Enterprise 2.0, defined as use of “web 2.0” technologies to enhance processes & collaboration, starts with the right people driving the change. Sounds obvious to-be-sure. Then why do organizations continually falter?
Further, enterprise wide change in general, requires the right people in the right place, who are then, subsequently, supported by process & technology. Yet again, this obvious sentiment is rarely adhere to in practice.
The strategy road is paved with good intentions, and strong program plans. Yet, few achieve their objectives. Fewer do so on-time or budget. What is going on then?
Walton Smith, Booz Allen, in the webinar “It’s Not the Field, It’s the Players“, suggests a diverse group of “players” tasked with driving the change, are a critical, and often missing, component to enterprise initiatives. But the simple equation for enterprise change, (people + process + technology) x governance = success, is simple for a reason. It works. Discounting any variable in the equation, diminishes the chance of successful change. Dramatically so.
Smith does not dismiss the notion that the formula is much more complex in execution. This simply further supports the need for organizations to engage people who embrace complexity, wicked problems, and do not fit into the standard “mold“. They are the best placed to drive change, as they do not require predictability or reliability, and instead focus on making valid decisions.
In the case of enterprise 2.0, building an ERP, does not translate into a community, and use of collaborative tools. ERPs are only tools & policies. Not strategies. Yet many organizations treat them as such, with a “build it and they will come” approach to enterprise change and collaboration. Understanding the key humanistic elements that motivate change, and enable resistance, is a complex opportunity (challenge). And it requires dedicated resource (internal and external).
The disparate set of tools, technologies & process, that (supposedly) support enterprise change, is evidence of the lack of coordination and human- centric approach given to company initiatives.
Smith makes an under-emphasized but important point near the end of his introduction. This is not about the creation of new information and IP. It’s about collating, indexing & categorizing, and ultimately leveraging the knowledge that already exists within an organization. The innovation potential of an entire workplace, from manual, through management through executive resources, is unparalleled. Sadly, it also is under appreciated.
“… we end up with, what I refer to as, social media graveyards…” ~ Steve Radick, Booz Allen
Building on Smith’s points, Radick suggests a number of organizations have great tools & technologies. And no change in behaviour. But although technology is the “sexier” part of an enterprise change, it is only the tip of the iceberg.
Policies, social vs. professional chats, access; are all questions not asked until too late. Social media is not a strategy. Let me repeat that again, social media is NOT a strategy. It is the tool and channel for a strategy. Answering the fundamental question of why is change necessary, is rarely universally understood. Often the focus of strategy is what to win, and where to do so. Critical questions? Absolutely. They are core to any strategy. But along with why, who will own the various pieces of strategy, and what metrics will success be measured against, is overlooked. Not to mention timeframes.
Enterprise systems of collaboration are a great asset to any organization. But in the free-flow of communications and innovation, questions as to “ownership” of ideas comes into play. Ideas created by individuals, via an enterprise system, are less clear in terms of credit.
Further, enterprise collaboration is not a one-off initiative. Understand the costs, financial and otherwise. It requires dedicated resources to maintain, and an effective monitoring and response system, again not simply technology. Smith suggests that it “… never seems to shock employees…” when senior leaders respond [to postings via SM tools]. This is a powerful sentiment. Why should employees engage if management does not? If they are “shocked“, then they are not expecting a response. Organizations are already behind the start line if this is the attitude of their staff.
Costs include management time, to listen and respond if enterprise collaboration is to succeed. People understand if their ideas are not implemented. What they don’t understand is never being told why. Leadership, is just that, leaders. They lead. The recent launch of google+, and it’s slowing growth of late, can in part be traced to google’s own leaders not using the product.
Enterprise change requires daily integration with people’s roles & responsibilities. Yes, a change team needs to drive the change, but all those effected should be involved in an evolutionary process.
The integration of the employees, customers, vendors and partners intellectual property is dismissal, in most companies. Outlook is used as a storage device for powerpoints and memos, and the occasional document is bound, distributed and filed in a storage bin to be destroyed in 6 months.
According to Radick, communities, and all change I’d submit, are rarely measured correctly. In the case of communities, new users is a common metric but not as indicative as active users. Further, communities need to be created by a coming together of those with common interests. They must adhere to organizational guidelines and policies, but beyond this, should be user-created, not management created. Again, let them build, and they will come. Communities have different participants. Some parties only monitor, others participate, some moderate.
Further Radick suggests that informal, non- work related “banter“, via enterprise tools, is an important piece to enterprise communities. Much like the company holiday party and baseball team, the objective is to breakdown boundaries and encourage communication and collaboration. This a fundamental component to understanding the humanistic element to communities and intrinsic motivation.
“Don’t try to take the social, out of social media.”
Radick makes a key selling point for collaboration, and enterprise 2.0, that use of web2.0 tools are in lieu, not addition, to existing channels. Enterprise tools minimize duplication of effort, when exercised properly. Booz leverages not just the proper collection and storage of data, but also the association to those people who created the data, and more importantly, insights. Being able to see outputs, and those that contributed to them, in an open, reliable, and easy manner, is value- add.
Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. 
When asked what they want, most executives want it all. But they don’t need it all, and certainly, won’t use it all. Like the community, collaboration and enterprise change is an evolution. A salient view of all the necessary changes is, of course, important. But prioritize what impacts now. Gaining momentum is much harder than maintaining it.
Use the existing data in the various systems. Don’t ask users for that which is already known, eg. phone numbers, emails, backgrounds. This approach has the additional advantage of motivating peep to correct erroneous data in the source systems, eg. PeopleSoft, because it will become more transparent.
“If it [the system] says you went to the Naval Academy, and you really went to West Point, those are fighting words. You are going to take the time go in and fix that inaccuracy in the system.” ~ Walton Smith
So how does an organization start enterprise change? Identify and engage with those, across the organization, that are community managers already, all-be-informally. Lead by example at the leadership level. Respond. Respond. Respond. Respond again. Like wikipedia, recognize every single contributor, regardless of size of contribution.
This takes time. It’s not a product (technology) purchase. There are no definitive beginnings and endings. Keeping the communities refreshed, with new champions and contributors, updating tools, and evolving policies transparency and recognitions, is the live blood of enterprise change and collaboration. And all of them are continuous.
Profiling success stories, and model behaviour, is important. High- profile recognition of champions, both official and unofficial, should be a key initiative during enterprise change.
Allow the system, notable the community, to monitor and correct itself. Deletion of comments should be a last resort. The open forum allows for all employees to understand which channel is appropriate for which communication. If one employee is out-of-policy, regarding their comments, correction via an enterprise platform educates all.
In summary;
1) incorporate change into everyone’s role
2) establish only the goals, policies and infrastructure, including monitoring & responding
3) allow communities to grow organically
4) make cross- function collaboration part of on-boarding & training
5) use the correct metrics (not the easy, obvious ones)
Enterprise change, follows a similar evolution as the knowledge funnel, introduced in Roger Martin’s Design of Business. Early adopters of enterprise change use general rules and concepts to drive change. These general rules become heuristics, for the masses to embrace, and finally become algorithms for business-as-usual, for the remaining stakeholders, in the form of policies, rules and best- practises. And those early adopters? They will have moved onto the next iteration of change, continuing the cycle.
As an anecdotal conclusion, a close colleague was a staunch opponent to the use of social media in business. He understood others valued it, although not why, but did not see the value within his frame of work. That was until the frame changed. Nearing retirement, this individual began to seek board level roles, rather than executive roles, not something his present network supported. And it was then that a reminder of linkedin’s usefulness came into play. The tool (linkedin) did not change. The individual did not change. What did change was the situation, and as such the motivators. Motivators which linkedin now played an important role. The point? Alter the situation, to one that incorporates change as part of everyone’s activities, and the motivators to leverage the right tools change as well. In this case, the use of enterprise 2.0.
Now that’s a humanistic approach. And after all, isn’t that what we are? So why treat people as anything else?
authenegade partners 