Agile Elephant making sense of digital transformation

innovation | digital transformation | value creation | (r)evoloution

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • Manifesto
  • Services
    • Our Approach
    • Our Services
    • Making Collaboration Work Packages
    • Collaboration Solutions
    • Our Experience
    • Workshops
    • Innovation
  • About Us
    • The Team
    • Why we do what we do
    • Why are we called Agile Elephant?
    • Our Partners
    • Our Clients
  • Get Involved
    • Events
    • Meetups
    • Unconference
    • Newsletter
  • Resources
    • What is Digital Transformation?
    • What is the Digital Enterprise Wave?
    • Our Research
    • Case Studies
    • People We Follow
    • Articles & Links
    • Books That Inspire
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Home Blog
Post Capitalist ways of working

October 14, 2016 By Alan Patrick

Post Capitalist ways of working

Readers of the blog will know that we have long proposed that the “Future of Work” appears to have 4 emerging trends:

  • Human Centric – Better organisation of human potential via collaboraion/co-operation/communication
  • Offshoring – moving to lower and lower cost labour pools, in low wage countries
  • Uberisation – using technology to organise low cost “gig economy” labour in-country
  • Automation – replacing labour with electro-mechanical and increasingly digital equipment

We have written about this in more detail on this blog over here, and will also be talking about this in or conference on the 24th November in London. We have argued that the economics of the various options means the Human Cenric approach is most likely to occur in complex, non mass-produced work with high added value – too variable to automate or offshore, to valuable to leave to gig economy mechanical Turks.

As input to this discussion, today Paul Mason published an interesting article on what he called Postcapitalist ways of working. In essence he argues that IT is having 3 main impacts on work:

  • Firstly, it dissolves the price mechanism. Information goods — if they can be copied and pasted infinitely, and used simultaneously without wear and tear — must fall in price under market conditions to a value close to zero. This is essentially the Automation issue at ts most broad case.
  • Secondly, IT automates work faster than new work can be invented. Around 47% of all jobs are susceptible to automation, say Frey and Osborne (2013). And information also makes it work modular, loosening the link between hours worked and wages; and it makes work possible to do outside the worplace — blurring the division between work and life.

Mason argues that the capitalist system copes with these twin shocks in two unfortunate ways:

a) to maximise capacity utilisation of low-skilled labour and of assets. So we get Uber, Deliveroo and AirBnB are effectively capacity utilisation businesses. [aka Uberisation and Offshoring]

b) to artificially inflate the price and profitability of labour inputs: so housing becomes the major thing wages are spent on — and healthcare and university education. [ie if labout cost is not a key input, make it pay its way in the broader capitalist system].  Things that in all previous eras of capitalism the elite desired to be as cheap as possible — to ease wage pressures — are now made as expensive as possible, and capital migrates away from production and from private-sector services towards public sector services.

He believes this, if taken to its logical endpoint, results in  a form of Gig-Economy based neo-feudalism.

He believes what we call Human Centric way of working is the way out of this, his a third impact of info-tech. It has begun to create organisational and business models where collaboration is more important than price or value. As he notes:

Networked busieness models create massive positive externalities — network effects –where the data, or the wellbeing, or the utility created by network interactions is capturable and exploitable. But as soon as technology allowed it, we started to create organisations where the postitive effects of networked collaboration were not captured by the market.

Wikipedia is the obvious example; or Linux; or increasingly the platform co-operatives where peopel are using networks and apps to fight back against the rent-seeking business models of firms like Uber and Airbnb.

He believes that the examples set by enterprises such as Wikepedia, Linux etc create a model for the Future of Work, and this is the way out of the inevitable Automation/Uberisation trap and calls for the transition to a non-capitalist form of economy which unleashes all the suppressed potential of information technology, for productivity, wellbeing and culture, by:

  • Moving as much as possible of human activity out of the market and state sectors into the collaborative sector; to produce more stuff for free.
  • Networked living (even physical) he believes cities are the ideal environment as they are “the closest the analog world comes to a network”.
  • Reduce the input costs to labour, so that we can survive on less wages and less work (this would need regulatory or other activity usch as mass house building to reduce prices)
  • Pushing forward rapidly the de-linking of work and wages

In essence moving production out of the paid economy, and replacing wages with some form of wage for living. (His last point by the way is the same argument as that Minimum Wage exponents use, arguing it is necessary to handle the displacement period from the old ways of working  to new ones without major strife).

 

 

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Barclays doing Digital differently

October 10, 2016 By David Terrar

Barclays doing Digital differently

Back at our first, November 2014 version of the Enterprise Digital Summit London, Dave Shepherd, Director of Eagle Labs & Digital Eagles for Barclays Bank, came to speak about their Digital Eagles programme.  Barclays decided to create a team of front line staff who are on hand in branches across the UK, actively encouraging and educating customers and non-customers to acquire digital skills, so they feel confident to explore technology – a team of over 12,000 has been created so far.  Dave invited me down to Brighton to visit their latest initiative – a network of business incubators and fully equipped maker spaces called Eagle Labs.  Barclays are an excellent example of a well known, established brand with a long history that is approaching Digital in a new way.

_mg_5868They are re-using under utilised branch offices or other spaces to create this network of Eagle Labs.  They piloted the idea in Bournemouth and then Cambridge – Brighton was the third.  They’ve got 6 now, Notting Hill in London opens shortly, with Jersey, Norwich, Salford on the cards.  Barclays are taking a “fail fast” approach, trying things out in each new Lab, and learning as they go.  The initiative itself feels more like a start-up than something run by a big corporate entity, and I’m sure that difference in cultural approach is key to making this a success.
_mg_5849The space I visited is a perfect example of what they are trying to achieve.  The building started life as the Brighton Union Bank back in 1870.  It had been a Barclays branch for decades, but had closed, laying derelict and empty.  The lease runs to 2018.  Barclays have smartened up the outside, reclaimed and refurbished the space, finding ways to convert the old branch infrastructure for its new use as cost effectively as possible.  The old branch manager’s office has become their maker lab with a laser cutter, 3D printer and all of the tools you would need to build a prototype for your business idea.  One of the old bank vaults downstairs, with it’s very impressive steel door has become a photographic studio.  Rather than take the corporate approach of laying expensive new flooring and a typical office refit, they’ve sanded down the old parquet flooring, renovated the old doors and are trying to retain as much of the character of the building’s history as they can, much as you would with a house renovation project.  The old bank “front of house” has become shared office space for the incubator start-ups and small business.  An office upstairs where cheques and local accounts would have been processed has become a presentation and meeting room for hire, with more of the feel of the kind of space you would find at Google, with bean bags and a coffee table made from a big old reel for industrial cable – not what you would expect from one of the oldest retail banks in the country.

_mg_5882Barclays aren’t taking a traditional venture capital style incubator approach.  They don’t take a stake in the businesses, although they do pay rent to the Lab, and of course Barclays would like to bring them on board as business banking customers.  However, a key part of what they are trying to do is connect to the local business community and build relationships in the way that a local branch manager would have done in the past, before retail banks started to centralise everything in the quest for cost savings and efficiency.  They want to build an ecosystem of coaching, support and partners who work from the Lab to help the members and connect with the local area.  While I was there I met two locals who had left corporate jobs to freelance in marketing and training – something that’s happening a lot around the UK.  They’d popped in to use the photographic studio for half an hour to take better quality head shots for their LinkedIn profile.  I saw the laser cutter demonstrated _mg_5871to some people with a product idea.  I met Ryk, a user experience expert who runs TeamPro, a great looking start-up that works from the shared office space that provides free websites for sports teams.  I heard about open days for local businesses that the Lab runs to show what they do.  I saw that they run “Mend it Mondays” – for £5 they have an open session where their on-site technicians will help fix your broken stuff, or use the workshop to build new things.
I was introduced to Dave’s boss Steven Roberts, Strategic Transformation Director at the Bank. He told me:

“Bankers have traditionally been at the heart of their community, helping people with their finances, and supporting local business. The Eagle Labs initiative aims to strengthen that connection with direct help in new ways of working and emerging technology for start-ups and local businesses.  After Digital Eagles it’s the logical, next step for us to be building digital skills in the business community.”

The Brighton Lab provides a home for business advisors, brokers, web site designers, and businesses creating new apps and digital services.  It hosts 2 permanent offices with 4 staff in each, has 2 meeting spaces for hire or use by the members, a maker space, and the main area supports 25 co-workers.  They’ve linked to the local maker community and provide a hub for emerging technology in the local community.  Compared to their peers, Barclays are thinking differently, and doing digital differently.

_mg_5877

All photographs by Rhys Terrar


Extras:

30 photographs from our visit to the Brighton Eagle Lab

Steam Co’s video of the Brighton Eagle Lab Launch (with Steven Roberts and Dave Shepherd):

Find out more about this year’s Enterprise Digital Summit London:

eds_blogteaser16

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: #EntDigi conference, digital disruption, digital literacy, innovation, workplace Tagged With: Barclays Bank, Digital Eagles, digital transformation, Eagle Labs, Incubator, Maker Space, Start-Up

Gartner on the Future Digital Workplace

September 2, 2016 By Alan Patrick

Gartner on the Future Digital Workplace

Gartner has put forward its Top 10 trends driving the Future Digital Worlplace – the areas are nicely summarised in the graphic above.

To be honest. the “digital transformation” predictions are somewhat aggressive, even possibly hyped (surely not!) – a trend others have noticed with some of Gartner’s recent output in the space.

In the Agile Elephant view, based on the limited successes of Office Automation 1.0,  the Digital Workplace is more likely to resemble the graphics above rather than their tech automation predictions for quite some time.

But, all fuel to the debate.

 

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Two lessons from Muhammad Ali on leadership

June 4, 2016 By David Terrar

Two lessons from Muhammad Ali on leadership

Muhammad_Ali_1966I’m sitting listening to the many tributes and reactions on the sad death of the greatest boxer of all time, the man who BBC viewers voted sports personality of the 20th century, somebody who was instrumental as an activist in the US civil rights movement of the 60s, who has died at the age of 74.  He exemplifies leadership and I want to remember just two lessons from him.

The first was explained in When We Were Kings, the superb 1996 documentary about the “rumble in the Jungle” – the Don King arranged fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman in Zaire in 1974.  In the last passage of the film, the great journalist George Plimpton is describing the intelligence and eloquence of Ali.  He described Ali making a speech at a 1975 Harvard graduation ceremony which enthralled the audience.  After he spoke, somebody shouted “give us one of your poems”, and Ali thought for a moment and said “Me…. We!”, which brought tumultuous applause.  Plimpton goes on to say how he got this listed as the shortest poem in the English language.  A poem which encapsulates in two words what the role and focus of a true leader is. That we are stronger, not from consensus but from the aggregation of our ideas and thoughts and decisions.  The wisdom of crowds.

The second is the elegance of the punch that Ali never threw in that fight.  He lands the winning punch, but has the humanity not to throw another.  He watches Foreman go down with his fist cocked but does what most other fighters would not do.  See it here:

We need leaders who think “we” rather than “me” and place themselves at the bottom of the organisation chart supporting their teams rather than pushing their heads to the top.  We need leaders who think of the big picture and way beyond just winning.

Photo unknown – [1] Dutch National Archives, The Hague, Fotocollectie Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (ANEFO), 1945-1989

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: leadership Tagged With: George Foreman, Harvard, leadership, Muhammad Ali, Rumble in the Jungle

SMILE London Workshops 2016 – Enterprise Social Networks and more

May 29, 2016 By David Terrar

SMILE London Workshops 2016 – Enterprise Social Networks and more

Back on 12 May, Marc Wright of Simply Communicate kindly invited us to join in the latest version of his Social Media Inside the Large Enterprise London Workshops. The new format has 4 time slots each with 3 choices of workshop, so you could attend 4 out of 12. They covered a varied set of topics and case studies aimed at giving practical advice and helping large organisations in their journey with internal social collaboration and social media communications. Speakers included our good friends Luis Suarez on adoption (and adaptation) of these tools, Faith Forster talking about her product Pinipa and making projects more engaging, and Michel Ezran over from France to present the latest version of Lecko’s annual research report analysing what is the best collaboration & social toolset. This is the second year we’ve partnered with Lecko to extend their research in to the UK and make their report more International. There was an interesting mix of sponsors, a good venue, good food, and enough time between sessions to catch up with friends and do some networking. One important aspect – some good bean to cup coffee machines were on hand to put this a cut above the average event on caffeine delivery!

The content was a mixed bag – some very good sessions, and some not so. There are some key themes that we noticed aggregating what we gleaned from the various talks:

  • The increasing importance of tackling mobile, but the the solutions aren’t fully there yet
  • Tensions and differences in approach between out of the box solutions and the bespoke developed enterprise social networks
  • A difference in mindset between those companies that are using Sharepoint at the heart of their office infrastructure, and those that aren’t
  • The importance of linking collaboration to legacy systems and business process.

ELSUA at SMILE London 2016One other strand from various discussions at the event – quite a number of organisations are using Yammer but reckoning they are having problems with adoption. Something to explore later, and I see Marc has already promoted a simply yammer workshop to address that issue.

Some of the sessions used the MeeToo app on your smartphone for real time polling and chat. I didn’t see much use by anybody of the messaging, but bringing in the poling to some sessions was a good addition to making things more interactive. A note to self on this – if you do this kind of Q&A poll, make sure you’ve thought through the answer options fully.

We Are Social ESN case study

I watched Peter Furtado of Simply Succeed and Emma Cumming of We Are Social talk through the launch of their SHIP enterprise social network (ESN). We Are Social are a great story of a UK social media marketing agency startup. Founded by 2 people in 2008, they now have over 600 people across 8 countries and count major brands like Adidas as their customers (We Are Social were responsible for their #bethedifference campaign). Emma told us they weren’t practicing what they preach and using social media consistently internally. Skype was their first client and they use Skype a lot themselves, but they had siloed groups, and knew that knowledge was getting lost, never to be found again. They put together a steering group for governance, and set up a virtual task force of about 10% of the company to make a new approach work. It was the task force who decided on a name for their ESN, chose a particular platform, and put together a plan for launching it across the company. They called the network The SHIP which comes from the company’s core culture and values – social, honest, inspiring, passionate. They put together a fun home page and a whole set of launch material using ship and nautical themes to tease people before the launch, and then encourage people to join in – using the kind of ideas they usually sell to customers, but on themselves – an excellent story. The SHIP network has groups, activity feeds and great search capabilities. During the launch phase they emphasised the importance of people completing their profile, adding a proper avatar photo, and adding their skills and languages. Finding native language speakers to help on projects is now much, much easier across the company. Emma said they have 631 people on the SHIP and on average 80% of those access it once a week. 30% of those are engaging every week, with 15% contributing – those are good numbers. They use it to generate ideas for a new brief, to work on projects, to communicate across the organisation. One of the founders, Robin, got actively involved in the launch and early adoption and it’s clear that commitment and leadership from the top is a factor in making this kind of network successful. That means you have to sell the value to top management to get them involved early on. One of the unusual things they did at launch was to use targeted Facebook advertising, selecting for people who said they worked at We Are Social – I think thats a very neat, cost effective idea. Peter Furtado, who was called in to help them launch, talked about the Simply Suceed approach of putting 60% in to planning and identifying the business case, 25% in to planning the launch and the rest of your time and resource in to drive adoption within the community. The particular social business platform We Are Social used was Telligent (formerly Zimbra) with custom development from an outfit called 4 Roads to get the look and feel they wanted, integration with Google Drive and the like.

OOTB platform for SharePoint & Wiggle ESN case study

Brighstarr sesson at SMILE LondonNext I was off to see Martin Perks and Hannah Unsworth of BrightStarr. They are an experienced SharePoint developer and consultancy who have developed an out of the box ESN solution that sits on top of SharePoint called Unily. There are an increasing number of this kind of platform within the Microsoft ecosystem. Martin talked of the rise of the platform approach. In the past there might be a 24 month project to develop and launch an Intranet. In today’s environment we just can’t wait that long, our business might have changed completely in that timeframe. Added to that we are inundated with choices for sharing content, sharing documents, or different ways of instant messaging. He talked about pressure on the bottom line to get results, and the rise of mobile and the smartphone. He talked of custom IT projects being dead, team sizes having halved, and a significant decrease in a solely IT-led approach. He suggested build time has dropped by 79% in 5 year and that 80% of companies have the same requirements for an internal social network in any case. Hence the creation of an “out of the box” solution, branded as Unily and already an award winner (their customer DORMA was one of Nielsen Norman’s 10 Intranet Design Annual Award winners of 2016). Martin suggested budget is still with IT and not internal communications and so there can be a battle of wills where nobody knows where the Intranet project sits. Actually that is because it needs to be owned by everyone, and not just by IT or Comms. Brightstarr’s Unily supports this approach by creating an easy to use digital workplace with all of the required ingredients to help employees connect, collaborate and be more productive in their jobs. It provides a staff centric view to show that person the news that’s relevant to them and where they can contribute. Martin talked about mapping the requirements of communication, productivity, collaboration, knowledge, (and importantly) value over time. He agreed that it’s not just about technology and that the project has to be maintained, managed and led properly. Hannah talked about an agile approach and 4 week sprints developing the functionality. I found it interesting that the language and terminology leans towards the world of the programmer. They talked in terms getting things done in weeks not months and then introduced a customer to tell his story. Panos Mitsikis talked about implementing Unily at Wiggle. Interestingly, he described himself as a SharePoint developer. Wiggle, is a sports retailer, started back in ’99, who focus on triathlon – cycling, swimming and running. They outgrew an Intranet based on WordPress and realised that were spending too much time inside email communication. They needed a one stop for consuming information for each employee to surface what they care about. There are just under 500 Wigglers, as they call themselves and on a bad day, only 80% of them use the new ESN. It’s been designed to be employee centric, giving them important news, announcements, and videos with the aim of empowering them. It highlights trending documents, and they host events, or highlight sponsors They wanted an easy way for everything to be in one place, and so all the most commonly used apps are on a single page. It helps them form teams, manage projects, build communities, or follow external sites and blogs. So far they have around 45 project sites and every department has its own community. putting the site together took 4.5 weeks from start to finish with just Panos and plus two experts from Brightstarr.  They suggested that you shouldn’t be so precious about your requirements, and with this speed of implementation and success I can see why. They’ve decentralised content management and they suggested that Uniliy makes it much easier than vanilla SharePoint for creating that new content. The CEO was project sponsor and that was another key to success. The system handles multiple languages, supports everything Microsoft Office365 supports. You access Yammer from a social tab so you don’t even have to leave the platform to use that too. They carried out an aggressive campaign over a 3-4 week period to get everyone on board. Because Unily is provided as a Cloud based SaaS solution, it came with features Panos didn’t even think about, and Panos didn’t need any IT involvement to get it off the ground.

@ELSUA on Adoption/Adaptation

ESUA Final TipAfter lunch I joined the Luis Suarez session on adoption, or rather adaptation of social collaboration tools. Luis was relating his long experience in this field from his time in knowledge management, famously living inside IBM without email, and most recently as one of the best independent consultants in the social business space. He talked about identifying the business problems, making sure you have a governance model in place (that should be guidelines, not rules) and building a solid library of use cases. He talked of the importance of enabling your early adopters so that they can be effective champions and change agents. He offered ideas around education and enablement. A regular theme in any of Luis’s talks is highlights how 87% of the workforce is disengaged, and in this session he quoted figures country by country with the surprising fact that Costa Rica has the most engaged employees! On governance he told the story of the IBM Social Computing Guidelines, created in 2005 by employees on a wiki page – actually it was the prolific bloggers who, in 2 weeks, created something that was subsequently checked by IBM communications and legal but not changed. That 2005 set of guidelines became the blueprint for many of us! He talked about working out loud, and leading by example. About removing “reply all” and attachments from the mess of email and content trapped in the inbox. About asking open questions and shifting the mindset from knowledge is power. He believes finding experts in your organisation is the number one use case! He suggested we need to become people centric organizations, not document centric. He worried about the need to nurture early adopters because so often we don’t have budget to do it properly, so we need to crowdsource the help. He talked of giving them a sense of purpose to help them transform the way people work. He explained how he believes the narrative matters and his dislike for the term community manager, preferring to use facilitator. His final tip was:

“Get started! Stop thinking, start doing! (today!)”

The importance of Company Culture & EY case study

For the final segment I chose Lawrence Clarke, one of the founders of Simply Succeed, with Steve Perry, EY Community Implementation Leader. They were using EY as a case study and talking about how your social intranet holds up a mirror to your business culture. How your business culture ends up defining the ambitions of your social intranet. Steve talked through what they were trying to achieve with EY’s collaboration community in terms of understanding, engagement, satisfaction, recognition and openness. He talked about the levels of culture and artefacts in terms of the organisational language being used, the physical structures and decor of the places and the stories, ceremonies and rituals. Lawrence used the Zappos culture book as an example. Zappos is the successful online shoe retailer, acquired by Amazon in 2009 although it still operates independently. I have to agree that they are a great example in this context as their early investor, Tony Hsieh (pronounced Shay) who subsequently became their CEO says:

“Our number one priority is company culture. Our whole belief is that if you get the culture right, most of the other stuff like delivering great customer service or building a long-term enduring brand will just happen naturally on its own.”

Lawrence went on to spend some time talking about their shift to holacracy as an organisational structure. Actually I believe that’s a distraction, as it’s well known they are having problems with it, and anyway their core culture that created their success was in place well before that shift in management approach. He talked about the most important elements in managing culture being what leaders pay attention to, how they react to crises, how they allocate rewards and how they hire and fire individuals. Steve talked about the importance of how people are recognised and incentivised, how the rewards systems is created, and how visible and effective people are. He highlighted some of the issues around ensuring metrics that can’t be gamed wth an example where people were renaming documents to post them 10 times to improve their contribution statistics. You have to think through the behaviours you will trigger. They finished with an interesting contrast of the culture of Regus, the serviced and virtual office company, versus a startup competitor coming along to disrupt them called NearDesk. They pointed us to Regus Sucks, a review website created by angry ex-regus customers, along with employee reviews for Regus on GlassDoor. NearDesk is being crowdfunded as a pure digital business many of the 500 investors are customers. We’ll watch the progress of these two with interest.

So a good event, some good case studies, and the new format seemed to work well. We’ll be blogging some more about our key take aways and conclusions, and looking forward to doing more wth our friends at Simply Succeed & Simply Communicate.

BrightStarr session photo courtesy of a Bastien Le Lann tweet

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: collaboration, corporate culture, Enterprise Social Network, events, social business Tagged With: enterprise, ESN, London, Simply Communicate, Simply Succeed, social media

Only one third of UK businesses have “digital strategy” in place?  – actually it might be worse than that!

May 9, 2016 By David Terrar

Only one third of UK businesses have “digital strategy” in place?  – actually it might be worse than that!

A headline in Cloud Pro two weeks ago suggested only one third of UK businesses have a “digital strategy” in place, but actually it might be worse than that! Whatever the actual numbers, Cloud Pro’s article presents an important message that UK businesses, large and small, need to heed. I’d suggest the situation might be worse than a third of UK businesses on two counts:

  • First, the Ingram Micro survey was conducted from respondents attending Cloud Expo Europe, held in London on 12-13 April 2016. The important survey findings are published here, but it’s important to note that it was a tech savvy audience already aware of at least some of the emerging technology issues as they were attending a cloud event to find out more, and so not a general cross section of UK business.
  • Secondly, when many digital consultants and end user companies think digital transformation, they are only considering marketing and eCommerce, when actually the digital topic spans the whole of the business process end to end.

john-chambers-11.pngSo I’d suggest that an even larger proportion of UK business haven’t considered incorporating digital fully in to their business strategy. But why is it so important?  One of the people who have expressed it best was John T. Chambers, the outgoing President and CEO of Cisco, on the opening day of their Cisco Live event on 8 June a year ago. He told the 25,000 attendees, including many of his biggest and best customers:

“Forty percent of businesses in this room, unfortunately, will not exist in a meaningful way in 10 years,”

adding that 70% of companies would “attempt” to go digital but only 30% of those would succeed, and then he said:

“If I’m not making you sweat, I should be.”

“It will become a digital world that will change our life, our health, our education, our business models at the pace of a technology company change”

Chambers went on to warn companies that they could not:

“miss a market transition or a business model”
“underestimate your competitor of the future — not your competitor of the past.”
and
“Either we disrupt or we get disrupted”.

Digital Darwinism in plain English – I don’t think the consequences of missing the digital point have been have been expressed with more clarity!

If you want to find out more about this topic I’ve got two recommendations. Read more of the material here, but also consider attending the Enterprise Digital Summit Paris in June. You will know that we co-produce the London edition which will be in November, but we’ll be in Paris next month, and we’d love to see you there to talk real digital business.

John Chambers photo from UK Business Insider, Julie Bort

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: #EntDigi conference, digital disruption, digital transformation strategy Tagged With: Cisco, Cloud Pro, digital transformation, end to end, Ingram Micro, John Chambers

Of organizational Operating Systems, Frameworks and Flows

May 6, 2016 By David Terrar

Of organizational Operating Systems, Frameworks and Flows

The Paris edition of the Enterprise Digital Summit is coming together for next month. Bjoern posted recently on the conference’s key themes with some great links to ideas around platforms, the elastic enterprise and machine learning, but he also talks about the company’s operating model and operating system, and that triggered some thoughts around terminology that connected with conversations I had with Dave Gray two weeks back (and last year!), and that connected with conversations I had with Sigurd Rinde this week (and over the years). Connections in context over time.

Kongress Media at CeBIT 2016-765x300

I have a problem with talking about the “Operating System” for the organization. I realise that in dealing with the new digital landscape and new business models, our organizations need to change. Dramatically (but we know change is really difficult). Traditional hierarchies and command and control just aren’t effective any more. Management isn’t working! White collar workers in the typical business seem to be busier and less productive than before. How can we fix that? What is the solution? If it’s upgrading the organization to a new Operating System then that feels like an industrial, command and control based solution to the problem. It’s thinking of the the new paradigm in terms of a kernel and drivers, connecting hardware and software, to be tested and debugged. It’s like thinking of the brain as just an electrical circuit. A collection of 90 billion neurons, each one connected to a thousand others, passing electrical signals. But that brain supports the mind which thinks and feels and imagines and has subjective thoughts. More than just electrical circuits.  We need to think organic rather than mechanic or engineering.

Now to Dave Gray. As well as his soon to be published Liminal Thinking book that I blogged about last week, Dave has work in progress following on from Alex Osterwalder’s Business Model Generation and Value Proposition Design books, with his Culture Mapping sessions – I recommend you take a look at his thinking on this. When Dave talks about this, or does a workshop, he often says that culture is like the Operating System of the company, but then he usually goes on to talk about changing and nurturing it in terms of gardening (explained here). In his talks he’ll often quote Louis Gerstner, from one of Agile Elephant’s favourite books (Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? – from 2002 – it’s part of the reason behind for our name):

“Until I came to IBM, I probably would have told you that culture was just one among several important elements in any organization’s makeup and success — along with vision, strategy, marketing, financials, and the like… I came to see, in my time at IBM, that culture isn’t just one aspect of the game, it is the game. In the end, an organization is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people to create value.”

Although Dave uses operating system as shorthand, I prefer his more organic explanation and definitely agree with his focus on organzational culture.

There is plenty of talk about how the traditional hierarchy of most organizations is reaching its limits. There is talk of flattening the management structure and self organising and we reference companies like W. L. Gore, Valve Corporation (Steam) and Semco Partners. These are great examples, but I worry over the way some people talk about these and Holacracy without fully understanding the scale of the rules and methodologies that underpin it. I hear people discussing Frederick Laloux’s Reinventing Organizations book and the pursuit of the Teal Organization. My concern is over being too prescriptive with our solutions. At Agile Elephant we believe there are no “one size fits all solutions”. Every organization is different and at a different stage of evolution in the new digital landscape, and so we believe there needs to be more focus on the activities and behaviours and characteristics that work, rather than striving for a particular system that might.

That leads me to my Enterprise Irregular buddy Sigurd Rinde and discussions which will result in a series of posts including this one. In our catch up call this week we talked about where the classic organization is, and where the modern organization needs to be. He told me how positively people respond when he talks about white collar productivity and tells them (in words which I stole and used above):

“Management isn’t working!”

In our conversation he added more names to the list of companies that aren’t using a traditional hierarchy like Patagonia, Buurtzog, Handelsbanken and Zappos. Then we talked about Zappos and his discussions with them and their problems in changing to Holacracy. However, the most powerful thing we talked about is how organizations spend too much time thinking efficiency when they should be thinking effectiveness. Business is all about getting the work done and the work is a flow. Most of our organiations have vertical application silos – ERP, CRM, Email, HR, Document Management and more. Then we are adding enterprise social networks like Jive, or extra collaboration tools like Slack. The digital workplace is getting more complex.

Sig talks in language that we Elephants like. He talks about getting the work done as value creation. This core purpose generates a sequence of activities – a flow. Like water it requires a framework to be useful. Now there are three basic ways you can move water around:

  • In pipes – that’s the industrial approach, creating a complex system of flows with fixed connections, joints and valves, and more pipes to connect to the next system – like too much of the business application software we use.
  • In buckets passed hand to hand – how much of our day to day work feels like that, with work slopping over the edges on to the floor and not getting to where it needs to be?
  • Along a riverbed – water finds its path – there may be rocks, branches and obstructions that change the flow, but water finds its way around them, and we can work on the riverbed to remove the obstructions, or the river banks to shorten the course.

RiverBed

So when it comes to looking at company organizations at the Enterprise Digital Summit Paris, I’d prefer us to be thinking in organic rather than machine terms. I want us to be thinking about the things that work rather than the particular system deployed. Above all I want us to be thinking about frameworks and that riverbed and how we can make the value flow more effectively.

photos courtesy of Kongress Media and Sigurd Rinde

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: #EntDigi conference, corporate culture, hierarchies, ideas, organisational culture Tagged With: Alex Osterwalder, brain, culture mapping, Dave Gray, Elephants, Louis Gerstner, mind, operating system, Sigurd Rinde

“Are you saying the map’s wrong?” – “Oh dear, yes!” – an example of Liminal Thinking

April 22, 2016 By David Terrar

“Are you saying the map’s wrong?” – “Oh dear, yes!” – an example of Liminal Thinking

Earlier this week I met with Dave Gray and he gave me an advance copy of his new book, and then I went to his talk at Postshift on Wednesday night. He talked Liminal Thinking, so what is that?

You might know that I am a huge fan of The West Wing (and Aaron Sorkin’s writing in general). There is a great sequence in the episode “Somebody’s Going to Emergency, Somebody’s Going to Jail” in season 2 when people and causes get the chance to pitch to White House staff for attention and funding on “Big Block of Cheese Day” (a day which recurs a number of times in the world of West Wing). One such team from the Organisation of Cartographers for Social Equality are pitching the idea of a government initiative across the school system that would change our maps and atlases from the Mercator projection of the World to the Peters projection. The argument is that stretching out the longitudinal lines so they are parallel at the north and south poles (back in 1569) to help navigators on ships, and so that the map fits on a page rather than a globe, actually skews the relative representation of the size of countries, and reinforces centuries old European Imperialist thinking. Those countries in the First World nearer the North Pole look unnaturally large – for example Greenland looks massive and similar in size to the whole continent of Africa when in reality its area is only one fourteenth of the size of that continent. We compound this incorrect filtering of land mass reality by putting, say, the UK on a page in the Atlas, and then Australia on the same size page, when actually that country is over 33 times the area of the UK. It’s why we Brits just don’t get how big the place is! The cartographers on West Wing argue that the maps influence our thinking in terms of World priorities and prejudices. The Peter projection (which should really be called the Gall-Peter projection) gives a much fairer representation. You have to see the look of incredulity on C. J. Cregg’s face as she looks at the new reality and says “what the hell is that!?”. Then when they suggest a North-South inversion of the new map (because there is absolutely no reason why North has to be at the top of the page), she just freaks out completely! This scene and the story behind it is a perfect example of Dave Gray’s Liminal Thinking approach, as described in the new book and at Wednesday’s event at Postshift’s offices in Shoreditch.

First sample the map presentation scene:

Liminal Thinking is the art of creating change by understanding, shaping, and reframing beliefs. The dictionary says liminal is an adjective relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process, or occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold. As Dave knows, things happen at the edge, in the boundaries, in the spaces in between.

At Postshift in a sort of fireside chat, Dave related that he actually started out writing a book on agile software which morphed in to something different along the way. As he interviewed people for the book he realised there was a larger story than just talking about an agile mindset for developing software or technology more quickly and efficiently. If you are talking Agile, then Dave reckons Amazon ticks all the boxes, but their people don’t tend to talk or go on the record much about how they do what they do. He interviewed people who have to be agile in their thinking, like soldiers on the front line of the World’s trouble spots, or humanitarian aid workers in similar conflict zones. They have to maximise their ability to adapt yet still exert a level of control, and that’s agile. But in talking to them Dave realised that effecting change is connected with people’s beliefs. People in organisations who want to change things often don’t have the power, or the authority, or the budget to do what they want to do. Dave thought through how he could help that kind of change – and Liminal Thinking is what addresses that question.

Dave built a a sort pyramid of layers of thinking from reality, experience and attention, through to something that is “obvious” – what Dave calls you, me, everyone – see the diagram below.

Dave_Gray_obvious_stack

He quoted a neuroscientist called Zimmerman who says that our brains experience 11 megabits of information per second, but actually we can only take in and understand 50 bits per second. How do we open our minds to process more or different? Dave related stories in the book from the Vietnam war where the USA viewed the conflict in terms of the domino theory and the rise of communist China, without looking at the history, the fact that this was a civil war and that most Vietnamese actually hated the Chinese anyway. The wrong beliefs and the wrong frame of reference, and so the USA could have avoided that war if only those in charge had stepped outside of their bubble, and reframed their beliefs.

We talked Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Iraq conflict. Dave talked about the stupidity of self validation, and the difficulty of anybody taking on board something that is truly new. If it’s really new, it will make no sense to you because it falls outside of your current frame of reference. Actually you have to test stuff that falls outside of your “bible” and expand your experience. Dave believes that moving the needle of experience is the most powerful thing! Of other needles, he said that so much of our thinking is like a stylus on a record (we’re going retro here, remember long playing records and singles?). We hang out in the same network friends, and at any given moment there is a way we act – that’s culture. But Dave believe’s the problem of culture is his autopilot and your autopilot, and a well worn groove – a routine of doing the same things the same way, which we need to break. He related another story about someone who changed their life completely simply by parking in a different place in the company car park – that small change triggered a new, different chain of events for him leading to a new job and more. Beliefs are true only because we make them true. The key message here is shut off your autopilot – do things differently.

Dave told more stories about soldiers and special forces in Iraq, about his biomedical engineer brother, or about groups on the two sides of the abortion debate coming together to try and verbalise the opposing argument properly to the other side’s satisfaction. They didn’t change their core beliefs, didn’t find compromise but they did find significant common ground in the welfare of children and family. We talked about organisations using the carrot and the stick and the problems that certain incentives embedded in a corporate culture can cause, making the employees feel like lab rats in a maze, looking for the cheese. We talked about the issues around making change, around the power of the negative often outweighing the possibilities of the positive.

Dave believes everything starts with experience. How we should focus on people’s emotional needs, and how we need to create an environment that makes it safe for people to express themselves, as so many people hide their real emotions in the work environment. He went on to suggest we get distracted too much by the stuff we disagree on. About how the biggest barrier to a leader changing is that even when they talk the talk, they aren’t aware that they’re not really changing their behaviour. The higher you are in an organisation the more insulated you can get from reality, and you should be constantly asking – what is my bubble?

Dave talked about the amygdala, the lizard brain responsible for our fight or flight response that still has so much influence on why we do what we do. When Dave works with a new group or new organisation, he asks them “how can we help you design this organisation so you are jazzed to come to work each day”. What can we do to help us make this company great? What works? Who is doings awesome things in spite of the environment and the circumstances?

Dave talks about belief being the stories in your head, and ended the session confirming how vital stories and story telling are to the process of change. A great session. Thanks to Lee and the Postshift team for facilitating the talk. I’m halfway through the book, enjoying it (and Dave’s drawings) and looking forward to writing a review here soon.

Top image captured from Dave’s website, and diagram from his Liminal Thinking book

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: agile business, change management, corporate culture, ideas, leadership Tagged With: beliefs, change management, culture, culture change, Dave Gray, Liminal Thinking

The Gang of Four and why “there is nothing equitable about equity in a digital age”

February 5, 2016 By David Terrar

The Gang of Four and why “there is nothing equitable about equity in a digital age”

As a companion piece to my last post about the irresistible rise of mobile changing the face of the technology landscape, this piece looks at the big four companies that are succeeding there, but also the volatility and strange logic of the market, even for big social media brand names that are in the thick of and important in the change.  I’m writing against a backdrop of several weeks of speculation about where Twitter is heading, and then today’s dramatic share price drop for LinkedIn – 43 percent down today wiping out nearly $11 billion of market value so far, and the day’s not over yet.  What’s $11Bn?  Well, that’s 60% of the current value of HP…..

Like my earlier mobile post there is a must watch video at the core.  This one has NYU Professor Scott Galloway speaking at DLD16 in Munich a few weeks back on Monday 18th January talking about the Gang of Four – that’s Apple, Amazon, Facebook & Google.  The video went up on YouTube on the 25th January – at this second, 10 days later it has been viewed 520,618 times.  If you haven’t seen it, it’s definitely worth 16 minutes of your time to help you better understand today’s landscape and to learn some lessons from the steps the current titans are making.

Scott Galloway preceded his pitch with a brilliantly self deprecating health warning showing that some of his predictions will be wrong, but hoping that more will be right. Here are some of the things he said about the “four horseman of the apocalypse” Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google:

  • In 2015 their combined market capitalisation rose from the GDP of Spain to the GDP of Canada
  • Each of the 4’s 2015 value is so large he compares each with a basket of well known brands in their sector to highlight their position
  • Amazon is the number 1 e-commerce player both sides of the atlantic, dwarfing the next 10 players in each market
  • Apple added $51Bn in revenues last year – that one year growth is more than the total 2014 revenues of luxury brands Louis Vuitton, Coach, Hermes, Michael Kors, Kering, Richmond and Prada combined
    Facebook and Google are growing at 40.3% and 12% compared to traditional media companies where they range from IAC’s 4.5% to Viacom’s -3.7%
  • “The advertising industrial complex is about to come to an end!” – last year 90% of CPG brands lost market share and 68% lost revenue “because advertising sucks!”
  • If you’re wealthy you can opt out of advertising with downloads, Netflix, iTunes, Tivo or Sky+
    He has quotes from fashion brand leaders highlighting how the fastest growing brands aren’t advertising in the traditional way
  • More venture capital going in to the ecosystem but fewer exits
  • The mobile ad market is a duopoly with Google and Facebook controlling 50% of the global market
  • Amazon has redefined the way we think about building businesses – it can be profitable any time it want but has made a conscious decision to run at break even because “profits are heroin to investors”, they get addicted to them and if you take them away, they respond negatively – he highlights Walmart’s recent capital investments to compete as the right thing to do, but the markets didn’t like the drop in profits and so the share price has gone down dramatically, where as Amazon is the master of consistency
  • Over 90% of the profit from the global smartphone market goes to Apple, then Samsun gets a bit, then the rest fight over the losses (the numbers on the slides don’t add up here, but the message is still clear)
    Apple’s revenue from PC’s is going up, everyone else’s is going down
  • If you believe the press, Apple’s Watch is a failure – Apple took away Samsung’s smart watch market share away as soon as they entered the market – ask Richemont and Swatch if they think Apple watch is a failure – he suggests Apple Watch will do $5-10Bn sales this year, but the entire Swiss Watch industry is $25Bn
  • He highlights the amazing rate of growth of Facebook, but then goes on to explain how they’ve only really monetised of its assets, and the potential they have with Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger
  • Facebook are spending more per dollar on R&D than any other tech company in history – as well as being incredibly nimble with the number of products and releases they are doing, they’ve gone from 0% to 76% revenue in mobile in only 3 years – that’s a lesson in how to disrupt yourself and pivot
  • Scott explains how one of these four will become a Trillion Dollar company in the very near future
    He suggests Amazon should be acquiring bricks and mortar retail chains and become the true mini-channel retailer
  • Google needs a bigger business – he postulates they could go after the college education market
    Facebook, Google and Amazon are easy to understand, but what is Apple’s mission? He suggests they “pay an absence of vision tax”
  • Globalisation, free flow of capital, and the frictionless environment mean that i’s never been easier to be a billionaire, but never been harder to be a millionaire – it’s the middle classes that are getting squeezed
    With share options and stock being used as a regular motivator for senior people in companies, but look at the markets and the way companies are being valued – he says “there is nothing equitable about equity in a digital age”

Please watch the video to get all of this in his own words and the full story.  I’ll even forgive him the Adele segment:

He finishes excited by the technology opportunities, pleased by the meaningful things we are doing, but wondering whether we are doing anything profound. What all of this highlights for me is that there are key lessons to be learned from the way Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple are innovating, expanding and addressing their markets that should be adopted by your business and my business, but that the equity markets don’t respond well to some of those moves required. I’m sure that’s why the likes of Dell have gone back in to private ownership, and why “going public” as an exit route is less important in the future plans of any of today’s startups.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: agile business, business innovation, digital disruption, innovation, Mobile, strategy Tagged With: Amazon, Apple, Conference Keynote, DLD16, Facebook, Four Horseman, Gang of Four, Google, markets, technology

February 2, 2016 By Alan Patrick

The Limits to Collaboration

 

HBR on Collaborative Overload – High Collaboration people get burned out

Collaborative Overload

Evidence is emerging that too much Collaboration can be a bad thing – Economist:

…the current Harvard Business Review(HBR) has a cover story on “collaborative overload”; and Cal Newport of Georgetown University has just brought out a book called “Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World”.

A growing body of academic evidence demonstrates just how serious the problem is. Gloria Mark of the University of California, Irvine, discovered that interruptions, even short ones, increase the total time required to complete a task by a significant amount. A succession of studies have shown that multitasking reduces the quality of work as well as dragging it out. Sophie Leroy, formerly of the University of Minnesota (now at the University of Washington Bothell) has added an interesting twist to this argument: jumping rapidly from one task to another also reduces efficiency because of something she calls “attention residue”. The mind continues to think about the old task even as it jumps to a new one.

On the “Information Residue” issue, there were studies done many years ago on the impact of telephone interruption. They showed that it took several minutes to mentally “set down” what you had been doing, and several minutes to “set up” the tasks the telephone call is about, (or re-set what you were doing) before effective work could again begin. The more complex the task, the more the set up / set down time. Too many phone calls and the worker was effectively spinning in air and could do only the most menial tasks, any real “knowledge work” was out the question.

Another issue The Economist notes is the poor understanding of the costs of Collaboration, which also plays to the above point:

A second objection is that, whereas managers may notice the benefits of collaboration, they fail to measure its costs. Rob Cross and Peter Gray of the University of Virginia’s business school estimate that knowledge workers spend 70-85% of their time attending meetings (virtual or face-to-face), dealing with e-mail, talking on the phone or otherwise dealing with an avalanche of requests for input or advice. Many employees are spending so much time interacting that they have to do much of their work when they get home at night.

Problems

The HBR article referred to above notes X main problems emerging from modern Collaboration systems – I have split the issues into teh 3 main issues:

  • Volume
  • Victims of Virtue
  • Vampires

Volume

How much time do people spend in meetings, on the phone, and responding to e-mails? At many companies the proportion hovers around 80%, leaving employees little time for all the critical work they must complete on their own. Performance suffers as they are buried under an avalanche of requests for input or advice, access to resources, or attendance at a meeting. They take assignments home, and soon, according to a large body of evidence on stress, burnout and turnover become real risks.

As one commenantor in The Economist points out, Collaboration kills itself by the Network Laws

“There is a simple reason why performance declines with collaboration. It is caused by an arithmetic progression: one person = 100% work (theoretically, and rounding the numbers for this example); two people = 90% work and 10% collaboration overhead; three people = 80% work and 20% overhead; four people 60% work and 40% overhead, and so on.
Why the sudden drop in work? Because when you have four people, you suddenly have six interactions to service (to prove it, draw a box with a person at each corner and draw all the lines between them). Above four, the number of interactions increase again.
By about 15 people, work has dropped to almost zero and collaboration overhead risen to almost 100% (all those meetings ‘the alternative to work”).

Victims of Virtue

What’s more, research done across more than 300 organizations shows that the distribution of collaborative work is often extremely lopsided. In most cases, 20% to 35% of value-added collaborations come from only 3% to 5% of employees. As people become known for being both capable and willing to help, they are drawn into projects and roles of growing importance. Their giving mindset and desire to help others quickly enhances their performance and reputation. As a recent study led by Ning Li, of the University of Iowa, shows, a single “extra miler”—an employee who frequently contributes beyond the scope of his or her role—can drive team performance more than all the other members combined.

But this “escalating citizenship,” as the University of Oklahoma professor Mark Bolino calls it, only further fuels the demands placed on top collaborators. We find that what starts as a virtuous cycle soon turns vicious. Soon helpful employees become institutional bottlenecks: Work doesn’t progress until they’ve weighed in. Worse, they are so overtaxed that they’re no longer personally effective. And more often than not, the volume and diversity of work they do to benefit others goes unnoticed, because the requests are coming from other units, varied offices, or even multiple companies. In fact, when we use network analysis to identify the strongest collaborators in organizations, leaders are typically surprised by at least half the names on their lists. Also see the Chart at the top of the post, these people start to burn out.

Vampires

Other people start to (ab)use highly collaborative people.

Instead of asking for specific informational or social resources—or better yet, searching in existing repositories such as reports or knowledge libraries—people ask for hands-on assistance they may not even need. An exchange that might have taken five minutes or less turns into a 30-minute calendar invite that strains personal resources on both sides of the request.

Consider a case study from a blue-chip professional services firm. When we helped the organization map the demands facing a group of its key employees, we found that the top collaborator—let’s call him Vernell—had 95 connections based on incoming requests. But only 18% of the requesters said they needed more personal access to him to achieve their business goals; the rest were content with the informational and social resources he was providing. The second most connected person was Sharon, with 89 people in her network, but her situation was markedly different, and more dangerous, because 40% of them wanted more time with her—a significantly greater draw on her personal resources.

Solutions?

From the HBR article, we can see 3 practical approaches (there are some impractical ones that we discuss later):

Redistribute the work

Any effort to increase your organization’s collaborative efficiency should start with an understanding of the existing supply and demand. Employee surveys, electronic communications tracking, and internal systems such as 360-degree feedback and CRM programs can provide valuable data on the volume, type, origin, and destination of requests, as can more in-depth network analyses and tools.

Also, can one shift decision rights to more-appropriate people in the network? It may seem obvious that support staff or lower-level managers should be authorized to approve small capital expenditures, travel, and some HR activities, but in many organizations they aren’t. (Risk here though is too often responsibility is pushed down, but authority is not)

Structure for Collaboration Boundaries

Show the most active and overburdened helpers how to filter and prioritize requests; give them permission to say no (or to allocate only half the time requested); and encourage them to make an introduction to someone else when the request doesn’t draw on their own unique contributions. The latest version of the team-collaboration software Basecamp now offers a notification “snooze button” that encourages employees to set stronger boundaries around their incoming information flow. It’s also worth suggesting that when they do invest personal resources, it be in value-added activities that they find energizing rather than exhausting.

Also consider whether you can create a buffer against demands for collaboration. Many hospitals now assign each unit or floor a nurse preceptor, who has no patient care responsibilities and is therefore available to respond to requests as they emerge. The result, according to research that one of us (Adam Grant) conducted with David Hofmann and Zhike Lei, is fewer bottlenecks and quicker connections between nurses and the right experts. Other types of organizations might also benefit from designating “utility players”—which could lessen demand for the busiest employees

Measure and Reward the right things

We typically see an overlap of only about 50% between the top collaborative contributors in an organization and those employees deemed to be the top performers. As we’ve explained, many helpers underperform because they’re overwhelmed; that’s why managers should aim to redistribute work. But we also find that roughly 20% of organizational “stars” don’t help; they hit their numbers (and earn kudos for it) but don’t amplify the success of their colleagues. In these cases, as the former Goldman Sachs and GE chief learning officer Steve Kerr once wrote, leaders are hoping for A (collaboration) while rewarding B (individual achievement)

The Economist article is a bit more sceptical about how easy this is, however:

…collaboration is much easier to measure than “deep work”: any fool can record how many people post messages on Slack or speak up in meetings, whereas it can take years to discover whether somebody who is sitting alone in an office is producing a breakthrough or twiddling his thumbs.

Also, Managers “feel obliged to be seen to manage: left to their own devices they automatically fill everybody’s days with meetings and memos rather than letting them get on with their work”

The HBR article also mention two things which (to our minds at least) will not help a lot unless one is very careful:

(Don’t) Use more Collaboration Technology

HBR recommends using technology such as Slack and Salesforce.com’s Chatter, with their open discussion threads on various work topics; and Syndio and VoloMetrix , which help individuals assess networks and make informed decisions about collaborative activities. This seems like a retrograde step if the core problems noted above are not solved. Technologys is largely the reason for the problems to begin with.

(Don’t) Try new fangled Office Productivity schemes

As The Economist points out, the cult of collaboration has reached its apogee in the very arena where the value of uninterrupted concentration is at its height: knowledge work. Open-plan offices have become near-ubiquitous in knowledge-intensive companies. The HBR (and many organisational theorists) likes all this open plan, water cooler stuff. The Economist comments section punctures this however:

In my experience, open plan offices work well where there is a small team working on the same issue. Other than that they are a Dilbert zoo of oppression.

And….

[This] may explain another phenomena of the knowledge-intensive business: the rise of telecommuting. If you don’t go in to the open-plan office, you can actually concentrate on getting the job done.

And…

Well, the newest hype is flexible seating within open plan offices, assigning one working place to about 1.2 employees – strictly to foster collaboration, not as a cost cutting exercise. But indeed, this reduces the “collaboration curse” – because you do not know the people around you and thus have nothing to collaborate upon. So we are already further: we now combine the disadvantages of open plan offices without getting any of the promised benefits of collaboration…

And, cynically

“Collaborative” workspaces typically have a much higher density of employees per square meter. It’s cheaper to house employees and the company saves money. Collaboration is the cutesy label used to justify it to the employee base but the bottom line is that it’s cost driven.

 

What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Next?

What works

  • Collaboration – in moderation
  • Careful curation of collaboration systems to optimise performance.
  • Performance measure that encourage effective collaboration. This does not mean pushing people to be “more collaborative” as so many metrics today do
  • Boundaries to protect the most collaborative people t keep their time sink to effective levels

What Doesn’t

  • Collaboration unbound (just reproduces the email inbox problem, without email’s search and file tools)
  • Use of new techniques and technologies without a lot of due care and thought about scale, scope and structure.
  • Design and Office/Company organisation “fads” to foster Collaboration (especially if the real reason is cost reduction etc)
  • Mathematically – too many people in the collaborative net, ensuring that so much tme is spent communicating rather than creating or working

What’s Next

  • Increasing focus on monitoring internal collaboration systems
  • Increased attempts at measuring and rewarding effective collaboration
  • Reducing size/scope of collaboration networks as better metrics winnow down ineffective collaboration approaches- silos are dead, all hail the new silos
  • Many collaboration system failures as the above optimisation requires restructuring to give people authority as well as responsibility, managers to cede control, and collaboration to be curated for impact (hard), not as a good in itself (easier)

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: Uncategorized

« Previous Page
Next Page »

The Agile Elephant blog – thought leadership, ideas, news and discussion around digital transformation, business strategy, new business models, new management thinking, enterprise social networks, social media, social collaboration, knowledge management and the changing nature of the workplace.

Subscribe by email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.

My Tweets

Subscribe to our Blog by RSS

About Us

Agile Elephant is a new kind of consultancy designed to help companies embrace the new digital culture of social collaboration, sharing and openness that is changing business models and the world of work.

Contact us to find out more!

Our founder's blogs:

broadstuff

@DT on Medium

Technotropolis

Our blog:

The Agile Elephant Blog

Site Log In | Site Log Out

Subscribe to Site RSS

Subscribe to our Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe

Copyright © 2025 ·Streamline Pro Theme · Genesis Framework by StudioPress · WordPress · Log in