Kevin Shea -- Process Collaboration

Enterprise 2.0; a Simple Roadmap

A lot of what is talked about in Enterprise2.0 adoption has to do with capturing, sharing and exchanging knowledge. But, once those needs are fulfilled: What do we use this knowledge for?, How do we work the knowledge into the workflow? or more specifically, How do we process this knowledge in order to create a competitive advantage within our businesses?

If we plan on using Enterprise2.0 as a new technology, what outcomes are anticipated?

Do we create better products?

Do we institute new and move advances processes?

Do we undertake better practices?

It is my opinion that Enterprise2.0 practitioners must consider not only getting people to use the technologies but have a clear vision of how the company will reap the benefits of the introduction.  In considering an Enterprise2.0 adoption, do not look at just the technology, or at the initial condition, but at the state of the company 5 years after the introduction.

What is knowledge management? A courtroom analogy

Some of my clients have shown confusion with regard to what Knowledge Management is. So, I use the courtroom as the analogy to explain it.

In the courtroom, the lawyer presents material in the form of papers, records, witness accounts, finger prints, and other items related to the crime, etc. These are the evidence. Most project or business work tasks have a similar compilation of evidence. In fact, in one company, we created the term “evidence book” to highlight the idea.

In the courtroom, the lawyer weaves a story around the evidence suggesting what happened, and possibly why. The stenographer captures every word assuring that the entire “story” is recorded and can be recalled at any time.

So, in the courtroom, knowledge management = evidence + “the story”

To be effective, the evidence and the story must exist together as an integrated record.

The evidence is virtually meaningless without the story. If the story is not captured, any future activity will have to try to recount the events, generally resulting in something very different.

In business, knowledge management = business record and documents + the story

If a business stores its evidence (business record and documents), but cannot relate what it does with the evidence, the impact will show up in lower quality in its product.

If the business does not store its evidence, and has no story, it is definitely in trouble.

Consider the result of a business with good evidence and a full story, fighting it out in a courtroom with another company with uncontrolled evidence and no way to recall the story. I know who I would bet on.

(Also from the courtroom), businesses can spend huge amounts of money if they are called to court and must produce the evidence and story required for a defense. In a poorly run operation, this “cost of discovery” alone can easily exceed the cost of implementing a knowledge management system.

So, if you are wondering about knowledge management or what it means, think about the courtroom.

Issues with collaboration; Transitioning to SharePoint

I have heard both the praises, sung by many, of the benefits of SharePoint as well as the trials and tribulations that seem to follow after the introduction of the tool.

Now I am hearing about more problems that are arising as firms, who chose to switch from another collaboration application to SharePoint, are finding the transition to be difficult. Some of the underlying reasons would be obvious in cases where firms utilizing robust nesting features of a tool seek to transition to SharePoint with no nesting to speak of. (Nesting is the concept of placing collaborative objects within other collaborative objects to mirror process flow or operating practices.)

Are there other issues? Are there cases in which transition is easy? It would be valuable to uncover and share what people are experiencing and what is happening.

If you have any current accounts of your transition to SharePoint and wish to share them, please feel free to comment, or write. Maybe we can all help each other.

Yes, Document Management is a prerequisite!

I have asked earlier if Document Management was a prerequisite for a successful Enterprise 2.0 adoption. My answer is yes for a few  reasons.

1.      Enterprise 2.0 is focused on improving knowledge sharing

2.      Knowledge  = content + context

3.      Content are those things that exist explicitly, like documents, physical items, like products, etc.

4.      Businesses are, for the most part, document centric operations.

5.      Most previously captured knowledge has been processed and is stored in documents.

In addition, I will argue that a successful Enterprise2.0 adoption relies on a successful document management system, and the more uncontrolled the document management system is, the poorer the results will be from an Enterprise 2.0 adoption.

That is, you can generate context or tacit knowledge but if you can’t link it to appropriate content, then the value will not be achieved.

If you are focusing on using Enterprise 2.0 inertia to create a document management system, then get that working before you introduce other technologies.

Micro-presentations; micro-messaging

In previous post, I have spoken highly of a new style of presentation.... it follows the ideas of Scott Gavin  and are shown in his Meet Henry slide show. Meet Henry has spawned a whole series of Meet .... type presentations. 

I've been considering why this style of presentation is so powerful and what makes it innovative and interesting. Well, it seems to me to be an effective, simple "message delivery" method. In a world of large presentations with too many messages, lots of data, excess bullets, etc. I like the KISS aspect of the approach --- Focus on a single message, deliver it effectively and let it be.

I've also been considering why Twitter is also effective, and see that Twitter is built around a similar idea -- simple message delivery. Then, it struck me that the Meet Henry approach is a lot like Twitter, but applied to slide shows.... in a sense, if Twitter is "micro-blogging", then Meet Henry is "micro presenting".. short message or statement.

Applied within a corporate communication setting, heavily dominated by long and winded PPT presentations, the idea can evolve into "micro-messaging".

I will be thinking about how linking multiple, powerful micro-messages can be effectively used within companies to improve communications, increase awareness, and keep people focused on key corporate goals. Your ideas are welcome.

An open question I am pondering

Does a successful Enterprise 2.0 adoption require Document Management as a prerequisite?

Enterprise 2.0: A simple explanation

I have seen a bunch of different presentations about Enterprise 2.0. Most are somewhat lengthy, a lot are simply buzzword bingo, others outline the tools, and some are pretty good --- like Meet Charlie. I wanted something simple that delivered a high level message about why businesses should consider Enterprise 2.0, something without a lot of language unfamiliar to novices.

| View | Upload your own

Overcoming Enterprise2.0 skeptics

I noted this from a blogger in NZ. julian

It is not uncommon for people who have spent much of their professional careers using traditional methods of taxonomy, records keeping and information management, to be cautious of, or resistant to approaches which are inherently messier and less ordered."

This is consistent with my view that “the only constant in the world is change….. the only other constant in the world is resistance to change”  change

Although his statement is somewhat true, in my experience, people who create business value often realize that their environment may indeed be messy and poorly ordered and they will choose to do something about it. Unguided, I’ve seen people trying to use new technologies to automate a messy situation, rather than seeking fundamental issues and changing them. These solutions can easily end up mimicking the existing poorly functioning processes and do not achieve much.

However, with a bit of time spent together as a group, with some guiding hand as necessary, structure can be applied to improve the situation. A bit of structure can, in cases of skeptics, go a long way towards setting up a platform for future innovation. In creating a solution, one needs to accept this skepticism as a design input and account for it in crafting an approach that works.

What I have seen in my work is a variety of people: leaders, close followers, skeptics and curmudgeons. True success is achieved when the curmudgeon haltingly praises the effort as “useful”.

The bloggers’ statement also seems to suggest that adopting Web 2.0 technologies to improve information management and control could be “messy and less ordered”. My view of Web2.0 is that the focus will be on adding experience and wisdom to what already exists as information management. This is also called tacit knowledge. As one explores current developments, it can be seen that there is still a lot to be learned about what the best way is to capture and organize tacit knowledge. Folksonomy is one suggested approach, but could there be others? Will research and user cases develop that suggest an alternative to rigorous, meta-data based approaches of the past? Will IT organizations seek to impose rigorous methods of the past, as they also will have skeptics who will resist change? Will the ultimate approach be self-organizing? It often comes down to doing what is best for your company after making a true assessment of the culture, the local politics, the leadership, etc..

So, acquire all the requirements that define your situation and create an execution plan the works for you, ---before you simply copy someone else’s ideas.

What is knowledge?

Yes, this is an often asked question and replies are different depending on who you are talking to. The question begs more definition as people continue to struggle with how to treat knowledge as a corporate asset.

Well here are a couple of views:

Knowledge = information + experience + wisdom ... or

Knowledge = content + context ... or

more simply put

Knowledge = stuff + everything we know about that stuff.

From Need to Know to Need to Flow – Changing Your Model (last)

In the last few blog entries I have outlined a few characteristics of how information flow in hierarchical companies can change and improve the way in which a business operates. Some companies have already done so, while some, like Google, just started in a Need to Flow business from the very outset.

It is quite apparent from the post 9-11 investigations that the intelligence organizations in the federal government operated in a “Need to Know” information flow model. There was a wealth of information, however, movement of the information was restricted by barriers, many purposefully imposed. It is shame that it took a disaster to open the eyes of our officials and to force a shift to a new model. It does appear to me that there is at least some movement to a Need to Flow model and more sharing and exchanging information.

What about your company? Is information flow restricted in your firm? It is difficult to find correct and timely information? Do you communicate more about where something may be or what do I “in this situation”, rather than creating or innovating new product ideas?

The reassessment of business strategies, the awareness of internal problems that create tensions, the need to keep up with faster moving companies, the continued problem of solving the same problems, are all creating interest in better information management and for changing the way business is conducted. Looking at the issue as a shift from Need to Know to Need to Flow is only one way to examine the problem and understand what needs to be done. Add in the introduction of new

Enterprise

2.0 technologies, and the means are now more readily available to change business models.