Friday, June 24, 2011

Enterprise 2.0 - The Seven Year Itch


2011 marks the seventh year of the Enterprise 2.0 Conference, a critical milestone to be sure. The Boston session moved to the Hynes Convention Center and some of the biggest players in technology made their presence felt: Microsoft, Cisco, IBM, & Avaya. There was a common theme around where social enterprise is going and where the focus should be: collaboration feeds the deep human need of being connected and having a voice. And since passionate employees tend to be twice as connected, can the promise of social enterprise’s greater connectivity begin to restore passion in the workplace? And what kind of technologies and leaders do we need to make this happen?
MIT's Andrew McAfee explained in his keynote address that old-fashioned bosses are still the biggest threat to social enterprise advances. To make social enterprise software effective, we need to focus on what computers are bad at: the Eureka! moments. How do we take the flow of information passing through the organization, and develop those differentiating insights that become the future value proposition? The danger, at the end of the day, is not that computers will think like people, but rather, people will start to think like computers and we will lose organizational creativity.
This was certainly echoed later during the Business Leadership Roundtable by Marcia Conner, Fellow, Enterprise Collaboration at Altimeter Group: Enterprise culture has caused us to check our personalities at the door. Those people were just alive just a few moments ago when they were outside the door. What happened? We need to bring our full selves to work! The Dachis Group’s Lee Bryant added during his keynote that social business isn't just about direct collaboration. It's a about dynamic signal & ambient sharing around the enterprise. Organizations must refine the way they interpret data for maximum effect.
Sara Roberts of Roberts Golden pointed out that we can't incentivize employees to horde knowledge and then expect them to share, and the pervasive culture of many organizations has everyone but top management acting as choice-less doers. The reality is that line employees are building mental models for the customer segment, but those insights are often not valued or captured by the organization. And when employees leave the organization, they are taking their best ideas with them if the culture and technology has not been put in place to create an information legacy. A strong case for the value of social CRM.
Successful social enterprise software deployments begin with a simple problem, relevancy and immediacy. Yahoo's Kristen Sanders discussed building "The Source" with Appirio, a replacement for Yahoo’s “stinky, dirty information landfills.” She discussed the importance of both creating a governance model to avoid creating yet more digital landfills, and thoroughly understanding user requirements in order to build a healthy environment. Yahoo’s implementation success was based on two key factors: Salesforce Chatter implementation was straightforward and the initiative was business led and addressed real pain points and use cases. Kristen pointed out that a platform must be agile, mobile and integrated, and the technology must keep up with the conversation and solve globally, something Yahoo was able to achieve with Appirio in implementing Salesforce Chatter.
I spoke on a panel with Sovos Group co-founder Oliver Marks, Moxie’s Megan Murray and Saba’s (and The Career Within You author) Ingrid Stabb on Balancing Business Leadership with Governance, Regulatory and Compliance Realities. Two key takeaways from the session were to engage compliance early and often when implementing collaborative technologies, and that the future of HR is to take a stronger, leading roll in designing the employee experience. And part of that design must include embracing social enterprise software to not only understand what is driving employee behavior, but to direct behaviors in ways that are mutually beneficial to the individual and the organization.
Jive’s Chris Morace reminded us that 70% of enterprise employees are using unsanctioned cloud apps. In fact, evidence shows 35% of employees are spending their own money on social software at work so they can get things done when corporate systems fail to deliver. People want the same tools they have access to outside of work inside of work, and so they will find a way to get them even when it violates policy. This creates a huge compliance headache and ultimately impacts HR’s ability to recruit and retain employees when these tools and behaviors are absent.
EA’s Bert Sandi identified three elements critical to collaboration: head, hearts & hands. He challenged the audience: is your physical environment collaborative? And once you are more than 35ft. apart, you might as well be in a different building, so what does social enterprise collaboration look like in your organization? And so Bert really addressed what is the social enterprise itch... Can we access the tacit knowledge contained in the heads of employees, engage their hearts and make them passionate once again about walking through the door, and can we put in their hands the tools necessary to get the job done and create institutional memory? After seven years the E2.0 Conference is showing us how to scratch that itch.


Dr. Steve Elmore is Business Architect for Collaboration at Appirio and develops organizational blueprints for the launch of collaborative initiatives. Steve serves on the faculties of University of Phoenix and Grand Canyon University and sits on the board of the Central Texas SPCA. In addition to a Doctor of Business Administration, Steve holds an MBA in Global Management and a BS in Business Management. Steve has been published in the Journal of Leadership Studies, co-authored with best-selling business writer Don Tapscott, and is a regular conference speaker. You can follow him on Twitter @steveelmore.


Sunday, June 12, 2011

Taking Responsibility: Facebook



Looking at my list of friends on Facebook, I am struck by the collection of childhood pals, neighbors, co-workers... and yes, past romances. My friends list is a hodgepodge representing my social experiences over a lifetime. Each individual sits somewhere on a spectrum of emotion from pure joy to bittersweet memories, but most are firmly on the joy end. And that is why Facebook is such a mixed bag.

Facebook can be an amazingly cathartic communication medium. I have reconnected with numerous people from long ago, and with some found that our shared emotional baggage (sometimes carried for over two decades) was in fact just an empty suitcase... with mental wheels added to make it easier to drag along. So many cases of simple miscommunication or misperception unresolved until reconnecting on Facebook. It is really an amazing phenomenon, and an experience I have found shared by many people I talk to.

These wonderful social experiences stand in juxtaposition to those that are... well, not so wonderful - whether it is the agony of the technology and what is Facebook's responsibility, or the nature of the social engagements and what is user responsibility. For example, some old acquaintances should be left... well, forgotten. Some relationships are hollow, voyeuristic, and in some cases outright harmful. Each of us must take responsibility to establish meaningful friendship criteria. I think using Facebook as a giant address book is a huge mistake and for the password challenged it is a huge point of security vulnerability. I've developed an old and new friend trial period. I accept friend requests from people from my past, and if they engage with me in some meaningful way over the next few months, fantastic. If not, I friend them on LinkedIn and delete them on Facebook. New friends must be more than a business contact and would be someone I'd allow in my home (since that is essentially what I am doing when they access my personal photos).


The "legitimate friend" issue aside, Facebook has its own responsibility issues when it comes to security and engaging in self-analysis and more thoughtful consideration of how it engages in social engineering .




Not everyone is a fan


More than once I have been tempted to drop Facebook altogether - I simply don't trust their collective judgment or like how they pass the buck with "as is" statements. I think there is a serious lack of discipline by Facebook engineers who build capabilities just because they can. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of inadequate worst case scenario analysis or being social in a responsible manner. The Facebook controversies around security continue ad nauseum (most recently facial recognition), and they will most likely continue unless there is a sea change in the thinking in Palo Alto (i.e. default new social feature settings should lean towards being more secure than open).


Once a platform reaches 600 million users, it clearly has global significance (Chris Hughes at Bilderberg), massive social impact, and a giant target for those with ill intent. So, when will Facebook draw the line on pushing what is cutting edge social at the expense of security & privacy and accept that it has a moral obligation to act more responsibly? If the current pattern of development continues, users will draw their own line on privacy erosion, voyeurism, addiction, etc. by simply opting out. 


Facebook's 9th Principle is to "publicly make available information about its purpose, plans, policies, and operations."  Well, then perhaps they should add this from section 15 (Disputes) of their Statement Rights and Responsibilities to the footer of every view: "WE DO NOT GUARANTEE THAT FACEBOOK WILL BE SAFE OR SECURE." 


And since that is the case, there is something fundamentally wrong with how Facebook views its responsibility to the public.