Tech IT Easy » Human resources

The last retail store on earth—a fantasy story

Vincent van Wylick — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:41:46 +0000

The door slid open slowly, all that was visible from inside the store was a wide beam of light that slowly expanded into the shape of a door. The automatic triggers kicked in and the other security-panels in front of the windows slide open also, illuminating the last retail store left in the world 2020.

He entered. The last ever retail-clerk left on earth. A wide smile on his face, from years of practice, a swing in his step from his regular work-outs. All part of the routine.

The camera-system, also the lighting system of the place, followed his every step—one tiny camera in every tiny light-bulb, giving combined resolutions beyond that of any screens in use today and filming whatever was in the store with more dimensions than the holographic output to date would require. As he reached the music-rack, the one closest to the door, the one most geared towards impulse buying, he passed the security threshold and the system was forced to react—was he an intruder or an insider? Always a fun game to play with this flaky system… He passed the test and personalised systems started turning on all around him.

It started with the music-rack, a 50 metre (150 feet) long pathway surrounded by holograms of artists’ heads performing—sometimes in group-form, if it was a band—and tiny beams triggering the sub-dermal speakers behind his ears to play a song, just right for his mood and of course just out in the charts that week. He sometimes felt he was his best customer, because he rarely left that isle without purchasing at least one song. Another credit down from his, well , limitless credits that he could spend on these things. One thing caught his eye, the Beatles hologram was slightly off-colour, the yellows not quite as yellow as they should be. He knew banging the holographic projector would only make it worse, so he made a mental note to call the mechanic, who could probably calibrate it from his home office.

Next up, the movie isle. He loved how movies had evolved over the years to become a hybrid of a blockbuster movie with great effects, a great story-line that was essentially limitless and could be changed by the viewer as he or she consumed the movie. The movie isle was a mini-experience of such a thing, also targeting his past taste, his current mood, as well as plenty of other variables of course. The result was that as he moved onto the platform, he saw Disney-bunnies playing in the grass around him, and walked along a couple of prehistoric hunters in their furry outfits with, in the distance, their attractive female mates waving at them and cheering as they got closer. He could smell the food as he drew closer, another marketing gimmick, and he was happy that after this came the food isle.

At this point, it should be said the last retail store in the world (also the name of the store) was in fact a great big mall. The difference to other stores that came before? It was run by a single man and everything else was automated or remote-controlled. A consumer would enter and would first be entertained through music and movies, and could then choose to fulfil his primal needs: food, hygiene, etc. The second-smallest section in this store that had everything was the electronics section. People basically had electronics implanted into their bodies or they ran everything off a terminal. There was no hardware differentiation, everything had already been invented, and every software could run on the hardware that people owned from the day they became an adult or when their parents gave them permission. The smallest section of this store was the payment area, in that there was none. Why pay when every credit you need is stored on your person and you can just swipe the product you want and get it?

The clerk had said his goodbyes to the women in his personal film and started down the food isle. Again, a moving platform, on which he could sit this time, with choices flicking across the tables next to him, sushi-style, until he identified his favourite, grabbed it, and munched it down. The platform, measuring his progress and seeing that there were no impatient customers trying to get by, basically came to a standstill, allowing him to eat and enjoy.

This was a typical start of the day and arguably he had the best job in the world. The rest of the time would be spent on support, on dealing with customers that “didn’t get it,” take care of the technical issues that arose even in his technology heaven, and, even, doing some sales, though that was highly unlikely with the kind of data computers already had on consumers, making every product suggestion the perfect one.

The clerk didn’t care where his customers came from or where they went, but he suspected that they lived very much like he did, in an overcrowded apartment block with a big postal area designed specifically to receive all the UPS shipments people ordered online or in his store (mail and those inferior small postal boxes were out-innovated years ago).

The first customer came in and he smiled in anticipation of having to do absolutely nothing, while the customer spent at least 20% of his disposable income that month. Typically, people only came in once a month, if ever, just to get that personal, immersive touch that systems at home and elsewhere would never be able to replicate.

Welcome to the last retail store on earth.

This story was inspired by a recent Macworld article on comic stores vs. iTunes, my blogging on food and retail, and thinking about the future of the physical retail store. Pictures courtesy of the movies “Clerks” and “Thomas in Love.”

Prefer to have me blog in fantasy format? Let me know and I’ll continue to do so!

Status, Signals, and the Startup

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:26:08 +0000

Starting a business, just like anything else, really is defined through personal contexts. For instance, I’m a first-time entrepreneur and my partner is a 4-5-6th (hard to keep count) entrepreneur—for him, he views starting a business very differently than me. There are other differences as well, such as age, type of education, culture, marital status, all of which affect how one views the starting of a company. I aim to not pronounce these differences, rather this is a blog post about the generalities of sending out positive signals and raising the status of a startup.

Here’s a list of signals a startup might want to send out (I will discuss these further below):

The quality of your idea/prototype/product (the whole range of what your startup is centred around)
The quality of the team
The quality of your associations
Your legal status as a company
Your financial situation
The satisfaction-quotient of your customers
The speed of growth, which is really a component of ‘quality’
Your location & office

I kind of threw a few in there, as you can perhaps tell, because for instance some signals can be bundled together into tangible vs. intangible signals, as well as technology, people, financial, legal, etc. You can of course also split op signals into external—to the outside world—and internal—to your co-workers or board.

Why does any of this matter? On a basic level, because we all care about showing signs of being good at something (and starting a business is a highly personal thing in which individuals determine the direction such a venture takes), and more practically, because startups are about bringing ideas to the world that do not exist yet.

Signals are about increasing your worth in the eyes of someone else. To go back to the list, the first one, product, should be obvious: either create a kick-ass product or find a kick-ass customer that really needs your product (the latter is more realistic).

No. 2, the team, is trickier, though still crucial. It’s about getting the right mix of people in a company; people that have different educational backgrounds, possibly different genders, different ages, different networks, etc. It’s tricky because any relationship risks becoming a liability if people don’t match (that’s a big IF). And because getting quality people doesn’t always come easy, either because you can’t afford them or because the type of quality you need cannot be measured on paper or elsewhere.

Three, associations are pretty straightforward. If I have a board-member that has a good reputation, that opens doors. If I have partners in a market that is my target market, that kicks ass. If I can stamp logos of companies on my product that already have a name, that’s great marketing. It’s not rocket-science and the only thing that is required is to make these kinds of connections happen, usually through the quality of your pitch, your product, and your team-members, each of which comes with their own network.

Four, legal status, is not so straightforward. For many companies, having LTD written next to their name is a sign that they reached a certain stage. But in of itself it means nothing, only if it actually makes sense from an accounting point of view. So this is actually something that I don’t think should be up to the entrepreneur, but to an accountant and tax-lawyer. Having LTD or equivalent next to your name is still sweet of course (though not if it costs you 1000s of dollars/euros to set up and you haven’t written your business-plan yet…). Another legal status symbol is having a patent or a trademark. Both are valuable only in certain situations and require a serious strategic analysis beforehand, not least because it is so expensive to maintain (between 6000 – 100,000s for a patent & that doesn’t include the legal cost of going to court over a dispute), but because if you haven’t done your homework, you could be spending money on protection that isn’t worth a damn. Legal signals always require the help of experts, which is why lawyers will, for better or worse, always be around.

Five, the finances, has consequences on so many things that it’s impossible to summarise it well. What kind of company do you have if you can’t pay your employees, if the effort you put into it isn’t generating any cash-flow, etc.? The answer is simply a bad one. Other positive signals here are having a high profile investor on board or, preferred by most companies, a high paying customer or 100.

Six, your customer, should really be number one. Again, what kind of company do you have if you don’t have happy customers? It’s not impossible that this is the case at the start, but there should always be room for making customers happy—interesting story about how Zappos decided to sell to Amazon because its stakeholders thought Zappos was investing too much time/money in increasing customer satisfaction. There will always be conflicts in regards to customer satisfaction vs. financial satisfaction. Another often underestimated problem is that one happy customer doesn’t translate to another. This is the topic of a little book called ‘Crossing the Chasm,’ which is about going from early adopters to the mainstream, different types of customers with very different values and expectations!

Seven, speed, is one that I don’t like, but became aware of through my studies of entrepreneurship. It’s crazy how much media-attention fast growing companies get, as well as how much government-attention. If you can grow to 20+ employees in 2-3 years, it wouldn’t surprise me if politician X gives you a call to thank you for the good you’re doing the economy. If you grow to 1000, the queen/president will probably shake your hand. On the other hand, there are plenty of situations, the internet boom & bust comes to mind, where speed is actually a detriment and it would’ve been better for the entrepreneur(s) to take better care of the foundations of the company (you know, building a profitable business), rather than focussing on the status of having a ginormous team. A debatable point, I know…

Finally, location, well who doesn’t want an office looking out at Manhattan or, in my case, some tropical beach somewhere (I don’t really need the office…)? Who doesn’t want to be able to invite clients and show them your shiny office, with plants, fountains, and beautiful people everywhere? As I hopefully made clear, sending out signals is fine and good, but it should always be weighed against what you give up and if you actually need it. Kind of the same thinking that should be employed when deciding whether to get a new Apple product or Aston Martin—will those shiny objects really make you more desirable to the opposite sex? Well, maybe a little

That was a little braindump. Hope you enjoyed it.

The management toolkit for an interconnected world

ceciiil — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:12:59 +0000

Ever since the first time Andrew McAfee coined the term, the definition of Enterprise 2.0 has constantly evolved.

Arguably, the most appropriate has been : “The use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.”

Regardless of how good these definitions have been, none of them has given enough credit to a) the tight relationship between Enterprise 2.0 and Management and b) the reason why we need to adopt these social platforms.

Management

Management here is considered here in its most generic sense, i.e. applied to people, managers, knowledge, innovation, business, customer relationship, IT, communication or human resources.

This is a critical dimension since while importing social platforms from the Internet into the workplace, we also import an underlying electronic culture that profoundly impact the workplace organization.

Interconnected

We are passing from an era in which things were assumed to be controllable, able to be deconstructed and then assembled into a clear, linear, always replicable and thus static form, to an era characterized by a continuous flow of information.

(Jon Husband – Will Enterprise 2.0 drive management innovation)

In The Future Of Management, Gary Hamel (the most influential business thinker according to The Wall Street Journal) asks how relevant it is in the 21st century to use the same management techniques as the ones we used a century ago.

How appropriate these techniques are in a world where changes have never been so fast nor happening to such large a scale, where barriers of entry have never been so low, where strategy cycles are shrinking, and, last but not least, where customers and employees have never been so informed and interconnected.

In the conclusion of this book, Gary Hamel states that a) to survive in such an interconnected economy, companies have to be extremely adaptable and b) adaptable eco-systems are not reduced to mere vertical top bottom flow of information and processes but are peer-to-peer democratized flat systems.

Toolkit

Gary Hamel conclusion : Internet is the best metaphor for 21st century management.

The Internet happens to be the foundation of our interconnected world and Social Platforms have naturally emerged as the best way to connect people and get things done on the web.

This is the very reason why we HAVE to import these tools behind the firewall.

It is not because they are new, trendy or because our competitors have implemented it. It is because they have proved on the web to be the most appropriate tools to leverage a continuous flow of information in order to create value.

Definition

Hence the proposed Enterprise 2.0 definition : the management toolkit for organizations in an interconnected world.

E’ship diary part 7: Gut Instinct vs. Calculation, or On Managing Uncertainty

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:24:06 +0000

Let me start by saying that it’s hard to write about what we’re doing, particularly from a non-marketing angle. Tech IT Easy is a .Org and it doesn’t feel right to use it as a commercial medium (apart from the sponsorship banner, which I value very much and which will at some point host my company’s logo as well).

Marketing aside, it’s hard to write about something that continues to evolve. What is a permanent truth is that you get presented with a lot of information, challenging problems, and Choices (with a capital C) all the time, and I wouldn’t exchange this period for anything (except for a bit more sleep).

The Uncertainties
Today’s post will be about managing uncertainty, which is really at the core of my job description. I wrote about technology, market, people, and other risk before, which is a way to abstract what is happening.

What really is happening is that you have multiple people in a company, each has their own job, not each does it in the same (predictable/independent/insert apt term here) way. These people have to build or build upon often multiple technologies that may or may not exist yet. All of that needs to happen before the project runs out of money. You need to involve external parties who have to like what you’re doing, enough for them to give us stuff for free, invest in our stuff, and/or buy our stuff. Risks from all angles but oddly enough it feels fine.

Lilypads allround
In a draft I wrote a few days ago and don’t want to bore you with, I compared it to the following:

Entrepreneurship is different. You may love doing a certain activity more than others, but doing so may very well come at the price of success. If I were to try to describe the feeling, I would say it feels like jumping from one lilypad to the next and keeping them all floating in the same general direction. I can spend more time on one lilypad because it houses a nice frog I like or because the sun’s shining on it just right. But eventually, the pressure would push the leaf into the water and I would drown. Or something to that (slightly nightmarish) effect.

This isn’t that bad, of course, or rather if you think it’s bad, believe me: you’ll get used to it! I wasn’t prepared for this, but I knew it would be hard and now it’s just an everyday thing.

The best way to deal with all these lilypads is to learn to be efficient and to spread the love around equally.

Gut instinct vs. calculated risks
During the early days of my master in entrepreneurship which was supposed to teach me all this stuff, we tried to analyse “the entrepreneur” from the psychological, sociological, and economical perspective. The most frustrating part about it was the psychological side because every academic paper and article seemed to compare the entrepreneur to a superman. It probably didn’t help much that plenty of those articles were written during the .Com days where we all worshipped entrepreneurs many of which later turned out to sell very good smelling air.

One thing that struck me, however, was the concept of “calculated risk.” Entrepreneurship isn’t a risky venture, it is an exercise in calculated risk. I didn’t get what that meant until very recently.

As mentioned, our company is composed of several people, all of whom are different and work differently. I have people that need structure, people that hate structure, and people that seem to jump from one lilypad from the next, with me, the “boss,” chasing after them. In one way I hate it, in another way I really want people to find the best way FOR THEM to work, though of course respecting the general reality of our situation.

I am taking a risk there, but the crucial part is that I do so in a calculated manner. And that is more literal than you think. For example:

We have a very clear vision of where we want to be in several months time, but there are alternative paths to get there. One would be to build upon existing technology, which would involve a slight adaptation but at a very high financial cost. The advantage is that we have a ready to go product, the disadvantage is that we have to calculate the higher cost down to our customers. That’s ok, if it wasn’t for path no. 2.

No. 2 would require building something from the ground up that would interface with an existing technology, except that it allows us to create something much more impressive (and innovative!), as well as build a series of cheaper prototypes until we reach the mature prototype phase. Cost of production would be the same in the end, except that we can produce 10 versions of our product for the same price. The advantage is a superior product for the consumer, the disadvantage from a developmental stance is that instead of a minor adaption such as in path 1, we spend more time on this part, time we could allocate to other areas.

These are pretty much once-a-week decisions that I have to make, and a large part can already be decided by instinct. It is better to build 10 cheap prototypes than 1 expensive prototype. But how much better it is can also be calculated out in time and material cost in a simple excel sheet.

How I choose to interpret “calculated risk” is that it is actually calculated. Risk is simply uncertainty and uncertainty means that there are alternative paths to a destination and we don’t 100% know which is the right one.

You can apply this to plenty of other things, such as how to design products for different business models and how to design companies for different investors. It is amazing what clarity it brings to quickly crunch the numbers when a new idea is introduced that appears to derail the whole project. After calculating the cost of that choice (the “risk”) it may in fact bring the project to a whole new level!

I still consider myself a visual thinker where ideas are concerned, but I am becoming more and more convinced of the power of “the numbers” in turning ideas into commercial innovations. There is a risk to spending too much time in them, of course. Who hasn’t heard of forecastoritis, also known as the hockey-stick financial forecast. Life doesn’t work that way and while any forecast over a longer period of time ends up looking like starting with a large minus that turns into a larger plus, the best forecasts actually reduce the minuses to a minimum. I see a large R&D budget as the equivalent of a welfare state that just sponsors those types of people that don’t really ever want to make money: the scientists. They just want to build things and love an endless R&D budget. What they don’t realise is that when a company actually makes money, part of that money will be used for R&D anyway, which actually becomes an endless development budget! But only after you have a viable cash cow that makes it happen and only if development continues to generate continuous revenue opportunities. Ok, that last paragraph was a bit of a rant…

All my entrepreneurship diary posts can be followed under the tag ‘Vincent’s eDiary.’ I don’t write about what we do as a company on purpose, but you can always ask in the comments or via the email address on the right. Pictures are courtesy of the great M.C. Escher and nature.

E2.0 evangelists : the Revolutionaries and the Evolutionaries

ceciiil — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:46:39 +0000

This is a question I love to ask in the Enterprise 2.0 interviews :

Broadly speaking, one can say that there are 2 types of Enterprise 2.0 activists. The revolutionaries and evolutionaries. The formers believe that collaborative platforms are disruptive technology that will deeply change the organisations. The latter think this is an incremental evolution that will just fill up some communication holes that are not covered in organisation 1.0. Where would you stand ?

Andrew McAfee talks about new way of doing business in his Enterprise 2.0 book, of disruptive technologies in his PARC talk but still reckons that this is not such a big deal. We can see here that evangelists position is not very comfortable.

On one hand going towards the revolution paradigm risks scaring executives out of it. On the other, minimizing the disruptive nature on Enterprise 2.0 may slow knwoledge workers buy-in and adoption as it may curb their enthusiasm.

First approach is more of an Executive show-stopper while the second is more of a knowledge worker tue-l’amour (desire killer) and adoption obstacle. What’s best ?

Funnily enough, two of the main Enterprise 2.0 figures posted completely opposed post on the topic this week : Oscar Berg on one end and Bertrand Duperrin on the opposite. The former regrets Our Tendency to think and talk in terms of efficiency while the latter is pleased with the end of social washing in his Enterprise 2.0 Forum wrap up.

The Revolutionaries

Oscar’s post is quite telling. It starts from Susan Scrupski blog post Enterprise 2.0: The Next Narrative and the themes to be addressed in the cases study the 2.0 Adoption Council is currently working on.

Together with Denis Howlett (the official Enterprise 2.0 referee) Oscar regrets that most of these themes are only efficiency driven and bring nothing new to the enterprise plate.

Oscar quotes the quite brilliant Maslow’s Hierarchy of Enterprise 2.0 ROI by Hutch Carpenter and insists on the need of expanding the scale of benefits beyond mere ROI when evangelizing Enterprise 2.0.

The conclusion says it all :

I think that all us in the Enterprise 2.0 space need to realize that we are all – like it or not – under heavy influence of Taylor, Deming etc, and the dominating management paradigm that focuses almost entirely on efficiency. We need to listen to Dennis Howlett when he blows the whistle, and do our best at trying to adjust the balance so that we don’t get stuck in the efficiency corner with Enterprise 2.0. I personally believe that the greatest potential business benefits from Enterprise 2.0 lies in doing things that weren’t possible to do before social software.

The Evolutionaries

Bertrand’s post lie at the completely opposite end.

I’m fed up with the usual 40 min “show flat” presentations which conclusion is “it’s really awesome but I can’t do this in my company” and where we have the vague impression that instead of getting answers to our problems we’re being sold a little piece of dream that comes with a big piece of software. In brief, attendees leave with shining stars in they eyes but realize, when the time to wake up comes, that it does not help them to achieve anything.

I tend to agree with Bertrand in the sense that we need to get the job done. In the Enterprise 2.0 Forum Workshop that happened on the Wednesday afternoon, the day before the use case keynotes, Bertrand insisted on the specific french cultural issue with Enterprise 2.0. In all fairness, he didn’t really need to insist, I’m convinced.

Anyway, in such a rational and individualist culture as french one, it is just scoring an own goal to mention things like social, dreams, utopian values when trying to sell Enterprise 2.0 solution. Bertrand knows, he’s been in the business for many years and he does know how it works here.

From this perspective, he admitted that being an Enterprise 2.0 consultant in France is far more touchy and complicated that it may be in such cultures as US or UK. As a result, as a pragmatist, he is a strong advocate of incremental evolution.

(Still, I was very pleased to notice that the only book that has been mentioned during the discussions after the keynotes has been The Cluetrain Manifesto, a quite revolutionary one).

Heavy Mentalery

I think the reason why we’re focussing on Taylor or Demings values when trying to sell Enterprise 2.0, is to smooth the disruptive nature of E20 not to scare executives out of it.

The unique nature of collaborative platforms and what you can achieve with them is quite challenging to envision if you’re not familiar with it.

It will naturally emerged as the tools/approach is deployed. The culture will naturally evolves as a result of it.

But if you want executive support to start such a project in the company I guess that the best way is to talk about current problems, how E20 can solve them and the business value it will bring to the company.

Starting with cultural issues, disruptive technologies, transformation of the enterprise may work with some but not with the vast majority of executives. And will most likely not work in France, alleged home of the revolution, funnily enough – hence Bertrand’s position.

I leave the conclusion to Clay Shirky :

“A revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new tools, it happens when society adopts new behaviors”

So how about you ? Are you a revolutionary or an evolutionary ?

E’ship diary part 6: on the important matter of product design

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:43:03 +0000

I made a fairly big mistake with my company at the start, I tried to segment functions in the company too fast. Maybe it was my business education, maybe it was books like “The E-myth Revisited,” and certainly it was my lack of management experience, but I tried to keep my area focussed on business development and away from technology for which “I have a CTO.”

But startups don’t work this way and the entire reason for working in a team is that you share the work and hopefully create synergetic effects (1+1=3!) in the process.

And the truth is that even as for non-technologist like myself (I am a geek though) designing products is not so hard.

I had a discussion with an industrial designer (my all time fav. people to hang around with) concerning the term ‘a perfect product.’ Her field understands the term as a product that functions perfectly, I choose to add “for the customer” to that definition.

The start of product design is always to ask: “so is this cool for people?“, meaning will they like it, do they need it, will they pay for it? I don’t think all question can be answered from the start, except the one of “is this cool?”

A very big part of entrepreneurship is sales, and as they say: you have to believe in what you sell. Easier when you already have a product, I’d love to sell Apple computers for a living, but when the product doesn’t exist, you have one of two choices: one, you design the product yourself, starting with “is it cool?”; two, you trust that your CTO can design something cool.

That’s not a problem, except for one thing: is cool something we decide or the market decides? It is of course the latter and one bullet point in an entrepreneur’s job description missing from that of the CTO’s is keeping a close eye on the market.

Therefore, product design is absolutely something entrepreneurs cannot delegate! And on that short note, I’ll leave it.

Unlike

Enterprise 2.0 Forum : the Jive side of Swiss Re project

ceciiil — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:13:08 +0000

(Hi It’s Cecil here. A french version of this blog post is available on Heavy Mental)

The Enterprise 2.0 Forum to be held on 17 and March 18 in Paris at the Meridien Montparnasse will present some case studies. The Swiss Re project is one of them.

So I’ve contacted Jive Software for an interview to check Jive situation today (rather good as the Gartner Magic Quadrant tends to show) but also their view on that project.

I owe quite a lot to Jive. As part of my job, I invited back in summer 2008 Devan Batavia (VP Sales EMEA) to give us a presentation on their product, then Jive Clearspace today Jive SBS (Social Business System).

It was a revelation. All the problems of knowledge management, innovation, productivity in a global enterprise and complex environment, all these problems that I was intimately involved with in my everyday job, all appeared in full light in one of the most relaxed and most professional presentations that I have ever witnessed.

To such extent that it has inspired my own presentation Enterprise 2.0 and allowed me to put order in my ideas and shed light on an irrefutable truth : my subject is Enterprise 2.0.

Devan has politely declined the interview and rerouted me to Nathan Rawlins to answer them. Nathan is Sr. Director of Product and he is in charge of steering the revolution of the Social Business. A bit of Jive promotion of course, but many ideas and comments that are worth visiting …

1) Could you please provide the readers with some feedback on you and on Jives ?

Jive is number one in Social Business Software (SBS), with the most extensive solution, the largest implementations, and unmatched expertise in delivering value.

Jive SBS is driving the biggest change to business practices in decades. Jive SBS takes all the things people love about social networking software, collaboration software, and community software and makes those work for business.

This is why many of the brands that drive the global economy – including Cisco, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Intel, NIKE Inc., SAP, Swiss Re, T-Mobile and Yum! Brands – and thousands of other companies all Jive.

2) Tell us a few words on the Swiss-re deployment project that will be presented at the E20 forum by Anu Elmer, Swiss-Re VP Communications

Swiss Re provides highly customized service based on the unique risk profiles and objectives of its customers. Like most global companies, the teams at Swiss Re were becoming increasingly virtual and travel budgets had been cut. The current economic climate both increases the demand for Swiss Re’s services and places a premium on the firm’s ability to respond effectively to increasingly complex customer requirements. The business problem was clear: quicker and more efficient exchange of expertise was needed to better service new and existing clients.

The multiple collaboration tools the company depended upon-including email and other web-based tools-no longer satisfied their needs.
The Jive SBS platform – implemented under the name “Ourspace” – has enabled a more efficient exchange of specialized expertise and information which has enhanced innovation in response to client needs, reduced proposal development costs, and sped the delivery of services to key clients.

3) In terms of implementation project, what are the difference with an E20 project and the roll out of any of the above systems ? Is there any specific issue to bare in mind with E20 implementation ?

End-user adoption is paramount in the rollout of social software. That happens when interactions and connections are front-and-center. This is why adding a few social features to existing applications doesn’t support a successful social strategy. Traditional systems are focused on documents, records, or processes, not people. As such, when social initiatives are implemented, the old practices of “roll out the platform and mandate its use” won’t work. People need to feel drawn to the community.

Quite frankly, that is what is behind the success of Jive SBS. We hear again and again from companies that Jive SBS is the application people love to use, the application that makes them proud to be part of the company.

4) Some people recommend to have different collaborative platforms within the same company, some other a single one. What is your recommendation ? Don’t we lose some centralization benefits when multiplying the platforms ?

When it comes to social interactions, trying to have many platforms is a losing game. If users have to hop from system to system and stitch together conversations, they are going to stop using the systems altogether. This doesn’t just apply to internal conversations. What we have seen from our customers is that once they get collaboration happening internally on Jive SBS, the next step is they want to collaborate with customers, partners, and suppliers in a similar way. That’s why we’ve introduced the unique capability within SBS to bridge conversations across different communities, giving businesses the ability to maintain separation where necessary and foster open collaboration wherever possible.

5 ) Towers Perrin has just released a great study about people engagement in the company. This study shows that 40% of the workforce feels disengaged. Do you think E20 can help in improving workforce engagement ? How ? Have you witnessed such engagement improvement with ESSP during your studies ?

This goes back to the point in question three. One of the main reasons people are disengaged is they feel disconnected. They feel like they don’t understand where the company is going. They feel like they don’t have a voice.

That is where Jive SBS comes in. SBS lets anyone in the company have a voice. Not only does it help surface questions and concerns, it gives a platform for broad discussion of vision and direction. It gives employees something highly personal to rally around. As people feel connected on a personal level, they become more engaged.

6) Many middle manager feel unsafe with ESSPs. These bring disintermediation, and make manager feel like they are losing control of the work in the team. Do you think that 1st and 2nd level managers jobs and type of activity is at stake with the advent of the E20 ? How can they contribute ?

Successful managers will take advantage of social collaboration to help them build happier, more engaged, and more productive teams. Instead of worrying about disintermediation, they will embrace a more open dialogue that leads to better ideas and less confusion.

7) Broadly speaking, one can say that there are 2 types of Enterprise 2.0 activists. The revolutionaries and evolutionaries. The formers believe that collaborative platforms are disruptive technology that will deeply change the organisations. The latter think this is a incremental evolution that will just fill up some communication holes that are not covered in organisation 1.0. Where would you stand ?

Think of it this way: Facebook didn’t take off because it filled in a few gaps email didn’t cover. Facebook took off because it made it possible for people to interact more like they would if they were in the same room.
Chris Brogan has said the social media is our attempt to be human at a distance. Similarly, the potential of social business goes far beyond making it a little easier to collaborate. It makes it possible for employees to work together in fundamentally different ways — ways that are innately more human.

8 ) From all the studies you made with all types of organization, is there any standard anti-e20-persona that emerge ? Any over-enthusiastic-e20- supporter persona ?
Anti-e20 persona: those that are afraid of change
Over-enthusiastic e20 persona: those that just want to shake things up

9) Who would you think is the best C-Level sponsor for an Enterprise 2.0 project ? CEO ? Head of HR ? COO ? CIO ?

We’ve seen great sponsors with just about any title. It’s less about title, and more about vision. An executive that gets that this isn’t just a new technology, but rather a way of changing the way that business gets done—that’s the executive that is going to be successful.

10) My 9 years old boy keeps on asking me what I’m blogging about. What would you reply in a simple sentence ?

I’m blogging about changing the way business gets done.

Thank you Nathan and keep on making the social software revolution !

Unlike

Enterprise 2.0 : the end of office politics ?

ceciiil — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 08:49:50 +0000

I have been thinking about this topic for a while now. Enterprise 2.0 book from Andrew McAfee chapter 8 (Looking ahead), a nice twitter conversation with @oscarberg, and a New York Times article about Microsoft Creative Destruction : all combine to convince me there was some room for a blog post. Snip from the NYT article :

Internal competition is common at great companies. It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete. The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive. At Microsoft, it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams, belittle their efforts, compete unfairly against them for resources, and over time hector them out of existence. It’s not an accident that almost all the executives in charge of Microsoft’s music, e-books, phone, online, search and tablet efforts over the past decade have left.

As Wikipedia defines it :

“Office politics is the use of one’s individual or assigned power within an employing organization for the purpose of obtaining advantages beyond one’s legitimate authority. Those advantages may include access to tangible assets, or intangible benefits such as status or pseudo-authority that influences the behavior of others. Both individuals and groups may engage in Office Politics.”

One has to be extremely pedagogic to explain me how on earth this may help the company in being more profitable, increasing customers satisfaction and being a better place for employees, the three goals of any company according to Eliyahu Goldratt.

The Transparency test

Throwing such concepts as Trust and Transparency into the discussion is a good method to identify the politics freaks out there. Transparency is their worst enemy : manipulating and controlling information is their favorite way to achieve their goals : intriguing to keep and strengthen their positions and power (as Oscar puts it).

They’ll soon show the standard behavior pattern of politics : denial and/or cynisism and standard resignation. “It’s not that simple, it just can’t work like that, You just can’t change that, that’s the way it has been and that’s the way it always will be etc …”.

I am very defiant towards these people. More often than not, this is somehow to excuse their own questionable behaviour. My take on politics jerks : The No Asshole rule.

Office politics specialists of the world unite ! Because you will soon die and no-one will shed a tear on you. Enterprise 2.0 is near the corner : trust and transparency will eventually rule the work place and the exact nature of your contribution will clearly appear : poisonous, irrelevant and damaging. We shall then follow Robert Sutton advice : get rid of you.

Model 1

Chapter 8 (Looking Ahead) of Enterprise 2.0 book is, according to me, the most engaging and impressive. In that section, McAfee describes how the egalitarian and transparency values of the social platforms born on the internet may not be very welcomed in some companies.

To illustrates this, he mentions The Liar’s Club, this weekly executive meeting in a company where some people lie to each other regarding their budget, progress etc … to make sure they are not the ones the blame is put upon.

He then goes on and mentions Chris Argyris people behaviour models in organisations. Argyris describes two types of model. Model 1 is defined with the following principles :

1 – Define goals and try to achieve them.

2- Maximize winnings, minimize losings

3- Suppress negative feelings :

4- Behave rationally

ChangingMinds offers a clear description of Model 1 limitations :

In order to acquire a sense of control we need to prove to ourselves that we can control our environment. We thus set ourselves goals and do our best to achieve these goals. In order to maintain our sense of control, we tend to do this unilaterally — to include others is to risk losing control

We all like to win, because this proves to ourselves that we are achieving our goals and are in control. On the other hand, if we lose, we not only do not achieve our goals, but we are seen by others as inferior and are likely to receive less support in the future (thus we lose social control–i.e. power). Winning (or losing) becomes a spiral as the more people ally with us, the more others will feel socially isolated and be motivated to join us.

There are many ways we can experience dissonance in the actions from the above approaches (how well we achieve our goals, what we lose …). We will tend towards avoidance, denial and suppression. This suppression can be a collaborative action — I won’t talk about your limitations if you don’t talk about mine. This is a hugely poisonous spiral that leads entire organizations into sub-optimal and dysfunctional ways of working that can eventually bring down the entire company.

We all need to predict the world around us, including what other people will say and do. A defensive way of being rational is to judge the rationality of others, thus setting ourselves up as authorities and hence automatic winners. Blaming people and situations is to attribute cause, which is itself a rational action.

Even if these 4 principles may sound legitimate at first, soon the the trade-offs become obvious : it focus on individuals hence foster ego centric decisions and actions. Defensive communication, problems and mistake denials, stealing other people’s ideas and results (in France we are world champions), blaming, bitching and gossiping about people, brown-nosing, manipulating information … In one word : politics.

Model 2

As an alternative, Argyris proposes another behavior model based on (from Wikipedia which tends to prove that Tables are not Wiki specialty):

1- Valid information : Design situations or environments where participants can be origins and can experience high personal causation (psychological success, confirmation, essentiality). Actor experienced as minimally defensive (facilitator, collaborator, choice creator). Quality of life will be more positive than negative (high authenticity and high freedom of choice)

2- Free and informed choice : tasks are controlled jointly, Minimally defensive interpersonal relations and group dynamics, effectiveness of problem solving and decision making will be great, especially for difficult problems, Increase long-run effectiveness

3- Internal commitment to the choice : Protection of self is a joint enterprise and oriented toward growth (speck in directly observable categories, seek to reduce blindness about own inconsistency and incongruity), Learning-oriented norms (trust, individuality), Public testing of theories

4- Constant monitoring of the implementation : open confrontation on difficult issues, Bilateral protection of others

The second model is based on valid information, choices, commitment and monitoring, all within a team activity. This is transparency. And transparency is a bedrock for trust.

As this is less individual centric, this second model is more open to the possibility of admiting mistakes (a great enabler of office balanced relationships) : it makes assertive communication natural and the only way to go.

From Model 1 to Model 2

This will resonate with a strong echo for any of us that have witnessed these top managers meetings where one hardly talks not to make a mistake and undergo a scathering attack by other managers. This is just dreadful.

McAfee concludes that :

ESSP can help organizations move from a Model 1 to a Model 2 theory-in-use. These tools can change the nature of collaboration and discussion within the enterprise giving people the ability both to contribute their perspective to a dialogue and to inform themselves by incorporating multiple perspectives. In short, they can help organizations move from defensive to productive reasoning(…) Enterprise 2.0 is about abandonning the assumption that unilateral control is the best way to achieve desired outcomes.

This is my favorite part of the book as this sounds to me the most enlightening.

While implementing Enterprise 2.0 and moving from Model 1 to Model 2, would we eventualy defuse office politics and focus, at last, on the main goals of private organisations : profits, customers satisfaction and employees well being ?

Unlike

Toward Enterprise 2.0 with Cécile Demailly

ceciiil — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:45:07 +0000

Early Strategies has just released a fresh an extremely useful report on Enterprise 2.0 and the current level of adoption.

This international (FR, UK, NE, US) survey (summary) was conducted between November 2009 and January 2010, targeting Multinational Companies (MNCs) and international organizations (France-Telecom, Cisco, AT&T, Amadeus, IBM etc …). The clear intent was to study change execution.

This report sheds a bright light using real life examples on favorite topics of the Enterprise 2.0 Activists community : cultural values, strategic reasons, change agents, executive champions, management inducements etc …

This analysis is precise enough to distinguish different results depending on the type of company business (B2B, B2C). It’s pretty interesting to see the consequences this difference creates in companies adoption strategy.

The results and conclusion on strategy, maturity, change, policy but also on people daily work and perceived usefulness have priceless value for anyone wishing to embrace the subject of Emergent Social Software Platforms (ESSP) adoption.

Last but not least, the report addresses the ROI issue, the one most E20 activists are the least comfortable with – Andrew McAfee included. Early Strategies approach differs as it distinguishes tangible from intangible ROI. thus provides a completely different perspective on the whole thing.

Together with McKinsey’s and Cisco, probably the most insightful report on the topic I’ve read so far.

Tech It Easy has been lucky enough to have the opportunity of an interview with the person behind Early Strategies : Cecile Démailly. Impressive professional background, real enthusiasm and insight on the ESSP topic, and a charming person : Tech It Easy readers deserve no less …(Note, I’ve bolded+italicize most interesting and valuable parts- there are quite a few).

1. Hello Cécile. Could you please introduce yourself to the readers ?

I am an old GenX (or a very young baby boomer), interested in the future but probably with an eclectic approach, green (except for stairs when on high heels), mother of GenYs (they bind my understanding of new trends, among other things, and keep me modest). More seriously, I have long been a corporate person in high tech blue chips (IBM, AT&T and GE) before I started my own consulting business. I worked internationally, mainly in product management and executive jobs, and this helps me today to grasp organizational change challenges. I do change consulting and research for MNCs.

2. Tell us a few words on this “Toward Enterprise 2.0” Report. Why did you start this project in the first place ? What were the questions you wanted to answer ?

Enterprise 2.0 is a fascinating change. Imagine it has roots as far as the theory of social capital a century ago! And everything is accelerating by the magic of the technology. It happens fast and in a disruptive way. The adoption grows quickly and the research we did a year ago needed a deepening. I saw a need for more collaboration between IT, HR, Communications and other departments to lead the change, continuous discussions about ROI, and pervasive questions on where to start, what to address, how to make it successful. I wanted to find out what is happening around these topics in leading organizations.

3. Some people recommend to have different collaborative platforms within the same company, some other a single one. What is your recommendation? Don’t we lose some centralization benefits when multiplying the platforms?

Certainly you lose power and benefits when you don’t integrate the tools, and using a single platform is theoretically the cleanest and less expensive way to get them integrated. Now, the reality is more complex: you have to deal with legacy systems and you can hardly wipe out initiatives that started locally, even more when they are successful and helped you justify the need to transform the organization. Plus it might happen that no single platform responds to your priorities. Each case is different and needs thinking.

4 . Towers Perrin has just released a great study about people engagement in the company. This study shows that 40% of the workforce feels disengaged. Do you think E20 can help in improving workforce engagement ? How ? Have you witnessed engagement improvement with ESSP during your study ?

It certainly can, when it is not imposed. I won’t go into a long dissertation on what can engage workforce, but it is not the Enterprise 2.0 in itself. Again, the corporate vision is key here, if it fuels spirit and passion, and if the workforce in convinced their participation will do good, they will engage. Well being, a sense of fairness, organization’s ethics are other components among many. Enterprise 2.0 offers a way to participate to something – that ‘something’ will foster engagement. I have to say that often the satisfaction about Enterprise 2.0 surveyed is bound to the workforce engagement. Both are interlinked.

5. Many middle managers feel uncomfortable with ESSPs and you report tends to confirm that. Do you think their jobs and type of activity is at stake with the advent of the E20 ? How can E20 project manager/sponsor can help in having manager less reluctant for adoption ?

Most often, companies focus on cultivating employee adoption, rather than management, not to say middle management; and HR is not often enough associated to the transformation effort from the beginning. The Enterprise 2.0 has an impact on the organizational structure, mainly because information flows differently. Managers need to put new shoes on, and HR needs to help them do that, redefine the role of management, and get them comfortable in their new role. How ? My advice is to use collaboration and collective thinking, and “kill 2 birds with 1 stone” : set up a think tank, or a task force, a workout, or whatever works for your organization, gather a maximum of volunteers from the target population, i.e. the middle managers, introduce them to the concepts, and let them define their own future. Ideally introduce them to the tools before the thinking work happens: that is called building awareness.

6. In the introduction, you mention that transformation toward E20 must support strategic vision. One could ask how a platform of collaborative tools that may help overall company strategy ?

Your organization and the stakeholders around (customers, partners, suppliers, etc.) form an ecosystem. How your ecosystem will live, grow, change, depends on 1/your strategic vision and 2/how you nurture it. Enterprise 2.0 is a way to nurture the ecosystem better – it is not a goal or an end as such, it is a mean. Organizations don’t adopt Enterprise 2.0 because this is ‘in the air’; they adopt Enterprise 2.0 because it will help their future. And the way they will implement it, the content they will focus on, needs to serve their vision.

7. From all the studies you made with all types of organization, is there any standard anti-e20-persona that emerge ? Any over-enthusiastic-e20-supporter persona?

Not really an anti-E2.0 persona, there are rather a set of common resistances that slow down adoption: fear of visibility, where to find the time for it/rebalance workload, understanding how it relates to the daily job, just to mention a few. Those resistances disappear as awareness grows, whether it is common global awareness or individual one (trough learning and practice). Regarding E2.0 supporters, I did meet a few different: some knowledge managers, networkers who are also techno-addicts, often communications team members. These are gems, when they are open minded enough to accept that others may not be at the same stage of understanding, and when they find ways to help late adopters.

8. Who would you think is the best C-Level sponsor for an Enterprise 2.0 project ? CEO ? Head of HR ? COO ? CIO ?

Good question, and there is no one response that fits all – it is linked to the organization’s structure and the executives’ personality. The survey reported that most often, the CEO is the executive champion or among them. It also reported that in 20% of the cases, no executive champion is known. What is sure is that it works better when one or more sponsor(s) personify the transformation effort, at least in the early stages: considering the change, piloting, and starting to deploy. Like for any change. Who is the best? Try answer these questions: is there a visionary, where is it important to center the Enterprise 2.0, who is convinced, who will be listened on this subject?

9. Some people wonder where they should start with E2.0 : with internal solutions or external solutions (with partners, customers etc …). What would you recommend?

Again, each case is different. It needs some thinking and, as mentioned above, it needs to be linked to the vision. Marketing teams in strong consumer brands may want to start ahead; though most of the time it is rather centered internally and external initiatives that may exist in parallel join gradually.

Sometime we see a dichotomy between the internal and the external realizations. Ideally there should not be. Of course the organization boundaries will continue to exist, and some content will not flow externally. There should be bridges. It usually happens when Enterprise 2.0 becomes mature, not at the beginning of the deployment.

10. My 9 years old boy keeps on asking me what I’m blogging about. I’m not comfortable with the E20 explanation to him. What would you reply in a simple sentence ?

Aha. Make the most of it, questions are fun until kids think they know better than you. How about: “I’m trying to better understand how it will be when you will start working”.

Thanks you very much Cécile.

(Hi. It’s Cecil here. A copy of this blog post also is published on Heavy Mental).

Unlike

E’Ship Diary Part 4: what to pay attention to when starting a business

Vincent van Wylick — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:31:55 +0000

This is just a short list of challenges that I faced with my current business. Feel free to suggest other things in the comments.

your relationship with the company & people you’re starting with: coming out of a position that involved reading a lot, a lot of contracts, I’m kind of particular about how to phrase them. I like the idea of contracts if they very clearly state the boundaries of your position and the relationship you have with others. It should also clearly state the deliverables that have to be met, though that can also be included in a separate “action plan.” A good contract should leave no room for misinterpretation, which is why it took about 3 weeks and 8 draft-revisions to get it just how both me and the company wanted it. Of course, a 1 person business doesn’t have to do this, nor someone that doesn’t get paid, though both in “hobby (that become) startups” situations and multi-team startups, it’s good to have a thing on paper that states a number of things including responsibilities & shares, as well as, if possible, time-frames for carrying out the job. You don’t need a lawyer for this, it’s best to start with a simple list of what you want to achieve and work from that. Very important is to mention what national law this contract falls under (e.g. Dutch law or French law), full names & addresses, etc.
your intellectual property: I’m kind of running up against something like this now, which is why I think it’s worth mentioning. IP has different values in different industries of course, but in my industry, a high-tech non-software one, it plays an important role. Not only is it important to dedicate certain resources at protecting your IP, you also have to watch out that others don’t lay claim on it, just because you spoke to them once or twice (or worked there at some point. The Mattel vs. Bratz case is an interesting one to follow for that.). IP protection also plays a part when talking to outside parties like investors. Last but not least, it does protect you against copycats, though, as mentioned, the value of patents or similar varies from industry to industry.
your own finances: They say that you should have enough saved up to not have to work for 1 year. I’ll just say that I made sure that I do have a comfort zone, though not so much that I won’t stay hungry (lesson 101 in entrepreneurship and raising (rich) kids: instill a hunger for success).
the company finances: at my last company, my job was to handle certain business affairs for companies that have their legal address with us. Company finances are a complex affair, and plenty of swindlers out there try to get out of taxes here and there. Not that I don’t sympathise, but be careful of not signing something that makes you responsible for someone else’s problem. Something similar occurred last year, where someone signed something that nearly (!) made him responsible for ca. 1 million euros in unpaid taxes. Let’s just say that the lesson was to have complete transparency from the start and not sign if it doesn’t exist. Preferably this should be specified in the contract (point 1) also. The other side of the coin is that the company has to become a financial vehicle for the people working there. That means that managing its finances (income and expenses) is vital to making sure that there’s also enough money to pay all the costs.
staying organised: Kind of obvious, a chaotic entrepreneur doesn’t make for a good entrepreneur. As I have about 12 different jobs, I have to make sure that I don’t forget what needs to be done, to prioritise the important things at the right time, and to delegate those tasks that I have no time for or someone else is better suited for.
staying healthy: I’ve seen three people pass away that I’ve had a professional relationship with. One was of an advanced age, one had a deadly disease, and the third passed away at a very young age of medical complications. Two of these were entrepreneurs, and both let themselves get carried away by stress. Stress means: less sleep, eating crap-food (my new term for fast-food), and not taking the time to exercise. It is not where I want to end up, I want to do a good job (it is just a job) and live long enough to reap the rewards (preferably, I’d like to live forever, but that’s a future startup).
staying connected to people: as a first time CEO, I have a lot of questions and the best way to have them answered is to ask them to people that are smarter than me. Luckily, there are many, many smart people out there, and people love talking about that which they know.

That’s it for now and all I could fit into 30 min. of writing. All my entrepreneurship diary posts can be followed under the tag ‘Vincent’s eDiary.’ I don’t write about what we do as a company on purpose, but you can always ask in the comments or via the email address on the right.

Unlike

E’ship diary part 3: Why I don’t like the term ‘entrepreneurship’

Vincent van Wylick — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:00:56 +0000

Both ‘startup’ and ‘entrepreneur’ are terms that immediately evoke an often false reaction from an audience and I would personally prefer not to describe my work using those words. In the following post, I write about three associations in regards to entrepreneurship, one positive, one negative, both somewhat false, and one what I see entrepreneurship as really: just a job. As usual, these diary posts, which I try to write in a short amount of time, are produced with minimal editing. I hope it makes sense. All my entrepreneurial diary posts can be followed under the tag ‘Vincent’s eDiary.’ I don’t write about what we do as a company on purpose, but you can always ask in the comments or via the email address on the right.

The popular associations
The word entrepreneur has two popular and a third upcoming association. One association is negative, that of a risk-taker and in some ways a loser—this would be more in a European context where job-security is highly valued. The other is positive, that of a potential Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, i.e. the smart entrepreneur who sees a big opportunity and has the drive, intelligence, and access to other resources to make it very big.

Of these two, the latter is what we are all aiming for, but realistically that applies to less than 1% of entrepreneurs today (using the very broad definition of someone that starts anything from 1-man webdesign company to an ambitious cure for cancer). The first association is also a misunderstanding of entrepreneurship, as entrepreneurs are not blind risk-takers, or at least they shouldn’t be. I would say and hope that it applies to a minority of entrepreneurs also.

The third association: a career-choice
The third association is that of an upcoming trend: entrepreneurship as simply a job. You’ll find plenty of job-adverts with “entrepreneurial attitude a plus” or similar in the job-description, a term I hate just as much as the often mis-used “business development,” standing for just B2B sales.

Added to the job-description part comes that there are plenty of entrepreneurial courses and full academic programmes available to the public, one of which I enjoyed, though I know from personal experience that that doesn’t make a person an entrepreneur.

A third factor contributing to the ‘entrepreneurship is a job’ association is easier access to the marketplace. I’ve had some online discussions with Cecil Dijoux on this blog about today’s technology culture in the context of enterprise software development, and there is as much a democratisation of software-/web-ware development, as there is of other increasingly “low-tech” industries. (As a side note: My definition of low-tech is a technology something has very low barriers to developing it.).

I think that the abundance of resources (not just) in regards to programming, to very well developed (internet) distribution methods for getting products, tangible or intangible, out to customers, as well as more-and-more programmes for funding/assisting startups, means that entrepreneurs have access to a better developed funnel where it comes to their profession of gathering resources and marketing their products.

That doesn’t make it easy, and actually brings other challenges like being one tree in a very large forest, but it does mean that it can be seen as a type of job.

Now, what is there not to like about the word ‘entrepreneurship’?
Maybe it’s a personal thing, but I feel very uncomfortable telling people I meet that I’m an entrepreneur. One, I do see it like a job, a job that I have to do well, and nothing special really. The term ‘entrepreneurship’ makes it sound fancy, which it is not. Two, I’m a European and I do feel the same association that many Europeans have to the word, which is that it’s “less than a real job.” Rationally, I don’t think that’s true, but emotionally I have found myself feeling the following initial reaction more than once when someone comes up to me and describes himself as an entrepreneur:

“Get a job, you hippie!”

Add to this that a startup is not a company until it makes money, and an entrepreneur is not an entrepreneur until he makes money doing what he does.

So I think the term ‘entrepreneurship’ is glorified, perhaps invented to make entrepreneurs feel like they’re doing something special, same as the term ‘Artist’ or ‘Inventor.’ Art isn’t art unless the audience considers it so, and people have invented plenty of mousetraps that are now collecting dust in a garage somewhere.

Suggest something new please
I’d like a new term for what I do and maybe you can suggest one. It should perhaps be related to a startup, which immediately summarises what is happening: A company that is starting up and isn’t there where it wants and needs to be yet.

The problem is that an entrepreneur is not always in the same class as a startup. He can be 50 years old and have a long and successful career behind him. Would you call him a “starter,” a term often used for people fresh out of college applying for a job at Consultant X or Multinational Y? Generally, entrepreneurs are responsible for the activities that happen in a startup in order to make it a success. Their chances of success increase if they have prior experience, resources, and networks to build upon, that make it easier to access the three pillars of “starting up,” as I’ve summarised in the picture above.

In regards to the above, I personally like to describe my work as “I’m running a small company and we’re developing a new product X,” but that is also a bit of a mouthful.

The other side of the coin is that entrepreneurs are in (desperate) need of marketing, where glorification does play a part. I read somewhere that entrepreneurship can be described as the process of developing something irregardless of resources currently in possession. That suggests a pitch is necessary, and perhaps already being termed an entrepreneur helps getting a foot in the door. I doubt it and it would personally bother me if that’s all it took, but I’m smart enough to realise that we “entrepreneurs” need to do whatever it takes to acquire resources, as long as it fits our code of ethics of course.

So, entrepreneurship, yes or no? I don’t like the term, but I may be stuck with it. If I come up with something more apt, I’ll let you know. And same for you please!

Unlike

An e’diary part 2: what are the responsibilities of an entrepreneur

Vincent van Wylick — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:06:23 +0000

This post is part of a series, a diary of starting a business if you will. It follows part 1, the decision of becoming an entrepreneur.

One thing I found out is that it’s hard to put your responsibilities down on paper… there are so many!!! There is of course a basic job-description, which more or less sounds like that of a project manager/pull-the-rabbit-out-of-the-hat magician: “make it happen that we go from this thing on paper to the product in the hands of customers.” “Make it happen” is a super-loaded phrase, which can mean countless things.

There is a continuous struggle between micro-management and keeping the overview. Micro, because it is your responsibility that every (little) thing is carried out by your employees (if you have them). Overview, because You the entrepreneur are The Organisation. There is a third struggle that shouldn’t exist really, that between your professional life and your personal life. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to do this thing well is to focus on it exclusively. Friends, family, love, …blogging… it’s a nice luxury to have, but it comes second place.

The responsibility of an entrepreneur are thus: have a goal and make sure that everything is executed to get to that goal.

In a technology company, there are matters of technology and business (really, in what business except for strategy consulting isn’t there a mix of “technology,” which can mean anything from cooking to software development, and the commercial side of things, which is meant to pay for everything?). What I found was that as someone with a business background, who sort-of-kind-of has an idea about product development, and has a better grasp of business development, I still can’t let go of the reigns of product development entirely.

Product development ties in directly with business development. People are unwilling to pay for something that doesn’t exist and similarly our budget is supposed to last us until we have something worth paying for or investing in. Therefore, as an entrepreneur I have to make sure that product development stays on track. The absolute best way to do this is to have a capable product development manager in charge. The truth of it is that startups by their nature are resource-poor, which includes tripple-A product development managers (probably employed at multinational X or Y somewhere), and there is a lot of learning/training on the job. Learning/training means that the (hopefully) existing product development manager (in our case yes) still has to be managed, through schedules and regular meetings. In any case, product development is in its conceptual stage a very brainstorm-friendly activity, which means the more the merrier. But ultimately, a startup must get beyond this stage, respecting the entire resource-poor situation that a startup usually faces.

So, responsibilities of an entrepreneur as far as the technological product development is concerned: If you have a product development manager, you have to make sure that he works under the realities of the business. If you don’t, which I imagine many 1-person software startups operate under (as well as those lucky strategy consultants), well then you have to do the job of product development as well, keeping a close eye on the business realities.

OK, the business part of things. My role is fairly well-defined here as I come from a business background and approach startups from a business perspective. Assume that role 101 is having a firm grasp on everything that goes on, which can be phrased as “where are resources (people, time, money) being expended at and is it wise to do so.” This entails having a good budget plan and sticking to that.

Role 102 is to build the business, which I call business development, but that often gets confused with sales as that that is what it says in job adverts. Business development is the building of the business, which includes sales, but also includes building the company and all that entails.

So, we are trying to get from point A to point P, how do we go about it? If product development is about turning an idea into a product, business development is building a business plan into a business. Business plans are total BS unless they contain validated information. Some key-chapters in business plans are the market overview, the market approach, the time-line, and the financial need to meet all these objectives. Business plans can serve as a. cannon fodder, b. a plan of approach, c. one of several signals to attract investment. For c. no investor will take a look at your business unless you have a plan of approach (b.). On that plan, there should be a time-line, which you are following (predictability!) and there should be a goal: the market you are targeting and your approach.

The market section of the business plan presents a big problem for technology entrepreneurs. Because (non!) customers often don’t know what they want. I can ask a target group “what kind of air do you like to breathe?” and it wouldn’t surprise me if a significant number of responses would say: “I like to breathe air that smells like perfume.” OK, that’s a terrible question, but what I mean is that people sometimes make up answers that have nothing to do with reality (that said, both the perfume business and the fast-food industry have made lots of money from essentially selling air that smells good. Scent is also plays a very important part in memory, but I digress…)

What I’m a big fan of is validated market data, which is data gathered from actual customer experience with your product or part of it. That brings forth another problem of a bias towards early (and over-excited) adopters, something which the book “crossing the chasm” deals with, but is really not something that I think is realistic to address at an early stage, except that validated market data can also come from experts in the markets you are targeting.

The implication is also that product development is again completely tied in with business development which leads us down the path of rapid prototyping, another practice that works great in software / on the web, not as easily (though not impossible) with hardware. In any case, the experts in this area most well-known today are:

- Steve Blank, who wrote “The Four Steps to Epiphany” and is currently hosting the excellent Stanford’s Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders seminars (btw. Steve Blank also writes a great blog on customer-focussed development, which I’ve only just started reading.
- Eric Ries, who authors the blog Startup Lessons Learned and has some great articles on responsible (=lean) development.
- And Donald Reinertsen, who wrote an incredibly dense book called “Principles of Product Development Flow,” a book which is clearly an authority in the field, but which I cannot recommend to any sensible entrepreneur with a 60hr/week schedule. Those principles, by the by, number in the 100+.

As well as of course Toyota and plenty of other experts out there, I’m sure, many of which are referenced by the people mentioned.

I think that it can safely be said that task 3 or a sub-task of business development is working towards the customer, the lifeblood of a business.

There are other tasks of course, which have to do with human resources, legal work, accounting, etc. Some of which can be outsourced, some of which can be done half-heartedly (oh no, I didn’t say that), some of which are really-really important, etc.

All these tasks, however, require a certain authority. The entrepreneur’s responsibility is to either be an authority on a task level or to be sure to work with authorities, either in the company or in an (informal) consulting fashion, so that they are carried out responsibly.

Task 4 can thus be entitled: be an authority on the tasks that need to be carried out or have access to one.

So, a whole can of worms starting a company can be and it is vital that it does not interfere with the single most important thing that you must do as a human being: be healthy! Health is part sleep, part exercise, part food, part love. There is no yin without yang and vice versa. Thus forget everything I said about personal life being no. 2. The best is if it reinforces what you do in your work. Health leads to happiness and happiness leads to optimism: a key-quality in entrepreneurship if there ever was one.

So the responsibilities of an entrepreneur summarised:

100: keep your eye on both sides of the court: the goal & the resources needed to get to that goal
101: align Product development with Business development
102: always validate your market data by staying close to your customers
103: be an authority on the tasks that need carrying out or have access to one
104: stay healthy and happy.

This was written in a single session with minimal editing. I hope it kind of makes sense. Part 3 of my e’diary will be on the topic of: can you prepare for entrepreneurship? As I have a master in entrepreneurship, I thought it might make for an interesting perspective. All my entrepreneurial diary posts can be followed under the tag ‘Vincent’s eDiary.’ By choice, I’m being mysterious about my company. If you have questions, feel free to comment or write to me via the email address on the right.

Picture courtesy of Be The Dream.

Unlike

Social Networks : the third level of immersion

ceciiil — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:20:25 +0000

(French version)

The pitch: Enterprise implementation of social networks is the third step of a gradual immersion of the enterprise into the internet culture. This immersion occurs because there is the obvious truth : web works with amazing speed on an amazing scale.

I have been lucky enough to witness from the inside the major changes the IT industry have been going through in the last ten years. What is really interesting within the scope of Enterprise 2.0 is that these changes involve the adoption of tools, solutions and approaches that really came from the internet culture.

As Enterprise 2.0 activists, we keep on wondering where to find meaningful experience of internet culture adoption in our company. The IT department is the place to look because they already been through the first 2 steps of immersion ….

1 – Enterprise Systems foundations

In the IT world, the productive workforce is behind this revolution. Developed by geeks on their own time, in flat organizations with leaders who have emerged naturally, Open Source Software (OSS) has completely changed the IT business.

OSS market share

Who would have thought 20 years ago that an operating system created by a bunch of hackers (Linux) would have such a market share in operating systems for large banks and insurance back-end servers ? Who would have bet a penny 10 years ago that Firefox would have taken about 25% of the internet browser market share to Internet Explorer? That the most popular HTTP server (Apache Web Server) in the world would be free ? That most popular Integrated Development Environment would be free and hackable (Eclipse). That the White House would adopt an open source Content Management System for their web portal (Drupal)?

OSS success reasons

The reasons why open source solutions have been so massively adopted are multiple. Quality, efficiency etc … But the main one is the Darwinism of the internet : the solutions that survive are the ones that prove to be the most adaptable. Free software is open to anyone to participate : in order to survive, it has to be more adaptable than a solution locked by a publisher to a limited number of in-house developers.

Emergence of standard IT architecture for solutions developed by distributed teams

It’s worth mentioning that in terms of software architecture, the successful solutions have many similarities. The most flexible and modular software solutions has survived. They are built around a kernel offering the possibility of many optional plug-ins. Thus anyone can develop new peripheral add-on features independent from one another. This is the architecture principle behind Linux of course but also Eclipse, Firefox or the application server JBoss (solution of French online taxes system, the market leader ahead of vendors such as IBM or Oracle), .

OSS Developers rule

Even though major software vendor have stepped into the OSS market of the Java Enterprise Solutions (which is the technical area I know the most), it is still the open source community that rules the technical solutions. As I mentioned in my rant against bloated SOA : Spring became the new J2EE (over industry standards), Hibernate became the standard for J2EE ORM mapping (again over industry standard JDO). In other words : open Source Solutions started by single developers, each solving specific problems, have been massively adopted by the developers community and became de facto standard ahead of bloated theoretical solutions agreed by a consortium of major vendors.

As Martin Fowler reports it :

Tim Bray contended that the key decisions on technology are made by the programming community. (…) The reason we have so much bloatware in IT is because IT purchasing decisions are usually made on golf courses by people who have lost meaningful contact with the realities of software development.

2 – Project Management

Building on the success of the implementation of OSS in the enterprise IT, the productive forces have started to think about project management within the company. And a number of embarrassing questions have been asked.

Why do we concentrate so much on the process and so little on productivity ? Why so much time is spent on documentation (specifications) that are subject to interpretation, while these artifacts will be useless during the life of the product? Why do we waste so much time building contracts rather then trusting each others ?

Why phases of study, analysis, development and validation of products and services they are so strictly defined ?

Why should we wait so long before realizing that what we do does not match the business needs ? Or that it does match the needs identified 18 months ago but that the initial target has moved ?

Why not focus on simplicity rather than designing systems to manage the complexity ?

How come everything goes so well and so fast when we’re developing software for free on the internet and everything becomes so slow and complicated when we develop for our company ? Why not getting real , man ?

Agile adoption issues

Major players in software engineering meet in 2001 and wrote the manifesto for agile development.

This manifesto fell ill. It is considered with a lot of caution by a generation of managers who just get into the new the web techs (led by developers, ouch). These managers had to adapt to the Java platform, which is the core 70% of new IT projects since the beginning of the century. A generation of leaders not so keen to challenge their methods despite the disappointing results : in 2003, between 65 and 80% for enterprise Java projects are failures according to Scott Ambler.

Reasons of Agile success

This generation nevertheless had to adopt Agile methods because, again, it does deliver results. Pragmatism and performance of the implementation phase, adequacy between what is delivered and the constantly evolving expectations, visibility on projects progress throughout all phases of development, well-being of the teams thanks to constant user feedback and overall project visibility : all these combine to make Agile methods the most adapted ones for the constantly evolving context of IT development.

3 – Communication and knowledge management

For IT teams, after OSS and Agile project management methods, Enterprise 2.0 solution is the natural third step of enterprise immersion into the internet culture : the XXIst century way of getting things done for distributed teams.

What makes me think that this transition is inevitable, despite the rather considerable impact, is that executives are thinking about it. According to Forrester, 49% of the 2008 initiatives of CIOs of Fortune 500 companies focused primarily on collaboration.

They just hesitate as they are not sure how to handle this. Indeed, the problem remains the adoption in the enterprise. But there are teams around who have experienced that already in their daily work and within your enterprise.

It’s your IT people : they have adopted first OSS solutions, then Agile Project Management methods : they already have tested the amphibia nature of your organization. Just ask them how it went, they’ll be happy to help.

Unlike

How Enterprise 2.0 fosters Knowledge Capture

ceciiil — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:05:24 +0000

(Knowledge Capture in Enterprise 2.0 – click to enlarge)

Knowledge Worker : one who works primarily with information or one who develops and uses knowledge in the workplace (Peter Drucker – 1959)

If the definition above applies to your job then you probably are a knowledge worker. I personally am. And knowledge is the raw material we’re working with.

As opposed to the raw material manual workers deal with, knowledge is immaterial, it is just floating around. If we want to be productive we need to make sure this knowledge is harnessed, i.e captured and easily accessible.

Some studies show that between 25 and 50% of the communication between knowledge workers remains tacit and uncaptured. The question is how can we be productive and comfortable with our daily work if about half of the raw material we’re working with is wandering around ?

In the enterprise 2.0 presentation, I compare the knowledge capture in Enterprise 1.0 and 2.0. And it goes like this …

Enterprise 1.0

(Knowledge Capture in Enterprise 1.0 – click to enlarge)

Split knowledge

In the Enterprise 1.0 Microsofty world of the last century, the enterprise knowledge is split all around the place.

To start with, there are different types of document : office, HTML, mails. Even though mails are not supposed to contain information they do contain an awful lot of project related information.

These different types of documents are stored on different machines : mail server, intranet, shared network drives, knowledge management systems, local machines, etc …

Last, but not least, these pieces of information are accessed via different applications : Outlook, Office, browser.

Intimidating corporate policy

In the post about the conversation in the enterprise, I stress the fact that a knowledge policy based on Word documents and Knowledge Management bloated solutions is intimidating and discourage knowledge workers from capturing these units of knowledge. Therefore, a large number of units of knowledge (illustrated with color circles in the diagrams) are not captured and remain tacit.

However, some brave knowledge workers sometimes capture units of knowledge in Word documents. But they still don’t go the extra mile and share the actual document on the complicated KM system.

In the event where there is no KM system but a network shared drive they don’t store the document in the right location according to the actual taxonomy. As a result, these pieces of knowledge become hard to reach and find.

Knowledge leaks and productivity issues

From the whole enterprise perspective, just like tacit knowledge, this unreachable pieces of information are knowledge leaks. And lost of productivity.

This results in figures such as the ones reported by an Accenture study on 1009 middle managers from UK and US. It shows that managers spend about 2 hours a day looking for information and 50% of the information found is of no value.

There are tons of such studies : another one reports that knowledge workers spend about 30% of their time looking for data (Butler Group). Others show that

Looking at the different applications and data repository used, this hardly comes as a surprise.

Enterprise 2.0

Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers (Andrew McAfee).

Most people naturally focus on the term social in the definition above by M. 2.0. However, emergent and platform should not be underestimated.

Emergent

Emergent means that the system has gradually been adopted and naturally emerged as the best solution. The collaborative environment in which these systems have naturally emerged is the bigger there have ever been on the face of earth : the internet.

One can notice that there has been no manager or super architect that has defined up front which tools and how to use them to communicate. This has just emerged between the developers and project stakeholders.

The barrier entry for knowledge capture and sharing is just one click. It makes a huge difference. As a result, knwoledge workers capture far more knowledge.

Social

These collaborative platforms have been heavily used to develop successful and ubiquitous applications on the internet. How relevant these social tools are in a collaborative environment is therefore unquestionable.

If the system has emerged in such a darwinist environment as the internet, it also is because it has proved the most appropriate in a social environment.

Wiki, forums, blogs, etc … are straight forward, one click away from any browser. There is no intimidating corporate template to follow, no complicate KM system to master or Network Share Drive taxonomy to remember.

Folksonomy and social bookmarking have offered a new way to categorize the information. It helped in making the information easy to index and find afterwards. As I mentioned in the post dedicated to management in enterprise 2.0, whenever we put information in order, the objective is not to have an harmonious and logical tree of information which make managers feel secure, but rather it is for the information to be found quickly and easily afterwards by anyone in the community.

Besides, the natural conversational tone of these tools allow a more efficient communication.

Platform

Platform means that the whole set of collaborative tools is accessed from a single entry point. Blogs, Wiki, Forums, etc .. they can all be searched from the platform single search engine.

This is a key aspect of Enterprise 2.0 : having a single entry point for search is critical in this respect.

Enterprise 2.0 Vs Enterprise 1.0

Enterprise 2.0 knowledge capture is more efficient than Enterprise 1.0′s because :

It is easier and less intimidating for knowledge workers to capture knowledge on collaborative platforms (wiki, blogs, forums etc …) then on word documents and then knowledge management systems
Collaborative platforms offer a single entry point from the same application (web browser) to a set of tools and application where information has been captured

This enhanced knowledge capture has measurable results on knowledge worker productivity as reported by Andrew McAfee in his Financial times article :

The consultancy firm McKinsey has conducted three annual surveys on this question. In the most recent, published in September, respondents reported benefits that included better access to knowledge and internal experts, greater employee and customer satisfaction, and higher rates of innovation.

The magnitude of the gains was striking, ranging from 20 per cent (innovation rates) to 35 per cent (access to internal experts).

Unlike

Why Entrepreneurship is ultimately Not a Management Science

Vincent van Wylick — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:49:31 +0000

I’m reposting this comment I wrote in response to Eric Ries’s stimulating blog post on Harvard Business Review online, with the title “Is Entrepreneurship a Management Science?” Feel free to share your thoughts on it there as I think it’s worth thinking about whether Entrepreneurship can eventually learned or whether it is an art-form. My thoughts on that are below.

Having both studied a Master of Science in Entrepreneurship and working in my 3rd startup (trying to apply the lean techniques that Lessons Learned made me aware of), I can say that my ideal is that entrepreneurship is a science. In reality, it’s a collection of Sciences as well as the act of Imagination AND Guts AND Agility, none of which are particularly scientific.

It’s a collection of sciences because no entrepreneur or team of entrepreneurs is undertaking just one activity, he, she, or they are doing many in parallel, some of which are business related and some of which are technological. Both have scientific foundations behind them.

Why the Business of Entrepreneurship is scientific is simple to explain. Businesses, starting or existing, can’t operate in a vacuum (for long). We have to obey financial restrictions, sell the idea to our investors, who themselves employ scientific means to measure whether the return on their investment justified, communicate to the market in effective ways, study the market, and project manage all the activities and people in the company. For most of these “wheels” already exist, so there isn’t always a need to reinvent them.

BUT, there is no replacement or science for guts, imagination, and agility in starting a business. You have to ignore many rules, you have to play dirty, and you have to be quick & flexible if you want to succeed. Maybe a management scientist can eventually plug those dirty variables in a formula somewhere. But I doubt it can be applied to any two startups successfully.

Vincent

Unlike

Wasting Energy While We Sleep: Did you switched off your PC today?

Anand — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 18:17:47 +0000

This post is partially motivated by my colleague(I hope he is not reading this) who spent all his Christmas and New year Vacations at home with his PC still running next to my desk. I am amazed to calculate how much electricity he just wasted. Well, you wouldn’t leave your television ON for all day while you are at the office, and yet, across the world, millions of work PCs are left on all night—wasting energy, costing owners millions in utility costs, and contributing to global climate change.

Generating the electricity needed to power those computers requires hundreds of power plants that produce billions of tons of CO2 emissions. Many of those machines sit idle for 12 to 16 hours per day, burning electricity, but not doing any work, because businesses habitually leave their computers running overnight.So how much does this one click matters? Here is an awesome report published by Harris Interactive some time back.

Some Numbers Worth Understanding

A mid-sized company with nearly 10000 PCs, wastes more than $165,000 a year in electricity costs for computers that have been left on overnight. By turning these computers off, an employer can keep more than 1,381 tons of carbon dioxide (C02) out of the atmosphere. Across the nation(read USA), this adds up to more than $1.72 billion dollars and almost 15 million tons of CO2 . When calculated using EPA’s Green House Calculator the emitted Carbon is equivalent to Annual CO2 emissions of 4 coal fired power plants.

As of April 2007, 145,800,000 Americans have full-time jobs. 72 percent of all employed adults regularly use a PC for work purposes at their jobs. Combining these findings suggests that more than 104 million workers reach the end of the work day with a PC to shut off—or not to. Next most important things is to analyse the reason for this type of behavior from the office goers.

Workers Attitudes behind this Wastage:

A centrally controlled system for PC shut-down wouldn’t be necessary if workers shut down every computer, every night. According to the survey, Among employed adults who regularly use a PC at work:

49 percent “never” “rarely”, or “sometimes” shut down their PCs at the end of the day.
11 percent “often” do
40 percent “always” do.

In an enterprise like situation, when asked whose responsibility it should be to save energy in the workplace, 28 percent of PC users said it should be down to management or the IT department. More than half (53 percent) said they were not at all concerned about their companies’ carbon footprints, indicating that effecting change in “shut down” practices at the behavioral level might yield disappointing results.

Making Business Out of IT:

Almost all the industries (be it mid or large sized) are facing similar challenges of harnessing maximum output with minimum power and infrastructural expenditures. And with global recession the idea of Cost cuttings also include supervised use of Power and Infrastructures in the enterprises and commercial centers. No company likes to waste money. On the surface, the financial impact of 24-hour computer power consumption may seem insignificant compared to traditional concerns such as payroll, supply, and rent—but the waste is actually substantial. A few important findings from enterprise point of view :

Energy costs—typically 10 percent of the corporate technology budget—could rise to as much as 50 percent in the next few years.
If not exaggerating, a good Power management software can reduce a PC’s power consumption by 80 percent, allowing companies to save between $25 – $75 per desktop PC.
Turning off PCs, with their heat-intensive power supplies, will also reduce the load on air conditioning equipment, leading to even more energy savings.

If you are working in/for an enterprise, its your responsibility to turn off/hibernate your PC when you are not working. On the funnier side, Gary Hird, IT strategy manager at UK retailer, John Lewis, says “I joined the company in 1989 and one of the first things I noticed was that every light switch had a sticker next to it, reading ‘switch off, you’re burning my bonus” .

But on a Serious Note “It takes between 60 and 300 trees to absorb the yearly CO2 emissions generated by a single PC left on 24 hours a day. That means it would take between 1.24 and 6.24 billion trees to absorb the emissions caused by the nation’s office computers that are never shut down.”

Take one step towards being Green, try to hibernate the PC whenever possible.

Unlike

6 reasons to encourage enterprise conversations with collaborative platforms

ceciiil — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:02:34 +0000

(Hi, it’s Cecil here. A french version of this post is available on Heavy Mental)

Bertrand Duperrin explains in a quite remarkable post the risk of backslash when using standard web 2.0 key words while presenting social networks to a new audience. The reason is : there could be some misunderstanding from the audience.

Among these key words : Conversation. Bertrand exposes the issue :

Just try to explain to a manager who has been struggling for years to reduce wasted time and productivity due to gossip, that time is now for team talk and conversation. And even worst : that his role is to stimulate this conversation. Then watch his face that slowly turns sour.

6 reasons to bring management and the enterprise conversation back together. And to use collaborative platforms to foster the latter.

1 – Conversation = units of knowledge

I have been working in the IT industry for about 20 years. Whatever the country, the industry or the size of the organization, I have always found myself facing this problem : how to capture these priceless bits of information floating around and share them in an efficient way ?

How to foster these coffee machines or telephone discussions where experts talk about the best way to solve a particular problem and help a customer within a specific context etc … ?

Management always has proposed the same solution : bloated Knowledge Management systems and well structured Word documents with corporate templates etc … Even though this tends to reassure management, nobody uses this system or write those documents because it’s frustrating.

It’s frustrating to write a 10+ pages document for one unit of knowledge. Not to mention the actual Knowledge Management system that is so complicated that most people are terrorized with the idea of logging onto it.

Reason #1: Within conversations lie many units of knowledge that the company need to capture. It is easier, more direct and far less intimidating to capture these on collaborative platform tools such as Wikis or Forums. And it’s then easier for other people to find them afterwards.

2- Knowledge Management != Documents Management

I was giving a training to some U.S call-center colleagues back then. One of them, Billy-Bob, told me this : Hey, when the client calls for a problem, depending on the area where the problem occurs, I forward them to the right document and give the polite RTFM Directive (Read That F***ing Manual). Because, hey, all documents are available online.

Except that, as part of the training, they have to configure a database. Billy-Bob encountered a problem and although the document describing the database configuration was open right before his very eyes on his PC desktop, he directly googled the symptoms (I.e error code) to see what it was. I asked him what he was doing and gave him some RTFM. Which had everybody laughing. Everybody but him, of course.

Reason #2 : When a knowledge worker looks for some information in the 21st century, he uses a web browser to search. Collaborative platforms offer single entry point and search engine on company knowledge (Wikis, Forums, Blogs, documents …).

3 – Conversational communication is more efficient

In one of her many unmissable posts at Creating Passionate Users, Kathy Sierra tells it all : Conversational writing kicks formal writing’s ass.

Kathy has been interested in cognitive science as she suffers epilepsy. So she knows what she talks about : you can see the result of her study on the topic in the amazing Head Firt Series IT industry self-teaching books.

In the blog post, she mentions a study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, in which researchers found out that :

Students who learned with personalized text performed better on subsequent transfer tests than students who learned with formal text. Overall, participants in the personalized group produced between 20 to 46 percent more solutions to transfer problems than the formal group.

According to Sierra, when pieces of information are communicated using a conversational tone (using You and I) the brain thinks it is in a conversation and become much more responsive and involved in the communication.

Reason #3 : Communicating in a conversational style results in a much better quality of message transmission. Collaborative platforms have a native informal style and therefore nurture better quality communications.

4 – Conversational communication is key for leadership

We have already mentioned it here. Michel Crozier is a sociologist, expert in the study of the enterprise. His analysis (according to a french university lecture) of the tight relationship between the simplicity of the speech and the subsequent team support is rather interesting :

The more sophisticated and complex the communication, the more it sounds simplistic. While simple message appears as a source of wealth, because it allows individuals to make it their own and discuss freely. The involvement of experienced manager, the fact that everyone is convinced of his conviction helps to give considerable strength to a simple message.

I once had a great American CEO. He had a straight forward speech style, both bewildering and stimulating. During the open questions in General Meetings, he would encourage people to ask questions on and on, until the very last drop. He would then willingly answer, using this typically American laid back tone using We/You/I. This always resulted in giving a great feeling of proximity and stimulated employees engagement.

During my long career, I’ve hardly ever been so motivated and convinced by the company strategy than when I left his meetings. A feeling that was shared by my colleagues.

This is something that large companies are looking into. At Intel, for instance, most company executives have an internal blog, Paul Otellini – CEO – included. Thanks to this medium, they benefit from the disintermediation offered by the collaborative platforms and engage in conversations with potentially all employees, regardless of their role and position.

Reason #4 : Excutives speech with conversational tone help to establish leadership and contributes a great deal in engaging employees. Blogs is the perfect media for executives to engage into these company wide conversations.

5 – Fostering weak links

Thanks to collaborative platforms, coffee machine chats became global. In other words, the global conversation has started.

Rather than chatting with always the same colleagues, people we professionally hang out with, people we share the same knowledge with, we have broaden the conversation scope thanks to collaborative platforms on the internet. We now reach different people and roles. The exchange has become much more fruitful, for everybody’s benefit.

Mark Granoveter wrote a theory about this : the Strength of weak ties. The great benefit is innovation. While one confront ideas with always the same people, with the same knowledge and new innovative ideas seldom appear. On the other hand, these new ideas are much more likely to pop up when different people in the company, working in different areas, with different responsibilities engage and chat.

Reason #5 : The global conversation is encouraged by collaborative platforms. It leverages weak links and allows new ideas and new business opportunities to emerge.

6 – Make sense out of knowledge workers contribution

One of the great frustation and source of insecurity at work for knowledge workers is how difficult it is for them to apprehend the actual purpose of their contribution in large projects.

We have this excellent developper in our team who has been working his ass off for 6 months building a fully integrated Installer for our PLM solution. PLM is an enterprise complex system involving many servers, different components etc … It is was a nightmare to install and configure. Johnny Boy made a great work automating our solution installation, hiding all the gory details of the configuration behind a smooth user interface.

A couple of weeks after the release of this installer, we had Peggy Sue, our lovely Marketing Events Manager storming into the office asking Who the hell this Johnny Boy is ?

He rose his hand and she ran to him giving him the biggest hug in his professional career. She said : “Oh thank you so much. You made our life soooo easier with your great installer. You don’t have any idea how much this tool has changed our daily work in such a lovely way”.

No matter how much we, in the department, praised his remarkable work, nothing gave more sense to his contribution than this hug from someone he never heard of before, a person and a role he hardly knew they existed. The reason is : all of a sudden, with Peggy Sue hug and gratitude, he touched the reality of his contribution, his piece of software became a life changer. From that hug onwards, Johnny Boy dedication and commitment (which already were of higher standards) became unbelievable.

The global conversation on collaborative platforms facilitates this type of real life feedback from someone at the completely opposite end of the enterprise organization.

Reason #6 : The enterprise global conversation with collaborative platforms provides a company-scale perspective to employees actual contribution together with real-life feedback. To paraphrase the stone cutter story, it helps turning knowledge stone worker into knowledge cathedral workers. This is a key factor (arguably the most important) to employee well-being and commitment.

Unlike

37 Signals : Digital Natives Leadership in action

ceciiil — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:48:46 +0000

The question I’m always asked when I run out of my friends/colleagues/dog patience with the issue of Digital Natives integration within the enterprise is : how to convince the proponents of this culture to adhere to a common professional project, to an organization with rules and commitments ?

The answer is straight-forward : leadership. A leadership for a post-ideologic generation. A leadership whose core resides in simple and clear principles, to put in practise, rather than plastic values nobody believes in.

Enterprise 2.0 represents a gradual immersion of the XXth century organisations into the web culture. Digital Natives Companies are born from this culture : there is no change required to adopt these principles as they are the core foundations the companies were built on.

In order to illustrate this assertion (and as promised), an overview of 37Signals, a GenY company achieving incredible results, from both financial and reputation perspectives.

Anti-nonsense manifesto

37Signals initially is a Web Agency created in Chicago by Jason Fried at the end of the XXth Century. We are not talking here about just another web agency. They already display strong opinions and principles with their original manifesto : Ergonomics, Design, Simplicity, productivity, no-nonsense.

This is a small structure where employees are split all across the USA. To solve subsequent problems, 37Signals chose to develop a in-house project management application.

They recruit David Heinemeier Hansson who decide not to use any of the standard technologies (Java, PHP etc …) for the development. Invoked reason : these technologies are far too complex and not productive enough. Being a fan of the agility and flexibility offered by an obscure scripting language (Ruby), he develops his own web development framework : Ruby On Rails.

At the end of a quick build, 37signals proposes Basecamp service in SaaS mode and reaches the million user milestone in November 2006.

Start-up with an opinion

RoR framework is well received by the open source software development community, which leans heavily on the Java side of things back then.

Well respected figures such as Martin Fowler or Bruce Tate praise the great simplicity and the strong principles of the framework (convention over configuration etc …).

Getting Real

From Basecamp development experience and success, Jason Fried writes an essay : Getting Real.

This book enjoys a tremendous success for his strong anti-corporate stances and the radical principles it preaches : no functional specifications, no planning, no meeting. Also : do less features than the competitor but spend more time to design them properly; do not anticipate on problems you don’t already have (think scalability) and embrace constraints which can prove to be innovation opportunities.

As a kind of alternative business bible, this e-book contributes significantly to their reputation and the growing incoming traffic on their blog SignalVsNoise. This online business reputation allows Fried et Hansson to give conferences and raise them to well respected figures in the industry.

The next small thing

All start-ups dream of getting bigger and bigger in order to become global companies ?

37Signals insist they want to remain a small shop : there are only twelve of them today. This small size allows them to remain extremely agile and to progress with small changes while implementing small decisions. This especially allows them to focus on their core activity et to get rid of any other issue.

Key points are productivity and trust : I have no idea how many hours my employees work — I just know they get the work done (J. Fried).

Productivity, Trust but also simplicity, the ultimate sophistication according to Leonardo Di Vinci : “Simple requires deep thought, discipline, and patience – things that many companies lack” (Matt Linderman a 37Signals employee)

Business Model Conundrum

In A Secret to making money online a presentation he gave in Startup Stanford conference in 2008, Hansson goes against standard start-up policies and introduce the thoughts that brought them to their business :

The classic conundrum : You have a

great application and then
?????? (something magical happens and then)
You make profits.

We have been doing research, experiment etc … we found out that the best option for us was to 2 – put a price on the application to make profit. It’s too simple to be true but believe me it works.

Financial Independence

Each time you see a successful company, tell yourself it’s because someone in the company took a brave decision – P. Drucker

Once again on the opposite side of the other start-up financial approach, 37Signals made the brave choice to bill their customer on a monthly basis. This service is as easy to subscribe as it is to cancel. The objective is to ensure the company is financially sound and independent.

So far, they only have accepted one investor : Jeff Bezos. Bezos, who knows a couple of things about online business, guarantees not to interfere with their business strategy.

A cool, though very meaningful anecdote : when they launched their Basecamp service, they didn’t know how they would bill their customer at the end of the month. They implement their billing solution within that 30 days. This is hardcore just-in-time.

Working hard is overrated

All start-ups have the overtime culture ? DHH openly takes on à Jason Calcanis when the latter recommends in his start-up management principles to only recruit workaholics.

Their position : to design, develop and launch software services is a creative craft and it’s just not possible to be creative more than 4 or 5 hours per day. In order to preserve their creativity, 37Signals decide to switch to the 4 days week. Working hard is overrated indeed to quote the great Caterina Fake, flickr founder.

No meeting

For the Fried’s mob, evil in the organisation has a name : interruptions. And the embodiment of Evil is Meetings. Meetings should be exception not the rule (Fried). According to Fried, in order to be creative, one has to be in the zone, a sort of state of mind which requires deep focus : all these interruptions prevent people from reaching the zone. And from being creative.

In order for people to collaborate smoothly without interrupting each other, 37Signals create the Campfire service, a Business Group Chat.

Ban the four letter words

Leadership also is a sound and harnessed communication. 37Signals has banished a set of four-letter-words from the company vocabulary. These simple and common words which often prove to have bad consequences : must, need, just, can’t, easy, only, fast.

Reality is a terrible collaborator

According to Fried, planning is useless. These are just vague guesses who have no purpose other than reassuring control addicted managers.

What the point in losing time trying to predict the future when Reality is a terrible collaborator. Where will we be in 10 years ? In the business (Fried).

Do the right thing

Management is doing the things right, while Leadership is doing the right thing. (P. Drucker)

Offering simple enterprise SaaS solutions to SMBs who praise their services, and focussing on simple principles they literally apply on a day-to-day basis, Fried and Hansson give a great leadership lesson to the online business.

Some people sometimes misinterpret this intransigence and confuse it with arrogance. As a result, they have quite a few detractors. But these, in turn, contribute to grow their fan base who admire more the company as they loudly voice their strong opinions.

They enter the HallOfFame-2.0 with Basecamp being mentioned in the mythic Meet Charlie presentation slideware, probably the best introduction to Entrerprise 2.0 ever designed.

Wrongfooted Enterprise

37Signals has shown with much panache that Digital Natives know how to run their business while completely integrating constraints and characteristics of the XXIst century connected world. With this amazing result : 12 people (working 4 day/week) in a company delivering services to million of customers. Most importantly, they achieve so doing the exact opposite of what last century companies recommend.

Peter Drucker, again, in Management Challenges of the XXIst Century :

The most important, and indeed the truly unique, contribution of management in the 20th century was the fifty-fold increase in the productivity of the manual worker in manufacturing. The most important contribution management needs to make in the 21st century is similarly to increase the productivity of knowledge worker.

This objective has been patently achieved at 37Signals.

Thinking about it, that’s probably one of the main blocker of Enterprise 2.0 adoption. For the first time since Taylorism age, Corporate world is facing a successful alternative business model that seasoned business leaders have trouble to apprehend.

Unlike

The Poor Man’s Business Model—How Out-of-the-Box thinking can generate tremendous value for customers

Vincent van Wylick — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:17:21 +0000

I’m always fascinated by business models, i.e. at how entrepreneurs and companies put together services in order to make money from them. I’d call it the source code of business if I hadn’t seen the other source code in Luxembourg —legal and accounting—but arguably that’s more like binary code, i.e. 99% unintelligible.

Sarah Lacy writes about SMSONE, a ultra-local news provider in India similar to Outside.IN, a Union Square Ventures funded US-only company that provides news updates via the web. SMSONE does it, as the name suggests, via SMS. And it spreads through a franchising model, working with local entrepreneurs that pay a franchise fee and also collect a share of the advertising revenue from locally focussed businesses. It is able to do this because of something that apparently doesn’t exist in the US (but does in Europe): receiving an SMS in India doesn’t cost the recipient anything.

When reading about this, I was immediately reminded of a similar business model employed by a Dutch entrepreneur in Russia, Ms. Annemarie van Gaal, founder of Independent Media, a company that distributed Russian versions of magazines like Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire en Good Housekeeping (source). When she spoke at the Star entrepreneurial seminar in Rotterdam a year ago, she told us about how she differentiated herself from the competition (paraphrased as I haven’t got my notes with me):

The trouble with getting your magazines distributed in Russia was that you had to pay quite a lot of money (some would call it bribes) to companies that would then take care of it… badly. Instead van Gaal decided to do it differently. She would hire street kids to distribute her magazines, similar to the gold days of newspapers: the newspaper boy.

If you read Sarah Lacy’s account on Techcrunch, you’ll see that SMSONE does it similarly, hiring local kids, often without much education, to take care of distribution. Doing it via official channels is likely a nightmare over there, and centralising distribution kind of defeats the purpose of micro-news.

It’s a different way of thinking, which many of us westerners don’t have. I mean, would you entrust your products to a beggar on the street or to a street musician? Not only is it probably against the law (except if the government does it), we pride ourselves on our super-organised infrastructure, where anything from temp-workers to interns are there to provide companies with a flexible workforce, and anything from printing presses to mobile internet exists to produce and distribute your stuff.

Of course, I wouldn’t just leave you with these two examples. In the beginning of 2008, Boston Consulting Group published a study of “local dynamos”— domestically focussed companies, which use creative business models to capture value from emerging markets that are filled with challenges, like lacking infrastructure and low-income consumers. The map below shows how widespread these companies are.

Some very interesting examples are mentioned, like:

Shanda, a Chinese gaming-company, that, in order to combat software-piracy, focusses on providing interactive services through gaming, services that are impossible to pirate. And to overcome a lack of a financial infrastructure to pay for online services, they work with pre-paid cards.
Indian CavinKare, which sells cheap sachets of shampoo through small local retailers, while using educational marketing to teach customers how to use their products.
Goodbaby, which targets the many 1-child families in China, who are both willing to spend more on their child than multi-child families would, but are also in need of education.
Amul, an Indian food-and-beverage-marketing-organisation, which collects and pays for milk locally, while tracking all operations via satellite and uses ERP solutions to make analysis based on the data and gauge whether future supply needs to be increased or decreased.
Wimm-Bill-Dann Foods (Russia), which works extensively with local partners, and has devised leasing schemes for expensive machinery to boost their production and is able to serve 280 million consumers nation-wide.

The BCG, of course, takes the stance of its customers, Western companies, and the study is mainly aimed at how multinational companies (MNCs) can replicate 6 of these dynamo’s advantages, in order to compete with them. They are:

Customising to local needs – which involves first understanding these needs, and then meeting them.
Devising innovative business models that overcome local challenges – a logical follow-up to the last point, how to make money from the info you gained.
Leveraging the latest technologies – meaning that these emerging economies are less burdened with traditional infrastructure and quicker on the uptake of more affordable, newer, and easier-to-spread technology, e.g. mobiles.
Beneﬁting from low-cost labor and overcoming shortages of skilled labor – there’s two ways to look at this; a local workforce will be better equipped to interact on a local level, a highly-trained workforce will be better equipped to run a business. Tough call.
Scaling up fast – Russia, India, China, Brazil, etc. are all giants with the promise of huge rewards when you capture them. Many of these dynamos grow quickly through both through acquisitions and building up their network of suppliers and distributors.
Sustaining long-term hypergrowth without imploding – this kind of follows on to the last point

Some of the Western companies mentioned, which have managed to compete on a local level, include:

General Motors, which has adapted its luxury-liners to meet the demands of its Chinese customers, who are usually sitting in the back;
LG, in China, which has learned that the audio-quality of its televisions is more valued by its customers, who often reside in noisy environments;
Carrefour, which has started to work with local municipal governments in China, as these don’t meddle in their operations like local dept. stores would, and are able to provide access to prime locations;
Perfetti Van Melle, in India, a candle/chewing-gum manufacturer, which has found local means to advertise, interacts frequently with local partners, and has adapted its products to local tastes;
and Yum! Brands, which owns Pizza Hut and KFC, and has adapted its menus to meet local Chinese tastes, started a new food-chain aimed specifically at the market, and uses its international expertise to integrate IT, lean supply chains, and a higher level of food standards into their offering.

It shows the value of out of the box thinking in terms of reaching people, and I believe that traditional “Western” thinking should long ago have been thrown out the door anyway, particularly in light of the troubles that media-, automotive, and financial industries are going through. We are in the flux of disruptive innovation and only those quickest to grasp new technologies and ways of thinking are able to survive another day.

No shortage of lessons on that from entrepreneurs in emerging economies…

Vincent out

Unlike

Political & Commercial World Powers and the Dynamics of Education

Vincent van Wylick — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:33:38 +0000

As is usual when I take a long break from writing, my blog posts end up becoming insanely long. Take it as you will, but I’ve tried to make it as coherent a post as possible. P.S. this is a post written under de cover of my “leave of absence,” which means I still write, but less frequently. – - Vincent.

A good friend of mine, Zihni Ozdil from the Netherlands / Turkey, Historian Extraordinaire, is now publishing his wisdom online. If history, politics, and culture (“beyond the superficial”) is something you find interesting, I encourage you to check it out. On his site, I found an article entitled ‘the real Evil Empire,’ which, ignoring the provocative title, deals with the interesting topic of the cold war and the ‘demonification’ of Russia and communism at that time.

Yesterday, I had an interesting discussion with some Canadian Swedes that moved to Florida with their kids and had trouble finding a school. The only way, it seemed, to guarantee that their kid ended up in a good one is to have an A-class school in your district (which you can find via a website that profiles attendees according to race and economic background… wow…) and to have paid your electricity bills. It worked out well for them, but clearly suggests the underlying problem of a long-term selection bias.

Last night, meeting the Canadian Swedes, where I was also in the company of a Russian and a Japanese, I noted that it was strange that while both Russia and Japan, being superpowers in their own right, have infamously challenging education systems, which result in some pretty smart people graduating from either country, the US does not seem to follow that pattern, at least not at the high school level, and certainly not across all demographics. Yet, by all accounts, the US is a superpower, if not the superpower of this and the last century.

My post today is not about comparing countries’ education systems, it’s more about the strategic purpose of education. Many people don’t know this about me, but I don’t vote and I don’t generally care about (regional) politics. To me, our planet should be one country, where anyone can move and work anywhere, and services don’t have to be moved just because you physically moved XX km/miles to another country. But I do recognise the power of competition and how that can lead to excellence. Versus a ‘group think’-like mediocrity where everyone just tries to be like everyone else and no one exceeds. So, in a way, I endorse a system of divided regions, because I think it leads to competition and thus excellence.

Education plays a strong role on the competitive advantage of nations, as it does in certain companies. Last year, applying to a lot of consultancy companies and working as one myself, I was struck at the importance that the accumulation of knowledge plays in this industry. If I were to start my own consultancy, continuous education of the staff would most certainly be a cornerstone of the business strategy, because knowledge is your product as a consultant.

I know that this thinking plays a strong part in government circles as well: how to make your/our country as strong as possible, not (just) in military terms, but in the sense of knowledge, mostly measured by the no. of graduates and the no. of patents that are published every year (as well the commercialisation thereof, which doesn’t go quite as smoothly).

I know that the no. of graduates coming out of Chinese universities is tremendous, and the no. of patents coming out of US ones is among the highest in the world also. So clearly, the US, superpower extraordinaire, is doing something right. I don’t however entirely understand why the primary/secondary school system is so abysmal then in the US. My only explanation is that, in academic circles, there are no national boundaries, and a Russian researcher can just as well (if not better) produce patents in the US as anywhere else.

There are other dimensions to the US superpower status as well, of course. It’s a military superpower, it is a cultural superpower (in terms of films, music, and literature), it has a large consumer-base. These three dimensions—safety through military strength, an easily adopted culture, a consumer’s paradise—also have the effect that they serve as an attraction point for outside academic or other talent. And while other countries may have strong educational bases, the other aspects are perhaps ignored just a little too much, still making the US a prime export location for knowlegde.

In the strategic literature, there is the concept of the resource-based view, which stipulates that company strategies are nothing more than a collection of resources, some of which are internalised and some that are not. I think that in the context of the US and education, the resources that must be internalised are those that lead to the commercial exploitation of technological advantage, which sounds abstract, but basically means making sure that the best technology/knowledge is produced in-house and generates economic benefits in-house as well.

But there other resources that must most certainly not be held onto in-house. These include standards, which facilitate the assimilation of knowledge. In education, the standards that we use are the bachelor-master-phd system, which can easily be studied in different combinations and locations. And text-books, which as many students know, are often from US-origins.

In many ways, the cultural exports from the US—movies, music, literature—are nothing more than the spreading of a standard, that of a language and a way of thinking, which makes assimilation of outside talent easier. And as long as that outside talent is used for the benefit of the US, in the form of patent exploitation, the US benefits, even if their own primary/secondary education system is quite uneven.

As mentioned, I don’t care about politics, country-differences, or governments. But if my logic is correct, I wonder if a metaphor exists for commercial superpowers, i.e. companies that are market leaders and remain so by attracting the greatest talent and finding ways to turn that into economic benefits.

Organisations are not complete economies like governments are and also have the benefit of being mobile—by law they are considered single persons, which have residence, pay taxes, etc. just like everyone else. So, as long as they obey the law, they can choose where they stay and choose to ignore local conditions, much like, I theorise, some governments do, instead focussing on the bottom-line: attracting excellence and turning that into profit, while keeping ‘unnecessary’ expenses as low as possible. Well, at least that is the stereotype of an organisation, while pressures have certainly lead some to adopt a more socially-responsible attitude.

Clearly, the question of talent, whether attracting or training it, remains a vital one for both countries and organisations. But I don’t think there is necessarily a correlation between talent and local conditions.. at all.. though local conditions do play a part in the quality of life, or lack thereof, which affects the talent’s in question desire for a certain location.

Vincent out.

(Picture courtesy of thehindubusinessline.com)

Unlike

The Dynamics of Blogging and the Dynamics of Doing Business

Vincent van Wylick — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 10:05:07 +0000

I hate breaks in anything I do, blogging, work, sports, love, etc., because it’s always harder to return back into the zone. Similarly, I already knew subconsciously that it would be hard to return back to blogging after the proposed hiatus. Routines are good and when they are moved aside, they get replaced by something else.

The human body is a machine and everything, from hours in the day, to food and exercise, to making money, to relationships, are all pieces in the machine of life. There’s only so many hours in the day is a well-familiar phrase to most of us and reflects the difficulty in balancing different activities and responsibilities, with some just falling off the map.

I am not saying that I plan to stop blogging, but I do think that we all need to make choices in our lives which will affect other, previous ones, like domino blocks.

Dynamics…

I just bookmarked a blog post on delicious on forming sales teams in a startup. It’s a good one and you should all read it. As I tagged and bookmarked however, I immediately thought, hey, I’m pretty sure no one on my company will read it. Why? Maybe because we already figured it out… Maybe because we figure stuff out as we are doing it… Your choice.

Blogging or any kind of writing for public purposes brings several complications to business people:

it is public knowledge, meaning that the competitive advantages are slim: I don’t think this is a major factor, as most innovations are combinations of different ingredients that may or may not be public knowledge. Great artists steal, as they say.
Writing is processed explicit knowledge from something that was previously implicit and needs to be made implicit again by the reader for it to be useful in a practical context: I’ve written about the knowledge-generating company and the knowledge spiral twice before. Another phrase, “You can’t help yourself, because your *self* sucks!” also comes to mind.

It’s the latter that represents the greatest challenge to authors and consumers of their work. I’ve also previously written about the benefit of formal education, which, I think, tries to recreate the knowledge spiral, turning explicit knowledge into the implicit kind, to be used by students in their work later on.

The dynamics of business is that there are expenses—YOU, the team, the office, etc.—which need to be recuperated by your work—the work you do for customers, after which they pay you. It leaves very little time for reflection, e.g. through blogging, etc., and for making things explicit, e.g. through blogging, etc.

I’m still a big fan of Michael Gerber’s E-myth revisited, which is really about writing that franchise manual for your business, so you can both understand the processes happening in your company, and expand on those, by more easily passing on knowledge. It’s Taylorism, of course, or Scientific Management, or any of the other management methodologies that followed in the past century.

But these activities require time, time which people inside organisations usually do not have, and hence prefer to outsource to outside consultants, who then need to make their knowledge explicit and again implicit in the minds and methods of their clients’ organisation.

It’s a real nightmare for people (like me) who think to much and always aim for something higher. And who want to blog. And who want to do good business…

Thoughts?
Vincent

(Picture courtesy of Fisica & Psychica)

Unlike

Old world vs. the new world and the digitalisation of (financial) services

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:27:47 +0000

Read today about a new service in the Netherlands that is doing very well. It’s called doehetzelfnotaris.nl, which translates roughly as ‘Do-it-yourself Notary,” and has already attracted 13,000 visitors since it launched 2 weeks ago (for NL, that’s a big deal). By allowing you to automatise certain services, like preparing the contracts and wills, it claims to save you 30% of the price of having a notary take care of these things. Needless to say that during these financial troubles, people like it when they can save some money.

At our financial trust, I’m currently filling out a pretty long survey from the Luxemborg statistical office (STATEC) regarding our level of “internetisation.” It’s not easy being digital in a world where you often deal with highly sensitive data, sometimes coming from individuals who do not like dealing with you through digital means. The very word “Trust” in our company description, already forces you to ask the question: can clients trust us using digital communication?

The answer is in most cases No. Go to any bank and try to get significant things done and they want you to sign for it. Same with notaries (and doehetzelfnotaris.nl does not automatise the signing part). The financial sector is particularly stuck in what I would call “the old world,” though not, I would say, without good reasons.

My question to you is:

is there such a thing as fool-proof communication, which cannot be falsified by any means?

Is there a surrogate for being there in person and signing your name?

I don’t know of any, but I always assume that our readers are smarter than me.

Chime in, if you can.

Vincent
(Picture of a Robot Accountant. Waah!?)

Unlike

How, if You Want to “Crowd-Source,” You Need to Keep Your Questions as Simple & Stupid as Possible

Vincent van Wylick — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:22:53 +0000

I once asked a friend how one of my clients should improve their sales technique for a technical product, knowing that his company is very successful at what it does. He, himself a “sales engineer” (i.e. a technical sales guy), found the question very difficult to answer.

I had to reshape the question to “so, how do you guys sell your technical products?” And then he was able, with full vigour, to tell me how they do it. It should be mentioned that market plays a strong role here; my friend works in a very niche business, while my client suffers from powerful competition.

I’m starting to loose my naiveté, as far as crowd-sourcing is concerned. This easy-to-communicate world we live in, sometimes makes me forget that, just because we can ask, doesn’t necessarily mean that we should. Technology may have changed, but people’s brains, psychology, and business principles have not, at least not at that rate.

My general stance these days is that, no matter what context you talk in with people, you should always assume a complete lack of imagination. Instead, by either spelling it out, or better, by asking the best interview-question in the world “tell me about YOU!,” and then extracting what you need from that, is much more effective.

It’s as Jeremy advised me to blog when I started here, Keep It Simple & Stupid (K.I.S.S.). Even though I have ignored that lesson at times, it’s a good one to follow in this all-too-unsimple world.

Apart from crowd-sourcing, the same, incidentally, applies to:

selling people stuff: spell them out exactly how your product/service benefits them!
applying for a job: spell them out exactly how you will make them money!
and everything else.

Want to make the world a better place? K.I.S.S. it!

Vincent

Unlike

The Right Mix between Idea and Execution

Vincent van Wylick — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:40:37 +0000

If I ever succumb to the temptation to blog like I did last night, feel free to shoot me. Now, back to our regular programming…

Last week, I wrote about having heroes in your craft and how I found it noteworthy that some examples are more effective than others in everyone’s path to self-improvement. I attributed it to the vague concept of compatible brain-patterns, but really I think it’s a much more simple idea. The reason that my writing heroes have an influence on my craft is because I practice it. In other words, there is a right mix of idea and execution (I would call it semi-right as there’s much room for improvement).

There are plenty of blog posts about this. Most well-known to me is Derek Sivers’ blog post about the “execution multiplier” that makes ideas more or less valuable:

AWFUL IDEA = -1
WEAK IDEA = 1
SO-SO IDEA = 5
GOOD IDEA = 10
GREAT IDEA = 15
BRILLIANT IDEA = 20

NO EXECUTION = $1
WEAK EXECUTION = $1000
SO-SO- EXECUTION = $10,000
GOOD EXECUTION = $100,000
GREAT EXECUTION = $1,000,000
BRILLIANT EXECUTION = $10,000,000

To make a business, you need to multiply the two.

More recently, Sarah Lacy wrote a post on Techcrunch, entitled “Is Execution More Important than Vision?,” where she differentiates between entrepreneurs that are visionary vs. those that are good at execution. In other words, she categorises people as either fitting in the one or the other.

What is clear from all of these is that ideas unapplied are essentially worthless. Which to me means three things:

That if you have ideas in an area that is difficult for you to execute on, you’re probably better off focussing on areas where you can execute them.
Or, that it is equally important to find the right resources (skills & knowledge, network & team, money & customers) for your idea as it is to have the idea.
That you ultimately need to move towards a system of rapid iteration or rapid prototyping, because, as we all know, ideas are ideas, and the reality will more often than not change your original product idea. The quicker you can test them out and improve them, the better your chances of making a commercial success.

It’s a bit of a leap from my post about writing heroes to executing entrepreneurial ideas, I know, but I think it makes sense.

Vincent

Unlike

Where do Good Ideas come from?

Vincent van Wylick — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:11:29 +0000

I have hardly any time today, catching up on the week, which is terrible for the creative spirit. So, as a 15 min. therapy, where do good ideas come from? Here are 4 areas that I can think of:

Exploration / Rest: Spending 3 days in Paris and 2 days celebrating the national day of Luxembourg was great for thinking about life, discussing various topics and plans, and brainstorming ideas. It is in a way the anti-thesis of working life, which is focussed on making you into a machine, constantly moving, constantly following a routine, and not breaking out into new creative patterns. Ease of Implementation: Ideas are often abstract and need a lot of work to make them useful.

Iteration: This the primary way that companies innovate, by constantly developing routines, slightly adapting them over a long period of time, until version 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.infinity, etc. It is why (consumer) products are the way they are. Ease of Implementation: when you actually have new ideas they face the challenge of breaking existing patterns that are cemented into operating companies and more difficult to change. Still, new ideas are often based on practical data and should thus be more easy to implement.

Deconstruction: This is what I call the Sherlock Holmes way or the “where have you last seen it?” way. You are faced with a problem, e.g. finding something you lost or figuring out how an electronic device works. The best way to do it is to break it down into small steps or pieces (deconstructing) and then reconstructing the reality again. In technology, you might also call this reverse engineering. Ease of Implementation: much like iteration, it is based on realities that already exist. Ideas are often better than what came before, because you’re an outsider, taking something apart and throwing away the junk. Ever lost a piece of text you wrote due to your computer/software crashing? I guarantee that your version 2 will be shorter, more to the point, and better.

Conflict: I was discussing this with Jeremy this weekend, regarding the building of teams that can challenge each other. It’s a destructive and constructive process all at once and I think the benefits usually outweigh the risks. Ease of Implementation: It’s difficult to find that kind of talent and the right mix, so I would say that implementation is not easy. It should however be at the top of the agenda of any organisation who wants to be an innovator in its field.

Other ways to come up with fresh ideas? The floor is yours!

Vincent

Unlike