Enterprise 2.0 reads – January 2011

Here are some snippets from article I found mostly interesting last month. I hope you’ll enjoy them just as much as I did. Have a blessed February!

Every Worker Is a Knowledge Worker By Evan Rosen

If you’re not soliciting input from the employees who haul boxes, assemble products, and drive delivery trucks, you’re missing out on profitable ideas.

The terms “knowledge worker” and “manual worker” are no longer mutually exclusive.

In command-and-control companies, value creation suffers because management makes decisions in a vacuum without broad input.

In a collaborative organization, on the other hand, all workers’ knowledge counts, regardless of their roles… And most important, information flows in multiple directions rather than cascading from senior leadership down through multiple levels of management to front-line people.

Any employee might have information and input that can help the organization develop better products and services, manage real business performance, bridge strategy and execution, make better and faster decisions, and increase profit.

The facets of collaboration – Enter the matrix! By Paul Culmsee 

 Out of all of the material that I researched, I found that these four dimensions or facets of collaboration (task, trait, transactional, social) helped me explain most collaborative scenarios.


image161.png


Task Based Collaboration (Outcome driven): members do not necessarily have shared interests beyond the outcome being delivered.

Trait Based Collaboration (Interest Driven): trait based groups tend to come together to share their learning and experiences. It is the shared interest that drives the members’ attention and participation.

Transactional Based Collaboration (Process Driven): the people in the process can often be “swapped out” with other people, because transactional process is designed to be well defined, optimised and easy to follow consistently.

 Social Based Collaboration (Insight Driven): This is usually characterised by more ad-hoc sharing of perspectives and information. It is realisation or insight through pattern sensing via group interaction, rather than structured business rules.


TIBCO Launches tibbr and Demonstrates the Difference Between Social Business and Enterprise 2.0 By Larry Hawes

Social Business is about people first. Enterprise 2.0 is primarily about technology that enables business processes (or, more accurately, barely repeatable processes and process exceptions) via human interaction. Both are valid and valuable approaches to structuring and running an organization, but it is critical to know which one your company values most. Does it want to be a social business that emphasizes and connects people, or an entity that uses Web 2.0 technologies to achieve business goals when rigid, transactional systems can’t help? Answer that question first, then choose your technology solution.

“Madness of Crowds” or “Wisdom of Groups”? By Leslie Brokaw 

Researchers concluded that “group intelligence” correlates less with the intelligence of the individuals and more with the social sensitivity of group members, an equality in how conversation is handled, and even the proportion of females in the group.

“[Senior author of the study] Malone and colleagues could not find an example in which people had asked the relatively simple question of whether groups had intelligence, the same way individual people do.”

Why has that question not been asked before? Why is it difficult to think of a group as having a measurable intelligence? “There’s been a tendency to focus on the negative, the mob psychology, the idea that people can bring out the worst in each other,” Robert Goldstone, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Indiana University, told the Globe. “There’s just as much evidence that people can bring out the best in each other.”

Social Learning, Collaboration, and Team Identity By Larry R. Irons

Organizational analysts refer to the challenge of establishing team identity as a boundary definition problem for teams, when members are spread across large distances whether geographic or cultural in nature.

Social software tools in the Enterprise, such as awareness/sharing tools (Yammer, Chatter, etc.), or collaboration tools (Wikis, blogs, discussion forums, etc.) assumed that increased information sharing would decrease such boundary definition problems among distributed teams… Mortensen thinks it is unclear that reducing boundary disagreement on distributed teams results in positive performance… Lack of an agreement on who is a member of a distributed team does not present a problem that needs solving in order to manage performance. The awareness that differences exist about who is on distributed teams, and recommendations on how to manage those differences, point to the focus needed on collaboration from management.

Collaboration isn’t just about people sharing information to achieve common goals. Collaboration is about people working with other people to achieve common goals and create value. Even though goal-orientation is a big part of collaborating, collaboration requires more to achieve goals effectively. It requires shared experience.

 

Lamia Ben.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s