be the concept of BRP (Barely Repeatable Processes) to enable adhoc, unpredictable work…and at the same time reclaiming observable work, and as always ambient awareness.

I’m sure the pioneers like Thingamy, Traction Software, Activities on Lotus Connections, ActionBase, Google Wave will be joined by many others.

And thanks to Paula Thornton, Jim McGee and Greg Lloyd for this wonderful exchange where we are riffing off each other, sometimes unknowingly, where various topics seem to blend into each other.

And let me give a shout out to Keith Swenson for his incredible blog on Adaptive Case Management (ACM)…empowering workers to deal with the unpredictable "practice" that is knowledge work.

Practice Execution

Like Paula Thornton tweeted:

"…heuristic structure rather than process. The means for work to flow"

Yes, and perhaps knowledge work is about practice execution, rather than pre-defined processes…but this is a tricky one as whether predictable or not, whether repeatable or not, it’s still a process, even if it only happens once in it’s life.

A long while ago I posted why KM failed in a nutshell, and it was about KM being a separate thing you need to do rather than embedded as a literacy. My post shared that magnificent gem by Ross Mayfield on what’s happening most of the time in this knowledge work era is that people are dealing with exceptions to processes and workarounds. And they do this using email and attachments which is messy, and not visible or amplifying.

Since then we have had social computing platforms as an alternative, and now we are starting to see this evolving where the tools are designed or allow the user to design them in the flow of the way we practice work.

Jim McGee warns of Enterprise 2.0 playing the game of enhancing processes as it’s much more than that. In my post I talked about that as just 1st gear to not only get adoption but because it’s also useful for knowledge work, but not to lose site that enterprise 2.0 is also about emergence, networks, connections, transparency, awareness, etc…

I not only talked about enhancing or socialising business processes, but also building your own processes using new tools. The thing is a "2.0" approach can be used almost anywhere, and existing processes need not be left out.

I won’t say too much as Jim had not read my post thoroughly at time of publishing his post.

OK now this brings me to an enlightening video clip with Patrice Livingstone and her passion for Traction Software as the poster child for the nemesis of email. H/T to Paula Thornton for the link.

Patrice talks very passionately about visibility and fragments, rather than closed and big buried documents.

And most importantly emerges the concept of "know-why".

It has come to the point that social computing is the way Patrice has been working for the last while, and she could not bare facing a new job where they use email and attachments. It seems a lack of social computing would be a show stopper for Patrice deciding on whether to take on a new job…and I second that! And so does Karen Lilla it seems: “@marciamarcia Our team at IBM can’t live without our social media tools. Anarchy would ensue if it was ever taken away! @geoffliving”

OK, I just read Paula’s latest post and what do you know she reviewed the same video, and we both describe Patrice’s diatribe as passionate…I have also borrowed some of Paula’s words for the title of this post.

Like I said before no matter what I talk about lately it seems to be intune with what my network is thinking…indeed feels like a collective intelligence.

What Patrice said on fragments and context

"I knew at an instinctive level that what we were doing — all the unstructured communication, all the relationship building and stuff that our team was doing — was much more valuable than the work we were doing in written reports and meetings and minutes, which is what consumed the body of our time."

She typifies the usual scenario of all the brainwork and conversations done in meetings and email and then distilled into massive document that get shelved into a filing cabinet.

Where has all that brainwork gone, there is no trace of it…the unstructured stuff (know-why) is missing as it happened in email.

This is reminiscent of Dave Snowden on fragmented vs summarised material in relation to context, recall, usability and attention scarcity:

"Everything is fragmented. We evolved to handle unstructured fragmented fine granularity information objects, not highly structured documents. People will spend hours on the internet, or in casual conversation without any incentive or pressure. However creating and using structured documents requires considerably more effort and time. Our brains evolved to handle fragmented patterns not information."

Access the link above for related issues on summarising content or codification, like:

"We only know what we know when we need to know it" "The way we know things is not the way we report we know things" "We always know more than we can say, and we will always say more than we can write down"

For more on human behaviour, refer to this list of cognitive biases. eg. Retrospective Coherence, Narrative Fallacy, Fundamental Attribution Error

And Dave again:

"We urgently need to shift from working with chunked documents that seek to summarise material, to increasing direct access to fine granularity raw data in the form of anecdotes, sound files, pictures etc. etc. The process of chunking, or abstraction involves loss of content which may well contain weak signals or subtle clues and more importantly involves making the material specific to the context of its creation in time and socio-cultural context."

And yet again:

"The more you structure material, the more you summarize…the more you make material specific to a context or time, the less utility that material has as things change. For years now I have asked this question at conferences around the world: Faced with an intractable problem, do you go and draw down best practice from your company’s knowledge management system, or do you go and find eight or nine people you know and trust with relevant experience and listen to their stories? So why for the last decade and more have we focused on chunking up best practice? Increasingly unstructured material, blended in unexpected ways, provides a richer source of knowledge.

Arthur Shelley on a comment on a past blog says:

"In many ways, documents are dead (or at the least in a coma) until brought to life through a conversation"

I take it Arthur alludes to documents being a summarised outcome of the end result (know-what), meaning you then need to find the "know-why" to understand parts of the document. And social tools are a way to do this as they are raw fragments of the conversation…they basically record the conversation.

Alister Grigg (Fastman Consulting and Solutions) via an email conversation encapsulates this:

"…the logic, the argument, the thought process can only really be captured through that conversation. Capture and contextualise that conversation and you have the why. Link that to the output / deliverable and you have the why."

Alister goes on to say:

"Well written reports will include the arguments but as an output and not a record, and often influenced…"

This is quite a pithy statement. A document like a report has an agenda, whereas blog posts are raw fragments. There may be lots of peripheral information in blog posts that people may find to re-mix and use elsewhere.

This concept of raw fragments over summarised content also paralleIs with our cognitive processes in how we apply knowledge, see my past post:

“I need to be able to flex my skill in assembling my know-how in applied and unexpected situations. Eg we have people over for dinner in an hour and I need to cook dinner with what I have…improvise. You need to know the fundamentals, this way you can assemble fragments in new ways. In this respect we can see personal knowledge fragments as ingredients, and when I’m faced with a situation I bring those ingredients together and assemble them into an outcome. The knowledge is in recalling ingredients for the context and assembling them (knowing how they work together and as a whole). In another context some of those ingredients will assemble with others, and also the assembly may be approached differently. To me, this is know-how!"

Alister’s quote echos a passage from Nassim Taleb’s brilliant book "The Black Swan" on raw fragments and context:

“The journal was purportedly written without…knowing what was going to happen next, when the information available…was not corrupted by the subsequent outcomes.” “While we have a highly unstable memory, a diary provides indelible facts recorded more or less immediately; it thus allows the fixation of an unrevised perception and enables us to later study events in their own context. Again, it is the purported method of description of the event, not its execution, that was important.”

Matthew Hodgson also says something similar:

"If we look back to the rich oral history of many of our cultures, blogging is a reflection of the need to story-tell, carrying with it important information not only on the what – the facts like the reports we typically store in our recordkeeping systems – but also the meaning behind the why and how."

This is also a cultural move to a work-in-progress culture, where we are sharing workings out in the open, rather than just the finished product…the workings out are always there, but is it visible…and of course if it is visible it can be enriched, and re-mixed into new contexts.

Think of it as Steam and Ice:

“Steam - The thoughts, ideas and concepts that rattle around in our heads. Ice - Books and polished documents that we reference from time to time.”

Sorry about the tangent, but now we see how raw fragments over codified material is easier to digest and find, it is raw so it can be blended or re-mixed into another context…but most of all it’s the visibility and accessibility of all those myriad of decisions that help you understand how the "know-what" ie. the document you are reading, came to be.

Obviously both can co-exist, but as long as when when are reading a deliverable or report we can point back to the visible observable work, the tracemarks, the raw fragments, the conversations, whatever you want to call it, as this is where the "know-why" lives.

What Patrice said on "know-why"

Patrice mentions that we can’t reduce our brain work, you still have to work, but we can choose to re-purpose the tools we are currently using. She says with absolute clarity that an email is a blank page, an MS Word document is a blank page, a wiki is blank page, etc…which one are you going to choose when you do your work…a social and visible team space or email and attachments.

A social space has more value added down the road (tags, comments, links, visible, tracemarks…basically findable). Patrice shares a story of a task she was working on, and how a search in the Traction social platform revealed that her task had already been worked on or attempted before by another party:

"Along comes me, I’m here. I would not ever know about either Person A or B or that they had a conversation, but I can exhume a dialog that took place two years ago between these two individuals that lays out the problem and the solution. I can say…the following technology is now available. Problem solved."

Patrice also echoes something I posted about in getting up to speed with the help of accessing past conversations in online group spaces:

"…being placed in new situations, new organisations, and needed to get up to speed quickly - there was no luxury of time"

A quote in the Wikinomics book tells this same thing, in that the conversation once existed as it’s findable in a visible place (as opposed to closed email silos, which are a poor excuse for corporate memory). Now we can say, yeah this happened 2 years ago, not based on hear-say, but check out these links:

"When new problems and exceptions arise, people in organisations will swarm around that exception to try and resolve it […] this dencentralised approach to problem solving might be worked out in the lunchroom, while leaning over a colleague’s cubicle, over a pint after work, or increasingly through a long thread of emails The problem is that this causal approach to problem solving leaves no organisational memory of the event, with the risk that only people involved in creating the solution walk away with any new insights. Problems can persist like a bad cold, and solutions will be reinvented everytime the problem occurs. Social Software provides companies with a way to document and leverage those moments of innovation with relative ease, providing a living, breathing repository of easily accessible knowledge that grows along with the organisation. Companies can continually harness their local insights and adaptations to new problems by capturing and using those insights to drive organisational change and renewal."

The above quote is in relation to the context of "problems", but to me working visibly could be the norm in all group work, whether it’s a problem, task, coordinating something…anything.

And this echo’s Ross Mayfield’s quote about practice execution in that practice is used to fill the void, practice is used to fix things, but doing it in an invisible way using closed tools means we don’t leave any tracemarks behind, therefore no corporate memory.

And then Paula really brings home my notion of know-why and what the real corporate memory is:

"And yet, in most storage mechanism the work products themselves are stripped of the reality in which they were created. All the context as to why certain decisions were made at that time are all missing from the painfully-scrubbed collections of results and conclusions.The painful truth is, knowledge work products are not accurate representations of the work. The real work is on the cutting room floor and/or still in the minds of (or faded from) those that did the work and who may be gone. While there will always be ‘waste’ in any process, might the cuts from one project be relevant for another? Work products by themselves are often meaningless as they reflect what made it through the cuts. They lack the context of the work itself. When time and resources have past, how does one reconstruct the context for which the work product was created and you can no longer ask the workers questions about their work?"

And now let’s go back to Patrice in how she gives the details of Paula’s brilliant insight via a simple example of the invisible knowledge work that goes into a document review. It’s all too common that the person reading the document is missing the know-why in how to interpret the document. If all that know-why, all the workings-out that happened in creating/reviewing the document were visible, then it can easily be retrieved as the document can link to these raw fragments (conversations). These raw fragments, the knowledgework, can be consulted without having to track down the author (if they are still around), which we would then have to try and track down some emails, minutes, whiteboard, print-outs…

The key here is a document comment stream…which can inform the know-why or comments that hyperlink to other areas that have the know-why

Patrice’s know-why tragedy

"…100 page document get written, they’re beautiful, there’s a lot of work, lot of meetings, lot of brainpower, bright minds on difficult problems…and all this stuff…gets filed into Sharepoint [Document Managenent System]…nobody knows it’s in there…they don’t know how to find it, and if they could, they don’t know what they’re reading, why should they read it, there’s no context…because it’s been stripped now out of its environment…"

Patrice then talks about an order by the General (manager) to go back and re-work the document, and goes on vacation:

"…we work on pages 18 - 25…we do a lot of work - we cross out lines we explain why, we put in an appendix - and we put it back in Sharepoint…" "…unstructured conversation…our emails back and forth in generating that product which are now removed from the document itself…if we were blogging…it all would of been captured"

The lieutenant is asked to retrieve the document for the General, who wants to see the revised document…they are pointed to the new version of the file in the document management system:

"…change comparison…100 page document now an 87 page document [pages don’t match up anymore due to re-working it]…[the General and Lieutenant]… read this but…don’t know what they are doing. On page 20 there’s this whole paragraph about A and B and C…why did they do this…"

So they have to track down the authors of the document and get them back from the vacation:

"Now we are doing the work twice because we spent 3 weeks…doing this work and delivering it…all the value add is gone…yes we got a product, we still need a product…but this product is useless, because the knowledge work and the thinking, and the exchange, and the brainstorming, and the whiteboarding, and all that is gone…what good is it" "I will never use Sharepoint again because you’ve divorced me from my work" "Care and feeding of knowledge work requires relationships…people want high performance, but they forget about high touch…relationships are everything" "We did a lot of work…it got turned into some flat 80 page document that some General needed to have, and he got the document but he couldn’t understand the whys and wherefores" "He wouldn’t have…had the meeting to make the lieutenant retrieve the document, sit down with him and interpret the document [had he been able to access the visible unstructured conversations related to the document…whether in a blog or document comment stream, or whatever]

Sounds all too common. I bet you would hear hundreds of examples of this same story if you started asking around or eavesdropping in your workplace. I listen all the time at work and hear pains and pangs about communication and decisions being echoed around near where I sit.

Know-why is missing in action

Not long ago I was talking with Alister Grigg (who I linked to above) and he told me a story of a bridge built over a freeway. What the documentation didn’t tell them is why was it decided that the bridge was built to cover a 6 lane freeway when the freeway is only 4 lanes…where is this conversation that led to this decision?

Summary

Up until now the corporate memory has been in email silos, this is the know-how and know-why….the workings out, decisions, and conversations that led to deliverables. Just having end products (the know-what) is not good enough, we need to share the talent of the work that goes into this output…a move to a thinking-out-loud / work-in-progress culture.

Email silos are not discoverable and accessible, and people often will not share stuff in email that they would in blogs and forums. And now all the knowledge and decisions about documents can easily and intuitively be accessible via fragments whether they are micro-blogs, forums, blogs, wiki, document comment streams, etc…

Convergence of Themes

Emergence

Fragments

Visibility

Barely Repeatable Processes

Observable Work

Work-in-Progress

Thinking-out-Loud

Ambient Awareness

Stocks and Flows

Ad-hoc

Context

Craft

Next

In the next post I’ll explain my idea of conversational metadata. A way this "observable work" concept can be adopted (and take some email market share) as it’s designed into the process flow. This can happen various ways, but I’ll explain how it can happen against the backdrop of a Document Management System.

OK, I know we don’t "do" enterprise 2.0, but I thought it was a catchy title.

In case you haven’t scrolled down yet, this is a gigantic post even for my standards. It started off reviewing an evolving theme of enterprise 2.0 moving to process-based solutions, and on the way I stumbled across another perspective on the world of "knowledge work" and "processes" called "Adaptive Process Management".

I was going to break this post into parts, but I had already written it in a woven whole piece, so bad luck you are just going to have to read it bit by bit yourself.

Michael Idinopulos from the Transparent Office blog is on the money continuously…he has a very realistic take on enterprise 2.0. In his latest post he takes the enterprise 2.0 movement full circle…it’s not about tools, it’s not about culture, it’s about processes. Don’t I know it, I mentioned this a while ago, and I recently wrote a massive post not long ago on ad-hoc work. It’s actually about all these things, "design" needs to be sweet, people need to be willing to give it a go, but they will do this moreso if you make the tools irresistible and in-the-flow…kind of like you can’t do without a remote control for your TV.

And we do this my embedding the tools into existing processes, and also assembling these tools for adhoc work in a more solidfied way.

I’ll just note here, as I do at the end of this post, that socialising business processes is closing the current circle of the state of the enterprise. Next is leaping to another circle where there is a shift in organisational structure from a process to network based organisation.

Anyway back to the stepping stone, which is the focus of this post…

This is how Michael puts it:

"Process, rather than culture, is increasingly seen as the key enabler of social software in the enterprise. Rather than wringing our hands and gnashing our teeth about how to change organizational culture, we’re looking at how to insert social tools into the existing business process. Conversely, we’re also starting to look at how business processes can be redesigned and optimized now that these social tools are available."

Some similar words from Gautam Ghosh:

"The challenge is that the technology needs to become embedded in the business processes. If ERP was all about business processes, Enterprise 2.0 has to do with business relationships. There are currently lots of tools for managing the relationships within the enterprise and also for building relations with customers. There are CRM systems and e-mails. These systems are not giving anybody any pain. Nonetheless, they are frustrating at times in the etiquettes they employ and the way they are structured. Also, the vendors have not been able to showcase how these things will be able to ease some pain that currently the business relationships have."

This is poignant as it brings up the notion of these tools to help with existing business issues that current tools and processes are failing at, and it also brings up the human behavioural obstacle of the risk averse "endowment effect."

More of the same from Ajay Gopidran, but he also throws in "shifting context" into the mix, and conversations about general topics while neglecting conversations within the nitty-gritty of a business process.

"Most of us are aware of the huge benefits that E20 delivers, but what we fail to understand is, at work most of the work-related conversations are triggered within various business applications that users/employees use for Project Management, CRM, SCM, ERP, HRMS, etc… So if we blindly build enterprise collaboration networks and tools that are independent of these business applications then these E20 tools & network will be mostly used for conversations around generic topics, limiting the value they bring to the organization. For the business user, he/she will have to switch from the ’context’ of the business application to Email to conduct business conversations. Switching ’context’ is such a waste of productive time and the ’knowledge’ which should have resided within the business app, for others to benefit, is now buried deep within someone’s inbox, with the risk of this ‘knowledge’ walking out the door with a departing employee. I believe Enterprise 2.0 tools will find a quicker adoption in organizations if they are: > Simple tools that integrate with common business applications, rather than creating additional silos of information that requires maintenance > Designed to increase business-related conversations, with sharing as a natural part of working"

Ajay again:

"“When enterprise social networks work independent of other business applications, e-mail continues to be the choice for conversations. The conversations on the social network is then limited to generic topics. For social networking to succeed in the enterprise, it must have business content. If my business applications can socialize around business events, then there is a definite business value…"

Ajay is the founder of Qontext, and this app looks like it’s right on the money as per the focus of this post:

"Applications that support our business process and manage data do not have built-in tools to support conversations among co-workers. Lack of tools on an application page, say a new HR policy page on the portal that may provide context for a conversation, forces us to switch to email. This results in loss of work continuity and even productivity. Though such conversations grow and become invaluable over time, emails get buried deep in the inbox and are delinked from the context that started them. Qontext (pronounced ‘context’) offers simple, yet powerful toolset for communicating, sharing, and collaborating from inside common business applications."

Hatch Carpenter also picked up on this meme over 6 months ago (pleasantly surprised to see I left a comment). Hutch calls this Social Software 2.0 (Addressing Existing Enterprise Workflows):

"The integration of collaboration, increased findability, social networking and crowdsourcing into core enterprise activities requiring defined workflows, specific user sign-offs, results measurement and role-based access."

He has also picked up on Nenshad Bardoliwalla post, as has Dennis Howlett, on how social computing can be integratred into existing business proceses.

Hutch talks about the participation obstacle of shifting context:

"In Social Software 1.0, that’s a standalone wiki. I’m a fan of the notion that collaboration needs to occur in-the-flow of work. And having a separate wiki for collaborating on a customer quotation analysis makes it tougher to get usage. In Social Software 2.0, that’s a collaborative space integrated into a sales force automation application. The customer quotation analysis occurs right where all the “action” occurs in the effort to win new business."

He then lists scenarios of current business processes that could be socialised, like proposals (see Zapproved), procurement, product management (feature requests)

…this social software movement has happened in reverse….

Let’s change gears

First we had KM mandating people to share what they know, without any engagement..

One of these tools were Communties of Practice (CoPs), but yet no-one could find like people to be able to share their interest with in a CoP space. This environment is not mandated, but rather facilitated, and the level of engagement is based on trust and reciprocity.

In order to find each other to collaborate and create CoPs we then had expert locators, and now we have social networks (from subject matter experts to subject matter networks)

We wanted people to go out of their way and volunteer their know-how (and try to attack this resistance via culture change).

Even if we have engagement, it’s still open social silos or social islands.

But now enterprise-wide networks are connecting the organisation as a whole. People can share and ask questions in the open, they can find each other, they can then spin off into collaborations and CoPs.

But even so, this is not going to touch everyone in the organisation. The part that will touch the most is the profile feature of the social network as a look up tool, but not everybody will want to post updates, but that’s OK.

Socialise processes

So how do we get social tools to touch everyone?

And if we find a way to do this, we then hope people will become used to the technology and it’s use, and expect that people will have another look at social network microblogging and CoPs and collaboration groups.

But first we need to get them hooked by offering them a way to do their everyday routines and tasks better.

Now we have finally got there, what we want to do is not just offer something new, but also offer something that attacks current pain points (not a solution looking for a problem), now we are thinking about getting people to work socially within current processes.

Social tools need to be features of existing products, they need to be designed into our flow and processes. This way they are not seen as social or a timewaster, they are seen as productivity and process improvement…so in the end they are just the newest way to do something better, a better way to execute our tasks, so why wouldn’t you want it.

As Michael says this of course makes ROI easier (see Dennis Howlett), as you measure the process improvement and effectiveness doing it the new or enhanced way. And adoption is easier as it’s not about volunteering know-how, it’s not about "what’s in it for me", it’s simply about doing your same processes but in an enhanced way…I don’t get up to change the channel, I now use a remote.

But when I say doing it a new way, I don’t mean shifting contexts during a process ie. leave my process tool, and hop over to an isolated forum, then come back to my process tool…when things aren’t designed into the flow of working, they won’t be used. Sure going over to that forum may be more effective than closed email, but it’s not convenient, if it takes more than 7 seconds to access (and then there is the time to write the content) it just won’t cut it.

It’s also important that the words blog, forum, microblog, blog are no longer foreign terms as they are embedded into your turf…

eg. 1

An ideal IT Support database would have a feature that when you’re stuck on a call, you can blast a message to your colleagues. Blast a message is a much more comfortable word than blog, microblog or forum. At the moment you either email or IM people you know, or perhaps hop over to the IT CoP to post a forum question. This is not in the flow of my existing process, this is clunky, it needs to augment the existing process in a smooth and unconscious way.

eg. 2

When the support call is closed it may perhaps automatically post an update in the activity stream. Currently you wouldn’t alert people that you just closed a call, it’s instead recorded in some backend database that is reported on each month. But with activity feeds, this is a move from "need to know" to "need to share", even better that the system shares it on your behalf (implicitly).

eg. 3

A Project management tool where you post a progress update in a field, and that blasts a message out. If someone said you are blogging, you would say what do you mean, I’m just updating a field that broadcasts a message.

Currently we need to go to our CoP/Team space and use a blog…not gonna happen, instead it needs to be designed into the process…it has to be unconscious.

eg. 4

Good design means we can leave inline comments at points in the Project Management Gnatt Chart, similar to inline comments on the timeline of a music track in Soundcloud (see What is a timed comment and how is it different to a regular comment?). Again, this is designed in-the-flow, rather than shift context over to your Team space and use a microblog, blog or forum. It’s convenient and it just seems normal, it doesn’t feel like your publishing…which can be a dirty word.

From 1st into 2nd gear

So far we have got out of reverse and into 1st gear by socialising existing business processes, now we can shift to second gear for that Above-the-Flow sharing that we were trying to do at the start, but people just weren’t ready for.

Now that people are used to the tools and are enhancing existing processes; engaged, trust them, and don’t want to do without them (like a tradesperson’s toolbox) ie. they are the new email and attachments on the block…now we might have a chance of people going over to some social silos and sharing know-how.

So yes social tools are about "tacit knowledge" if you want to call it that, they are about people sharing experiences, people connecting to others, asking questions to the crowd, collaborating…but they are also about process improvement.

And not clunky process improvement as I described in eg 1 above.

Here’s another example

We used to review a document in email, but then we moved to a forum thread…yes open, unlike email, but still separated from the document, and clunky in my processes…it’s not unconscious. The new way is the document itself having a comments thread. I’m just commenting on a document, yet it’s very similar to using a forum to discuss a document review. But yet a forum is scary to some, it’s a new technology, whereas the document commenting feels normal, and it’s right there in my flow, rather than somehow looking for a link on the document that points to a forum thread.

Forums and Blogs are still essential as standalone places for groups to share and help each other eg. CoPs. Networks are still essential for people to connect, discover, converse, crowdsource. But these are both 2nd gear. What we have to get right is get out of reverse from standalone tool spaces, and shift into 1st gear to In-the-Flow of processes, and with this comes in-the-flow design…then as already mentioned we can shift into 2nd when we are ready for it.

I’m not saying that 2nd gear (Above-the-Flow) is not working now; there are plenty succesful examples of crowdsourcing and enterprise use of social tools, but I just think we need to stay in 1st gear for longer so social tools become the norm…so people don’t even realise that what they are doing is blogging or asking questions in a microblog, etc…

I guess we had Lean and Six Sigma for process improvement, and now we have social computing for knowledge work (which encompasses process improvement). The difference is social computing is not only about process improvement and efficiency, it’s also about effectiveness, connecting, opportunities, emergence, adapting to change, agility. Social computing basically can effect anything, it’s a literacy, a way of being.

Anyway, at last we have realised we have been doing everything in reverse.

Real examples

Sameer Patel has shared some real examples of how social computing can be embedded into existing business processes that help deal with current pain points that keep executives awake at night.

The unique offerings that social computing enable such as networking and emergence are great, but to get a foot in the executive’s door we need to demonstrate how social computing can remedy existing issues by socialising process tools like CRM and ERM.

Sameer says:

"The problem is that, in the context of E2.0, there’s little discussion around performance objectives where social computing constructs and technologies can move the needle on discrete but large scale business solutions. Equally bad is that there’s little thought and discussion around the optimal solutions architecture and combination of process + social that can solve large scale problems that keeps the c-suite awake at night." "…we ran a 3 hour workshop on how to get executives to understand the business value of social computing in the context of performance goals that keep them up at night. Following that we ran sessions that addressed delivering tangible value in the context of known functions and processes in the enterprise: purpose driven collaboration, reducing customer support costs via social concepts and improving product innovation via social concepts. No tools, no features and frankly no adoption. Just performance acceleration via strategic process and performance alignment"

Sameer shares an example of social + process improving business performance:

"R Ray Wang’s estimate that social computing concepts, when injected into process, actually reduces costs 2 to 4 X times over those very ERP-esq call center/CRM technology driven programs…Contrast that with the fact that traditional CRM systems on their own are often nothing more than glorified reporting systems that sales reps are mandated to use, in exchange for their commission check."

The result:

"…data, and intelligence normally buried in closed process centric activity and systems were pushed into people centric social realms for improvement, only then to be put back into process systems in their newer highly optimized forms.

The current poster child for social computing in bed with process is Chatter by Salesforce…Sameer’s review:

"Where unstructured and, really, knowledge access and sharing was conducted directly in email, via Chatterbox, now accountants and finance professionals can now tap into the larger community for expertise and critical customer knowledge to understand exceptions in a process (say, an overdue invoice from an otherwise timely customer)."

Sameer re-iterates:

"…unless we see a social + process in context, Enterprise 2.0 won’t realize its full potential. Whilst tools certainly won’t provide the solution alone, Chatter has the capability of being the first integrated showcase where social concepts are unleashed to enrichen discrete processes (in this case, closing and keeping customers) towards established performance goals."

This is also in line with a solution to Oscar Berg’s post with a need to marry "social + process" for sales reps. The company he talks of have different divisions of sales reps each offering different services. The key is to cross-pollinate sales across divisions ie. capitalise on opportunity. Oscar mentions the importance of trust and reciprocity for a sales person to take the time to refer, and a need to build rapport to enhance this…but sales within the same area only do a formal meet-up once a year, and meet-ups across divisions don’t happen formally. Standalone social computing isn’t a solution as there really isn’t intrinsic motivation and it isn’t tied to work processes, but socialising current process tools like the CRM may be the answer, as they already use it and trust it. Basically it’s a tool they use to do work, so rather than shifting context to include a social dimension, instead embed social features into the work tool itself:

"They do have a great CRM system that everybody uses and likes. The CRM system makes it possible for them to be aware of any sales activities relating to their customers, including those performed by sales people from other divisions. But it does not connect sales people and make them talk, get to know each other and share leads back and forth. Like most CRM systems, it primarily focuses on planning and keeping track of sales activities, not connecting the individuals in the sales force directly with each other."

Sameer alludes to the shift to social objects, where conversations happen around an object, which I call "conversational metadata".

"…the ability to collaborate around an object ( a lead, a competitor, a customer, a topic) brings process + social closer than ever before."

Which is basically the same as what I mentioned before where my work will soon test a microblogging product within the backdrop of a Document Management System (DMS). A microblogging product at our work embedded into the DMS has much more contextual use and value rather than a standalone platform. Now we have the opportunity to do document review in the document’s comments stream, which feeds into the microblogging companion stream (the activity stream).
Basically we can socialise current processes from a closed and isolated email environment to an open and social object environment. This is solving a current pain point.

And hey, if people want to shift into 2nd gear and use the microblogging tool to do the usual status updates, sharing links, ask questions, looking up profiles, then that’s what we want as well.

Here’s a paper and slidedeck on Sameer’s perspective of social computing, which is much more palatable at an entry level when dealing with current business process issues, as opposed to offering via the 2nd gear angle of better collaboration, networking and awareness.

Andy McAfee’s post on What’s the simplest thing that could possibly work? is not so much about process, but is still related to this post as it’s about designing features in your flow of using existing products. His suggestion is why not embed a search box from your social computing platform into the Intranet. The bulk of the organisation may forget about the social computing platform (yet another site to visit), so embedding it where they live just seems the right thing to do.

Observable Work

All this is a take back to "observable work", in which Jim McGee explains we lost with the digital age. I won’t expand on this here, read my comment on Jim’s post. The premise of Jim’s post being that all the knowledge work is now hidden by default, and not visible as we work digitally…but now social computing is here to take us back.

Jim says:

"As a knowledge worker, much of what I get paid for happens inside my own head. Before the advent of a more or less ubiquitous digital environmesful examples of crowdsourcing used to generate a variety of markers and visible manifestations. That visibility was important in several ways that weren’t evident until they disappeared: Seeing work in progress in front of me made it possible to gauge my progress and make connections between disparate elements of my work. Different physical representations helped to quickly establish how baked a particular idea was. Physically shared work spaces supported rich social interactions that enriched the final deliverables and contributed to the learning of multiple individuals connected to the effort. For all the productivity gains that accrue to the digitization of knowledge work, one unintended consequence has been to make the execution of knowledge work essentially invisible, making it harder to manage and improve such work. The benefits of visibility are now something that we need to seek mindfully instead of getting them for free from the work environment” "Junior members of the team could see how the process unfolded and the product evolved […] Knowledge sharing was a free and valuable side effect of processes that were naturally visible."

Jim has a follow-up post.

Emergineering

Up until now I have spoken about socialising processes as a type of Social BPM, and perhaps these interactions auto-posting into activity feeds (a kind of business intelligence and awareness…see Socialtext Connect), where conversations can further happen around these events.

But as Michael says in the start of this post; it’s also about re-designing processes…I keep linking to Thingamy when I talk about this.

In Thingamy language; socialising ERP (Easily Repeatable Processes) and building BRP (Barely Repeatable Processes).

So far in this post I have been talking about socialising ERP, equally important is what Thingamy deals with and that’s a business modelling tool (as is a spreadsheet) in building BRP.

Here’s an example:

"A desperate call from a chap in the field when a supplier does not show up, a router that goes whirr-kaplunk, or the back and forth of mails prior to getting that big project up on rails. All run and supported by Monday morning meetings, boss meddling, e-mail, faxes, phone calls and to-do lists. The business processes that’s not even called Business Process. The process orphans. The nuisance. The stuff that actually take most of our time. What I’d call Business Practices. I wonder what the gain would be if the Practices could be as efficiently handled as the proper Processes? A lot? A whooping gigantic leap!"

Here’s a related link.

This is related to my post on ad-hoc processes, and to what Jordan Frank says about the uniqueness of social tools in that they help you improvise to get your work done when things go wrong or circumstances change…we currently use email and attachement as our survival tool.

Let’s not leave out both Google Wave and Activities on Lotus Connections, which also focus on ad-hoc work, and the idea of Activity templates and checklists is a natural step, saving people to entirely think about the whole process eg. if you organise a conference using "Activities" you can not only share your activity for others to see, but also create a template based on your experience, that others may use as good practice and re-frame to their context.

Another tool that I failed to mention in the "Real Examples" section is SAP Streamwork:

"More often than not, collaboration and decision-making is a hodge-podge of emails, one-on-one phone calls, conference calls, in-person meetings, and informal desk visits. It’s rare that a group ends up with a unified view of how a decision was reached - or a complete record of next steps and task owners. In short, it’s meant to help orchestrate ad hoc work that would otherwise lack a structured process flow. It’s a place where outcomes are recorded for future reference."

Sig from Thingamy sets things straight in saying that SAP’s tool is not a process engine. Thingamy is more than just doing ad-hoc work in an enabling open and social way, it’s actually a DIY flow tool…you assemble the tool to your context or should I say to your Barely Repeatable Process.

Like my coverage of Rex Lee’s post on social engineering, Jordan Frank (from Traction Software) has a follow-up post on the same meme, based on structuring for emergence; he has coined it "Emergineering".

Jordan talks about using unstructured tools to reinvent current business processes, I like a quote in his post:

"E2.0 (doing architecture for people) vs. E1.0 (doing architecture to people)."

Jordan said somewhere (I can’t remember where) that these adhoc processes leave behind artefacts, not just content but also how the adhoc process was structured on the fly…he often talks about the effectiveness of tags as a key aspect to using social tools in a process. I agree adhoc collaboration can leave behind tracemarks of how you did your workaround, these tracemarks can later be re-used in a looseway, like templates that you can mould to your context, kind of a skeleton process that you can base your process on…like Jordan’s work partner Greg Lloyd calls "lightweight coordination".

I really think it’s great that Jordan and Greg can stretch their tool to work for social processes, and this and general social computing is their niche. Thingamy doesn’t do this, but it does something unique which puts it into an extreme niche of it’s own…it’s not really about social computing but more about noticing the tracemarks from past practices (BRP) and assembling a DIY process which can be dismantled or renovated by it’s owner at any time…design is perpetual and the power of design is with the buyer.

Jim McGee cautions turning judgement calls into rule-based aspects of a process…but this is the key to Jordan and Greg’s (as well as Sig’s thinking) in that you can sculpture the process, so it’s not rigid. We live in a world where things are now being done "post" by the user, rather than "pre" by the software designer eg. user tags, rather than just librarian categories.

Jim also says some real things about culture saying you cannot manipulate it, it moreso emerges from new behaviours. Which means we need to create conditions for engagement, where everything else cascades.

Which also reminds me of something Victor Newman says that

"…culture is a by-product of a technology stabilization process"

BPR to SPR redux

Jordan Frank clears up the difference between BPR (Business Process Re-engineering) and SPR (Social Process Re-engineering).

SPR is more people-centric with unknown outcomes, it’s about understanding how things are practiced and structuring for emergence, and can complement BPR which is more predictable, about optimisation, and is outcome driven.

Gee this sounds like the difference in how KM has been managed in the past and how social computing is influencing a new way for it to be managed, moreso facilitated.

Are BPR and BPM the same thing? Sandy Kemsley calls Business Process Management:

"A management discipline for improving cross-functional business processes"

Mike Gotta relates BPR tools to a form-follows-function design:

"Systems designed to support functional requirements do provide ways for workers to contribute, however the contributions are part of their explicit work actions and generally known ahead of time. Such systems cannot effectively support contribution scenarios not captured as part of the design process. Those involved in the application design process often place little effort on requirements that address the social and emergent aspects of communication, information sharing and collaboration. Workers resort to e-mail to solve such contribution gaps - a key reason why e-mail remains the most popular tool used by workers to express themselves. E-mail is one of the few universal tools workers have access to that allows contributions in a free-form manner."

SBPR as middleground

Is SBPR (Social Business Process Re-engineering) the middle ground ie social features on existing BPR tools, like I mentioned earlier about the Support database that has a message feature, rather than having to hop over to a forum that lives elsewhere…and like the social CRM tools Sameer has posted about.

And further to this, which I mention further down, being able to build features/connectors into existing BPR tools…or maybe that’s for OpenSource…but let’s not forget Qontext.

Adaptive Case Management (ACM)

Now is this similar to Jordan’s "re-emergineering" concept" of SPR?

Keith Swenson has authored a book on ACM called "Mastering the unpredictable"..and what’s interesting is that it seems ACM is very similar to KM in that it talks about non-routine, unpredictable work…what we call knowledge work. Another way of looking at it is when not to use BPM.

He describes ACM (with examples) in relation to knowledge work and in contrast to BPM:

"Process technologies such as workflow and BPM have delivered well-proven ROI when the process is predictable and repeatable. In contrast, knowledge work involves processes where goals and certain tasks are well established, yet the exact sequences of these varies from with each case. These processes are not nearly predictable as those found with traditional applications of BPM and workflow, but the need for achieving productivity in knowledge work has never been greater. For example, the course of treatments for a patient are not predictable at the time of admission to a hospital, but testing and treatment has to begin without a fixed plan. The course of court case is not predictable, but it is still very important that everything is prosecuted correctly. Negotiations as specialized as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or as common as the merger of two companies, all are examples of goal-driven processes where the specific paths to completeness are not predictable at any detailed level. A promising solution for achieving productivity in the goal-driven processes of knowledge work can be found in new approach called “Adaptive Case Management” which is a combination of traditional Case Management, with strong Process and Analytics capabilities."

And more:

"When a process is not predictable, as is the case with knowledge work in general, then putting a lot of work into an elaborate diagram is not worth while. Because the process is emergent, you have to model the process using something that people can read, add to, and manipulate readily while they are doing other things. With knowledge work, it is not the case that you have a dedicated business analyst to work and get the process model just right; instead the actual case worker needs to do it on the fly. …with case management, where a process is modified and adapted to each individual situation, this extra effort is not justified. The people modifying this process are not trained experts in process, but instead are more worried about their job done. The case owner is responsible for process, and need the freedom to customize the process for the specific case"

And just to be clear:

"Case Management is a technique that is useful when processes are not repeatable. A case represents a situation without necessarily requiring a process. Case management can be used for one-off situations for which the process can not be predicted in advance. A practitioner of case management needs a different kind of support: instead of tools to aid in the elaborate design and optimization of a process up front, a case manager need a way to communicate goals and intent. In short, case management is useful when the process is unpredictable, or at least not repeatable enough to warrant the up front investment in perfecting the process."

ACM is data-centric, rather than process-centric

Like Sameer, Hutch and Sig (mentioned earlier in this post), and in addition to the examples above, Keith goes into more detail on an example of knowledge work, which is moreso based on data, tools and connection rather than defined processes:

"…case management is data centric. This is correct, because when the process is not predictable, how can you use the process as the organizing principle? Since you can’t, what else is there: data. The example: a patient, and this is a good example; in a case management system you organize all the actions around the patient and the patient record, which *must* exist in advance, and through the entire treatment of the patient. Can you imagine Dr. House sitting down and drawing a BPMN diagram at that point? Can you imagine Dr. Cuddy drawing that diagram? Of course not. The event would be gone before the diagram was drawn. The “real-time” events that occur in these situations are not predictable, and would need to be handled without process modeling"

Exactly, tell that to a windmill repairman. I’m sure there are repeatable processes, but when they encounter something they have not seen before and you are 60 feet up, access to microblogging on your phone in order to ask a question and connect as it happens is knowledge work in action. Oh no, hang on a second I will visit the best practice database from way up here…NOT!

More examples of knowledge work:

"…doctor’s job of diagnosing a rare disease; the negotiation of a treaty or a corporate merger; the investigation of a crime; or the prosecution of a court case. These are jobs that can not predicted at the time the job is started. It is not simply that we have not gone to the trouble of mapping the process, but the process is not knowable, because the details that effect the course are not yet discovered."

Jacob Ukelson explains where after planning; in the execution stage is where ad-hoc work proliferates:

"…there are many excellent tools out there to help plan projects and keep them on track, but in most cases for project execution, tracking and management everyone falls back on the tried and true methods of email and documents. There is a project owner who defines specific project related goals and checklists, but that is it - everything else is managed on the fly by the participants themsleves and guided by the project owner. …at a Board of Directors meeting any number of decisions are made that require a follow-on process…that request quite often turns into a full-fledged, ad-hoc process that can involve quite a few people and needs to be managed. Again the tools of preference for executing these processes are email and documents. No one would even consider modeling the process, especially since it probably isn’t completely understood until it starts executing…"

Design by doing

Keith Swenson talks about social process designers, rather than just users of socialised BPM tools that have been designed by the vendor:

"Ask yourself: who is it that does BPM? The developers (process analysts, programmers) are the ones doing BPM. We are not talking about the end-user doing BPM. The end user does business, not BPM. The BPM supports the user in doing this business, but those users are not doing BPM when they use a fully developed process application. "The proper use of social software in the business will eliminate the need for process designers. Everyone will be a designer, in the way that everyone is a writer in the blogosphere."

Keith points to Jun Sinur on the difference between designing upfront, or desiging as it happens:

Doing by Design is the pre-planned definition of a predictable, routine process as traditional BPM suggests. It involves a life-cycle that starts with process discovery, process definition, application development, simulation, testing, and ultimately deploying it. This works if the process is predictable. Design by Doing is an approach that works when the process is not predictable, and can not be written down ahead of time. Since you can not predict it, you have to elaborate it as you go along. You design it, as you are doing it. There is no development life-cycle. This works on unpredictable emergent process."

To be more succinct:

Max Pucher - "Endusers do not just influence the design, they actually create the process on the fly.“ Keith Swenson - "This is really key: adaptive processes are not pre-defined as processes, but only really become processes when the components are assembled at run time by the user."

More on ACM or Social BPM, or whatever…lots of links here…and a comparison of definitions

BTW - In my last post on ad-hoc processes I posted about Jacob Ukelson’s (from ActionBase) concept of "Human Process Management", which is now considered ACM. Jacob has a really good presentation on ACM and knowledge work, and I also like how Jacob talks about an equilibrium of both structured and unstructured work.

Anyway, does ACM sound very similar to adhoc work and exception handling that we evangelise social computing can enhance? I think so. This is the next move that Hutch Carpenter talks about where we are moving on from social apps as a place to talk about things in general (which has its place) to putting these to work as features of existing processes, and ACM is a good convergence.

Summary

Maybe I should have called this post BPM 2.0, but not really because the knowledge work we are talking about is not pre-planned into a process flow…BPM 2.0 and ACM are different in the fundamentals, but I expect we will hear these words interchanged.

BPM 2.0 (SBPR or SBPM) would be more about socialising certain aspects of the pre-planned process, and perhaps even be able to do some ad-hoc work, whereas ACM (SPR) is adhoc and uncertain from the outset.

This Social BPM webcast covers the aspects nicely…but it misses out the "SPR, emergineering, ACM" constructs about adhoc work from the word "go", rather than just socialising existing BPM tools.

Embed ad hoc collaboration into your structured processes and gain a unified view of enterprise information-across business functions-for effective and efficient decision-making Reach out to an expanded network for expert input in resolving exceptions in business workflows Add social feedback loops to your enterprise applications and continuously improve business processes

The difference is in the modelling:

"…a doctor will design the treatment plan for a patient while the patient is being treated. A judge will design the course of action for a case while presiding over a court. An executive will design the action plan while running the board meeting. At a very abstract level, you could say that these are process modeling activities - but in reality these are done in a starkly different way that bears no resemblance to anything we know of as process modeling in BPM …the practice of case management is not just BPM “done on the fly”. A case manager is not primarily concerned with modeling, automating, executing, controlling, measuring, and optimizing the flow of business activities. A case manager, instead, wants to get things done. Case management is concerned with representations of goals…while in BPM the goals drive the design of the process, but are not made explicit. In in the practice of BPM, you want to perfect the processes to be repeatable thousands of times, but case management is not about mass production, but about making a one-off custom solution for this one situation that will probably never happen again, so extra effort to make the case repeatable is wasted. "

Betrand Duperrin who is always ahead of the curve pretty much summarizes my whole post in the context of enterprise 2.0. In his post he quotes Martin Koser on:

"…the dichotomy between orderly processes (read BPM) and the fuzzy world of Social Software (read Enterprise 2.0) How do we prevent that social software works out to be just another “silo” (”build a wiki, and they will come”)? How can we integrate social software into existing domains, usage arenas and task specific systems? What are the best ways to start with social software in the enterprise? How do we ensure that social software implementations turn out to be “complementary and integrative”? Is it a good idea to marry up SNS functionality with BPM software"

Bertrand talks about three business activities:

1. Serendipity (connecting)
2. BPR
3. Adhoc processes (where BPR isn’t suitable, and where we currently use email and attachments)

• Social computing has mainly been focused on point 1
• And then moved onto point 3 (but we still haven’t got this right, it’s not quite yet pervasive or specific…Thingamy is a stand out, and in a different way so is Activities on Lotus Connections and perhaps ActionBase)
• And now we are tackling to socialise point 2

With all three we can connect, be aware, surface opportunties; we can deal with uncertainties and collaborate; and we can optimise stable patterns for predictable outcomes (BPR) but in a way that they can be flexible to deal with the unknown that comes fleeting towards us.

• Social BPR is about product designers socialising their products eg. Chatter
  • What about being able to renovate existing BPR tools yourself, kind of like how 3rd parties make Twitter extensible (an emergence of architecture), is Qontext this tool I imagine
  • What we want is BPR to have flavours of Point 1 and 3…allowing room or capability to reach out (connect to people) and less rigid, and room to improvise (flex the structure to cater for ad-hoc contexts, without having to leave to use another tool).
• A tool like Thingamy is like building the product yourself
• ActionBase is a new task based version of email (in the same league as Google Wave and Activites on Lotus Connections)

Further on in Martin’s post he lists what Enterprise 2.0 means to organisational departments. The one we are familiar with is KM and Learning, where the focus is sharing, collective intelligence, emergence, sense-making. A lot of the time this is what we think Enterprise 2.0 is, but this is more KM 2.0. What about the other departments, they too want to fix their pain points, they want to have better and looser processes, see Sameer Patel’s post where he mentions that it’s not all about emergence and bottom-up use, it’s also about explicitly designing social ways into existing business processes.

Conclusion

Socialising processes is more of a sure bet in getting social computing adopted (the new way of doing things eg. conversing in the open, observable work, socialised workarounds).

But when we talk of real enterprise 2.0, or a transformation of the enterprise, it’s a shift from process to network based organisations, which I will post about soon.

In considering this, I still think socialising business processes is the first stepping stone in both a cultural and productive point of view…getting people prepared.

For now the key is that we are no longer to be limited by design, and using a leadership metaphor we can now be the conductor!

Actually a good metaphor for this whole post is for organisations to be less rigid and more jazz-like where we can improvise and come together at check points. Stephen Shapiro says:

"Most businesses are run like classical symphonies - long, with elaborate compositions (detailed workflows) that leave little room for interpretation. Employees are expected to follow these compositions rote. Unfortunately, by the time they learn the score, the music would have to be changed. This organizational symphony no longer works in today’s age of change. Instead we need jazz-like organizations. Innovation is not random. In fact, it emerges best when there is a structure to nurture it, much like jazz in the world of music. Jazz is heavy on innovation (’improvisation’ in musical terms). Just as innovation is not random, neither is improvisation. Jazz has a simple structure, like 12-bar, B-flat blues. It has a rhythm, chord progression, and tempo. Businesses need much the same to succeed: Simple structures that allow innovation to emerge, in the moment, when it is needed most."