If you’re looking to “Enterprise 2.0″ to make you:

• Better at collaboration, or
• More social, or
• Better at innovation, or
• Anything else that is equally vague… stop right now.

Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

And certainly, do not buy or build any Enterprise 2.0 tech just yet.

Let’s Back Up…

• What will “better collaboration” actually do for me? Me – as in the one person currently reading this post (ok, you, if you insist).
• What would that do for my normal team of co-workers?
• What about the random teams/projects I get pulled into?
• What about the company as a whole?
• What about relationships to my partners, suppliers, customers, clients, patients, you name it?

Get specific, or go home…

A recent video posted by the Danish company Podio, illustrates a glimpse into the day in the life of a research scientist, and the wide variety of very specific, and quite different tasks/projects he needs to juggle to get his daily work done.

Watch below… (and back after the break)

Make a Project out of Getting Task-y

After watching the video…

• Have you really thought through the *specific* and real-life tasks, projects, etc. that you or other people in your organization really need to get done?
• In the places where they’ll be doing the work?
• With structure (when needed), or freeform (where desired) to support *real* work – and not just some vague idea of a “collaborative environment?”

Is the toolset you’ve bought, built, or are about to use actually going to be useful in a “day in the life?”

• If yes – fantastic – go forth and multiply. You wouldn’t believe how rare your situation is – run like the wind and make great things happen!
• If not… please put your RFP on pause for a second, and look at the *specific* work that is done currently in your organization, and ask what will support that work – to enable more useful collaboration, to create the transparency that you need/want, makes it easier to share information for those who need it (while protecting truly sensitive information).

Trust me – “better collaboration” is not what you really want (see article on Internet Evolution from last year, or listen to an interview with Carlos Dominguez, SVP at Cisco). Better collaboration takes focus, and technology is the least of your worries. As Carlos said “If you suck at collaboration in real-life, you’re just going to suck virtually.”

For thoughts on other collaboration scenarios, see this webinar from last year:

How are you specifically supporting Collaboration/Innovation in your company?

I’d love to here the specific tasks, roles, etc. that you’re targeting with Enterprise 2.0 (or whatever term you happen to be using).

It’s 2011 — and mobile devices are flying off the shelves faster than ever before. It’s time for the real mobile revolution!

Except…

Let’s Face It…

You Aren’t Ready for This.

I don’t mean YOU. I mean your organization, and your infrastructure. And the direction the culture and technology of your organization has been headed for a long time.

Look around at the systems and applications you’re probably using right now.

From an IT perspective: If you’ve created any internally developed applications, more than likely, they aren’t web-based, or if web-based, are stand-alone apps with their own unique, browser and window-size specific display properties, and a dependency on a platform-specific technology such as ActiveX or for that matter, Internet Explorer.

From a user perspective: With a wide variety of systems in daily use, it’s likely you have multiple logins to juggle. Perhaps these systems grew up independently of each other, and the mandate was “we have to get this working now — just make it work!” End result? Credentials are stored in many different locations, with different requirements for both username formatting and password strength/standards.

From an IT Security perspective: In the recent economic downturn, Single Sign On (SSO) is a project that has never been prioritized, as it’s “merely” a productivity issue, and doesn’t have the big bang cost reduction, nor the direct revenue creation that has driven all decisions recently. Pre-econolypse, things were too good to worry about SSO, as the “inconvenience” of multiple logins wasn’t an issue in the face of (relatively) easy money.

From a Web Developer perspective: Any web expertise that might already exist in-house, is unlikely to have multiple platform, touch-oriented user interface experience (almost nobody outside of commercially shipping products does, after all), and the ramp up to create usable let alone useful mobile apps is only a glimmer in your most cutting edge designer/developers eyes. If only he/she wasn’t so busy working to make sure your web apps still worked on IE6 — there would be time to address cutting edge mobile tech, front- and rear-facing cameras and 4G networks.

From a cultural perspective: As much as we want to embrace the always-on, mobile, multi-tasking capabilities of the consumer web, we’re comfortable with “the way we’ve always done it here” — that’s our culture and what made us successful! Why change now?

From a manager perspective: I didn’t get to this position by wanting to hear everyone else’s opinion. I got here by clawing my way to the top, the way Machiavelli always intended. Now you want to democratize decision making so everyone has a voice? What’s the point of being a company man, if everyone gets a say?

Now of course all of these are stereotypical extremes… perhaps.

Even in the worst economic times of anyone currently alive — it’s all too easy to “stay the course” — even if the ship is repeatedly bashing into icebergs, while we claim to be unsinkable.

Is that the sane course? Is that the way to get to revenue growth? Employee engagement? Customer satisfaction? Loyalty?

Are you ready to start seriously questioning whether the mobile future you claim you want is possible given where you’ve put your focus to date?

Throwing iPads at systems that aren’t made to be easy to use, and accessible in the “micro bursts” (seconds to minutes rather than hours of use at a time) that mobile use typifies, is only going to result in pain for everyone.

Prepare yourself. It is going to take work to unwind the past and pave the future. But the possibilities? Endless. But only if you take the steps to move forward.

Are you ready?

In the concluding chapter of my book, Net Work, I focused on “The Leader’s Net Work.”  From reading about and talking to leaders of networks, I arrived at the following set of prescriptions:

• Network intentionally (high performers are those who pay attention to their personal networks)
• Practice network stewardship (you can’t manage a network, you can only manage its context)
• Leverage technology (see below)
• Build the capacity for net work (ensure that others become aware of and and develop skills)
• Use the network lens and net work tools to enhance the lives and contributions of individuals and the collective power of the network

These change, of course, each time I give a talk or think about leadership and networks. I’m currently working with Leadership for a New Era (a research initiative of The Leadership Learning Community) as well as other networks to explore more deeply this topic. My most recent thinking, part of a collaborative effort, was posted as a guest blog “How can we prepare leaders to work in a networked world?” on Beth Kanter’s site.

This included the very important notion of network literacy by which I mean “the language and tools [leaders] need to be able to discern and describe network activity, the insights they need to understand network structure, and an appreciation for the vital yet often subtle tasks of managing a network’s context.” I failed to acknowledge, in that post, that the insight into the need for literacy came from a grand brainstorming conversation with Grady McGonagil, whose recent work and research with the Bertelsmann Foundation was presented recently at an International Leadership Association webinar, Leadership Development in the US: Best-Practice Principles & Patterns.

- end article -

How are you managing leadership and network context?

• Wondering how to tap the brains in your organization?
• Tired of hoping that installing “social tools” will break down the cultural silos you know are cutting out value from your employees?
• Eager to learn how to run an entire Social/Organizational Network Analysis project yourself? Soup to Nuts – Process to Tools?

Take advantage of our 4-Hour Online and On-demand eLearning course, “Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis” created in partnership with Patti Anklam and Information Architected on our new learning platform, IAI University.

Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis is designed for people who want to understand how to systematically identify and map networks within their organization as well as those who want to learn about the tools and methods to map and analyze networks. This is a practice fundamental to effective collaboration, social networking, Web and Enterprise 2.0 strategy and Knowledge Management.

The course is presented by Patti Anklam, Principal Consultant at Net Work, and author of the best selling book “Net Work.”  She has consulted with hundreds of organizations around the world.

The “Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis“ course has four modules and includes a complete walk-thru of the ten steps in planning and running an Organizational Network Analysis project.

Register Now for “Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis”

Module 1: Introduction to Social/Organizational Network Analysis (SNA/ONA)

• Overview of SNA/ONA
• The Premise
• Evolution From Science to Practice
• Core Concepts and Terms
• Case Study: Ten Steps

Module 2: Network Patterns and Metrics

• Basic Principles and Patterns
• Structural and Centrality Metrics
• Roles

Module 3: Software Tools for Network Analysis

• The Basics of Inputs and Outputs
• Collecting Data Using Surveys
• Analysis Tools
• Available Resources

Module 4: Managing an ONA Project

• Managing the Project
• Organizational Preparation
• Working With the Results
• Critical Success Factors

Register Now for “Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis”

A former Digital/Compaq colleague, Bob Fleischer sent me a link to Jyri Engeström’s blog entry, Why some social network services work and others don’t — Or: the case for object-centered sociality, which provides an interesting perspective on what’s working and what’s not working in social network software and applications. He contrasts two views of social networks. The current perspective of networks as “maps of relationships among individuals” is what drives LinkedIn. But, he argues that LinkedIn misses the point by not making accessible the context for the link — usually an object.

He provides good background and references for the alternative view, “object-centered sociality.” Among the references are a gaggle of web sites that many have now adopted, although many more have still not, including Flickr and del.icio.us.

As I read Jyri’s well-written article, I immediately flashed on a key learning about collaboration software from a conference on GroupWare (some number of years ago). Intel chairman Andy Grove presented (remotely) from his office. Intel was launching a real-time collaboration product full of features that are now pretty standard — shared screens, co-editing of documents, video, presence. At the time, collaboration junkies were focusing on getting the video so that people could see each other talk over computers. His comment, “people don’t need to see each other. They are collaborating over something, and the key is to focus on enabling the ability to co-create [a document.]“

The above is of course paraphrase, but his assertion has stood me and many others well as a fundamental principle in designing the environments in which collaboration systems are deployed.

[Editor note: I constantly work to reframe people who are caught up in the current collaboration meme of the day to take a look at what is REAL set of collaboration scenarios they're looking to solve for. No single approach solves each problem, see presentation embedded below for more thoughts on that front. - Dan]

- end article -

Are you Using Organizational Network Analysis? No? How do you build a collaboration system that meets your business needs?

• Wondering how to tap the brains in your organization?
• Tired of hoping that installing “social tools” will break down the cultural silos you know are cutting out value from your employees?
• Eager to learn how to run an entire Social/Organizational Network Analysis project yourself? Soup to Nuts – Process to Tools?

Take advantage of our 4-Hour Online and On-demand eLearning course, “Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis” created in partnership with Patti Anklam and Information Architected on our new learning platform, IAI University.

Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis is designed for people who want to understand how to systematically identify and map networks within their organization as well as those who want to learn about the tools and methods to map and analyze networks. This is a practice fundamental to effective collaboration, social networking, Web and Enterprise 2.0 strategy and Knowledge Management.

The course is presented by Patti Anklam, Principal Consultant at Net Work, and author of the best selling book “Net Work.”  She has consulted with hundreds of organizations around the world.

The “Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis“ course has four modules and includes a complete walk-thru of the ten steps in planning and running an Organizational Network Analysis project.

Register Now for “Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis”

Module 1: Introduction to Social/Organizational Network Analysis (SNA/ONA)

• Overview of SNA/ONA
• The Premise
• Evolution From Science to Practice
• Core Concepts and Terms
• Case Study: Ten Steps

Module 2: Network Patterns and Metrics

• Basic Principles and Patterns
• Structural and Centrality Metrics
• Roles

Module 3: Software Tools for Network Analysis

• The Basics of Inputs and Outputs
• Collecting Data Using Surveys
• Analysis Tools
• Available Resources

Module 4: Managing an ONA Project

• Managing the Project
• Organizational Preparation
• Working With the Results
• Critical Success Factors

Register Now for “Intro to Social/Organizational Network Analysis”

Information Architected Market Alert (IAM Alert):

The Past, Present and Future of Adobe

With the acquisition of Day Software (highly scalable, standards and open source-oriented [not as deployment/sales model, but as underpinnings]), along with the late 2009 acquisition of Omniture (enterprise-class, quite high-end web analytics), Adobe clearly has their eyes beyond the deskop, with arguably the first major moves into server/cloud territory that they’ve executed on in many years.

Of course the question is… even if they have “best of breed” solutions in what they’re calling “customer experience management” (or CEM) – a decidely “big company/large enterprise” vision of customer engagement (or “marketing” as those who haven’t yet crested the new meme will still call it), can they actually pull it off?

Can they legitimately compete with the other “big (ol’) boys” of ECM/WCM such as ECM/Documentum, Oracle/Stellent, Autonomy/Interwoven, Open Text/Vignette, and the like?

Boundaries to Break, Skills to Sink Deep

The sales model is entirely different in enterprise/server-sales from the desktop and team-oriented, more consumer-oriented sales of most Adobe solutions, and although Adobe has some experience in the enterprise sales area, given their (long past) acquisition of Allaire (Cold Fusion), LiveCycle (born of various internal components of Adobe and one-off acqusitions of various parts, stretching back to 2001, and launching as a suite in 2005), and with the high-end web marketing folks of the enterprise via Omniture (a $1.8 Billion USD acquisition). Underestimating the sales cycle and re-aligning marketing/outreach to “sell” the new Adobe are classic traps that are not as easily avoided as they would seem – and all too many mergers/acquisitions that cross boundaries of sales mentality and market positioning #fail miserably in this regard, and the early focus of Adobe and the Macromedia acquisition from years past, with a focus on graphic/design tools for individuals and small teams, the core DNA is, in my opinion, anti-large enterprise. Time will tell how this shift works out – do they lose on the low-end and win on the high-end, or learn to juggle the spectrum?

The development model that Adobe has historically undertaken has been… sluggish, to say the least. Their cycle times make Microsoft’s 3 year cycles look swift, and with a desktop-centric view, their cross-platform (Mac vs. Windows) product roll-outs can and have been unsynchronized for years at a time – ironic given that PDF, Flash and AIR are all designed to be entirely platform neutral. As they embrace server-based solutions more completely, perhaps they will be able to apply more focus into a single lens (J2EE-based solutions), and tighten the development cycle.

Agile or Fragile?

Can Adobe continue to leverage the more agile developer talent from their recent acquisitions? Day’s mantra for the last year or so (aligned larger with Kevin Cochrane’s entree to the management team at Day) has been in agile development and agile marketing – can they successfully infect the parent company? Or will the Adobe waterfall drown them out? As a long time proponent of Agile (everything), I certainly hope so, but this is a massive cultural change issue – and large companies, in my experience, struggle mightily to change the development mindset to Agile from traditional “waterfall” development. Let’s hope the one-two punch of Day’s agile discipline and open source participation wins the (ahem) day at Adobe.

What’s in Their Wallet?

From a size/scale/staying power perspective, Adobe’s current market cap is at $15.5 Billion USD (NASDAQ:ADBE) as compared to Autonomy at $4.01 Billion USD (LON:AU), EMC at $42.01 Billion USD (NYSE:EMC), Open Text at $2.25 Billion USD (NASDAQ:OTEX) and Oracle at $121.94 Billion USD (ASDASD). In the grand scheme of most of their competition, they are on the small- to medium-marketsize.

Adobe is certainly well out of the world of the startup (fraught with peril and struggling for mere existence), and are operating in worlds that have mostly (or damn close) “crossed the chasm” into the mainstream.

There is still plenty of growth in the world of content, and they continue to have the ability to invest in making that future happen, not only monetarily (the benefits of a war chest), and with huge “mindshare” in digital content (server/enterprise credibility not withstanding).

Assuming a majority of the talent that comes with and stays at Adobe from their acquistions, they should continue to have fresh/modern skills and experience that bridge the gap from the origins of Adobe (desktop/small teams, and individual tools) to the new Adobe (focused on seamless experience, mobile, server, and customer/employee engagement).

Closed to Open

And while the Adobe of the past was primarily about proprietary formats (Photoshop, Pagemaker, InDesign, Framemaker, Allaire Cold Fusion, etc.), Day’s focus has been heavy on the open source world, as well as in involvement in Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) – a specification for improving interoperability between Enterprise Content Management systems -which is one of the convergence trends that is (finally!) gaining traction, as the buyers in the market of the last two years have finally begun to get it in their heads, and consequently into the seller/solution providers’ heads, that while they will continue to have silos (inadvertently or purposefully) of content… if the goal of an organization in 2010 and beyond is to provide customer or employee experiences, you absolutely MUST find some way to unify access to content – whether via CMIS, Federated Search, modern portals, or the like. Multi-platform access, seamless access, personalized – these are all areas where the combination of Adobe and Day holds the promise of serving people, rather than serving the acquistion of more raw technology (the typical buying organization’s approach).

Most of the grumblings I’ve seen about this acquisition thus far is in concerns that Adobe will kill Day’s involvement in open source and open standards. While both Day and Adobe deny this, again, it’s not really up to the stated goals of the acquisition – it’s in what happens when cultures collide, and if the support and uptake of a new mindset truly takes root, well after the acquisition has closed.

Wherefore Art Alfresco?

Another reverberation in the open source world, is the wonder as to what happened to the Alfresco and Adobe relationship? Up until this point, Alfresco had seemed a likely acquisition, given their partnership with Alfresco as the back-end and Adobe as the front-end in the 2008 OEM agreement relating to Adobe’s LiveCycle and Adobe’s Content Services offerings. Where will that relationship go from here? It’s anyone’s guess – as you can read over at an Alfresco blog post, the belief is that Day has been oriented more directly at Adobe’s customer engagement/customer experience model world, while Alfresco has been more about infrastructure and tools to support developers.

That’s a fair analogy, although at this point, while I’m a fan of developers having the tools and toolkits to do the job, I trust 21st century marketers and customer service managers to be far more oriented towards user success than I do anyone wearing a “pure” IT hat (and I used to be one of the IT purists – mea culpa). Thus far, no official word from Adobe on where the Alfresco relationship will go – and as a publicly traded company, it’s unlikely that we’ll hear why Alfresco or any other number of remaining independents did not make the acquisition list… at least not YET.

Embracing Managed Content

Last thought – I’ve seen some zings directed at Adobe and Day regarding the world of Digital Asset Management (DAM), specifically that the integration of Adobe and Day’s DAM solution is weaker than their competition, such as integrated DAM in Open Text’s suite of offerings.

To this comment I will say, stop trying to silo content in your enterprise – if you have to debate internally which silo to drop your content, DM, ECM, WCM, DAM, etc., then you have already so badly missed the point of any “content management” system of any kind, that you should take the time to back up and re-think your strategy. The more respositories/technologies that are thrown into the mix, the more likely you are to kill the purposes of manging content in the first place – decreased time to create/re-use content, faster processes, more consistent branding, etc.. For every ONE organization I’ve seen who has executed this well (as a buyer), I’ve seen FIFTY who have botched it.

DAM is DM (Document Management) on storage steroids, driven by metadata (the universal glue of ALL managed content) – with perhaps (if you’ve spent many millions), the ability to auto-transcribe or semantically identify the audio and/or video content above and beyond raw metadata (makes for great demos from Autonomy, but you probably can’t afford it, and really don’t need it).

The divide between DM, ECM, WCM and DAM is all in your mind until you start getting into fairly sophisticated and esoteric deployments where you are doing true, large-scale content re-use, with complex interdependencies in the final output/delivery of content.

In short, if you feel that the combined Adobe/Day DAM solution is not up to snuff – I’d be willing to bet that you are overcomplicating your perceived needs and resulting solution, or you are in the 1% of the world that really needs incredibly sophisticated DAM. If you happen to be in that camp, please contact me at 617-933-9655 – I’d love to understand what factors have impacted what you’re doing and how you’re doing it. We can all learn from those both on the leading and trailing edges – so if I am missing something that truly makes DAM a differentiator for your managed business content, let’s surface some use cases to show what “real” DAM can do.

Alternative Takes on the News

Find other takes from analysts (official and otherwise – aka Bloggers) via:

• VentureBeat (an investment perspective – fairly lightweight)
• Jon On Tech (an integrator’s perspective – Jon’s a pragmatic guy)
• CMS Watch (via Apoorv Durga – one of the newer CMS Watch analysts – expressing similar doubts about the enterprise mindset of Adobe vs. it’s boxed software roots)
• Tim Anderson’s ITWriting (expressing hope for Day’s openness and REST strengths to penetrate Adobe’s proprietary nature)

Your Thoughts?

If you are a current or prospective user of Day Software’s solutions, please weigh in with your feedback. Are current offerings serving your needs? Running ahead of where your organization is? Where your budget is? Just right? If you’re not using Day for WCM/DAM and/or collaboration, but are solving similar problems, what solution are you using?

How Information Architected Can Help

These trends, and solutions such as Day and Adobe’s content offerings, are the explicit focus of our business practices and expertise -  which is in creating strategies to provide for flexible information architectures and applications (technologies) that support the business architecture (roles, goals, people, processes, skills and culture) that, when combined, can deliver significantly greater value than a single business problem and isolated tool by itself. We are vendor neutral, and more often that not, can help you find ways to make whatever technology investments you have already made, greatly outperform the end results you are currently experiencing.

If we can be of help via our assessments, consulting or workshops, contact us now to schedule a private 30-minute executive briefing on how we can most effectively work together to solve your needs, whether customer, employee, partner or supplier-facing. It’s all content – manage it effectively, and get the technology out of your way.

Schedule a private executive briefing now

So that said – here goes.  in keeping with tradition, I  have rolled-up my impression of the conference into an acronym.  This year the conference is characterized as

FAME

OK, to explain the acronym – lets start at the end;

E is for ENERGETIC

More so than ever before, I could not help but feel the energy level of the crowd (Yes crowd, this may have been the most popularly attended E2.0 conference yet), as the spilled out of sessions and milled around the hallways. MAybe it was all that fine Starbucks coffee that was being served – but I think not. Read on…

Now, back to the beginning;

F is for FUNDED

I came away with the impression that most of the attendees were not there for theoretical or introductory eduction – but practical insight on how to succeed with Enterprise 2.0.  Most seemed to be working on real and funded programs, (Which likely was the root of the aforementioned energy level).  I could not help but pick up on this during the various Q and A sessions and one-on-ones that I had.  Indeed, for the first time in 2 years I walked away with no less than 3 real leads – i.e. individuals seeking proposals for targeted consulting.

A is for APPLICATION-focused

The conference responded to the attendees’ focus on real-world issues with a nice mix of case studies, all focused on the leveraging of E2.0 functionality to specific business applications – many presentations in the form of real-world case studies.  My favorite was a group of three panelists all discussing how innovation was managed as a process within their respective organizations, partially based on collaborative software. Innovation Management was a popularly discussed business application at the conference, overall, including 2 of the keynotes.  The crowd was also coached several times by those pioneers of E2.0, the 2.0 Adoption Council members. Their experiences are always a conference highlight.

Lastly,

M is for MATURE

This is perhaps reflective of the other letters in the acronym.  Presentations were far more grounded in real-word examples, workshops were provided by industry veterans, and attendees came seeking practical advice to move funded project forward.  The market has matured.

Both of my presentations focused on implementation issues, each illustrated by real-world examples. The first looked at how culture impacts the implementation of E2.0. (Download slides)

My second presentation, based on a study done with the 2.0 Adoption Council, provided insights into deploying E2.0 in a controlled environment (in this case focusing on privacy issues in the European Union).

In the presentation I broadened the definition and scope of E2.0 (See slide 4) – positioning it within an integrated Enterprise Content Management (ECM) strategy.  (ECM – at least the way I define it.)

In the end, I would have to say that Maturity was the big take away for me this year. In fact,  as I was presenting  E2.0 and Privacy it struck me, and I stated, that I believe the success of the E2.0 show – characterized by the maturing of its focus and audience,  will be the demise of the show or at least the label Enterprise 2.0. Typical of many nascent technologies – they are couched in definitions and frameworks that position them as  business applications. I draw the analogy to imaging. Circa 1990 imaging was discussed as if it were a business application.  People spoke in phrases such as “we do imaging”;  “I am the manager of our imaging application” . It may seem odd to think of scanning technology as a business application,  as opposed to a way to create and share content within business applications – but I assure you that was the case.  Imaging too had a trade show built entirely around it – less we forget that AIIM stands for the Association for information and IMAGE management.

The focus, attitudes and energy surrounding E2.0 are changing.  I do think that the success of E2.0  will be the demise of the conference, as we know it.  But this is a good thing, and it is actually critical. In its nascent state the market focused on E2.0 as an application: “Does your organization have an E2.0 project, budget, leader/champion?”.   This will fade into obscurity as we realize you don’t “do E2.0″, . you leverage this genre of capabilities to facilitate and strengthen and redefine business applications.  This was perhaps foreshadowed in the subtext of this year’s conference title,  “Business Powered by Collaboration.”

I give the conference 2 – 3 years tops,  before it either fades into history, or morphs into something related – but bigger.  This is not a reflection on the show, but market maturity.  In fact once again, Steve Wylie and crew are to be congratulated for their skillful orchestration and attention to detail.  The show was a huge success, but with success will come obscurity (and likely something bigger and better.)

Collaboration – it’s all the rage, and to some it is “new.”

Yet for any project, whether it is assembling a sales proposal in response to a Request For Proposals (RFP), to the collaboration and coordination necessary to build an aircraft carrier, or any size or style of collaboration in between, there are several questions to consider when it comes to modern day collaboration, what many are calling Enterprise 2.0, or for those with a longer history in business collaboration, Knowledge Management 2.0.

Do you believe that your organization has pulled together a suitably versatile and agile collaboration toolkit?

Are your collaboration tools built for distributed teams, or for localized teams?

Are the tools involved well-integrated into the flow of collaborative work (search, research, document, refine, revise, publish, re-use, etc.), or do you as a user of the toolkit have to remember what tool or application to use at various stages within the context of collaboration?

While management may say that “we need more collaboration,” are you measured based on collaborative contributions, or in the end are you actually penalized for team contributions if it gets in the way of your individual work and personal performance measures?

Join us for a discussion (continue discussion in comments below or twitter via #iaie20) on the current and future state of collaboration – and what it takes to ensure that your culture, skills, and technical tools are up to the task of real-time, flexible online collaboration. Not all collaboration efforts or outcomes are the same – make sure you are setting yourself up to succeed.

Watch the Video archive of Webinar

Is your Information Architected for Collaboration? for Innovation? to leverage the strengths of the workers and teams within the organization?

Contact us now at 
617-933-9655 to discuss our Collaboration-focused assessments, consulting or workshops, and to schedule a private 30-minute executive briefing on how we can most effectively work together. You can quickly jump-start or re-start your collaboration efforts, and we can show you how.

Schedule a private executive briefing now

Target your collaboration pains now, details on our consulting practices related to Collaboration and Innovation can be found at:

• Collaboration and Enterprise 2.0 Workshops, Coaching and Consulting
• Innovation Management Workshops and Coaching/Consulting

Information Architected Market Alert (IAM Alert):

Beyond Individual Innovators

Historically, Invention Machine’s Goldfire has been oriented towards providing an individually focused innovation “workbench” for the lone researcher or inventor. The offering combined (and continues to offer) advanced techniques and technologies such as semantic search capabilities, process modeling (typically in support of the assembled artifact of a product), knowledge mining, and knowledge re-use to decrease the amount of time it takes for individual engineers (much of the environment is modeled in support of physical rather than intellectual property inventions) or inventors/innovators to analyze a particular problem or set of problems, and uncover the ripest areas to go forth and solve the problem.

The offering has been and appears to remain one of the most advanced convergence of these technologies and techniques that we have seen in the innovation management space, and in many ways, is truly a solution with no direct, out of the box, commercial competition.

This is both a blessing and a curse, as markets are not typically made up of a company of one, but an ecosytem of competing products.

Innovation Market Maturity

As the company and it’s offerings have matured, and frankly, as the general awareness of innovation management has matured as well, there has been more of a push, alongside the rise of Enterprise 2.0 (meaning in most cases, collaboration) to support team-based or collaborative efforts at digitally supporting and scaling innovation capabilities.

With Goldfire 6.0, Invention Machine has added the collaboration-oriented ability to:

• Automatically identify and connect innovation workers with domain experts within their network
• Empower the community with precise “innovation intelligence” (similar to the “relationship intelligence” brought about by social network analysis and social computing I’d begun writing about in 2004 – see “Death of a Salesman? Birth of Relationship Intelligence” – now read over 4,000 times on Scribd) by leveraging undocumented expertise from problem-sharing dialogues, capturing and processing those discussions as reusable corporate assets.

From the managerial (top-down) aspect of Innovation Management, v6.0 provides:

• The ability to measure company-wide innovation initiatives and trends in real time.

With this third component, they have now begun to straddle three distinct layers – tools providing benefits to individuals (the original offering), to teams, and through to managers/executives.

Trend Watch

This offer is indicative of a two-part growing trend, collectively defined as “convergence”:

1. The convergence of tools to deliver value to individuals up through the executive suite (traditional enterprise software tends to focus on only one extreme or the other)
2. The convergence of process, information, content, knowledge and search techologies into a unified and pre-packaged business application (as opposed to a technology focused on a specific issue/problem)

Keep an eye open for areas where these trends are surfacing as business needs within your own organization, as this convergence is happening more and more, particularly as the realities of competition in the current economic environment continue to be challenging.

Combine those trends with the rising trend of innovation management maturity, and we’re (finally?) witnessing a triple convergence for business innovation.

Your Thoughts?

If you are a current or prospective user of Invention Machine, or any innovation management related solution, please weigh in with your feedback. Are current offerings serving your needs? Running ahead of where your organization is? Where your budget is? Just right? If not using Invention Machine’s Goldfire, but solving similar problems, what solution are you using?

How We Can Help

These trends, and solutions such as Invention Machine’s Goldfire 6.0, are an argument and opportunity for the explicit focus of our business practices and expertise, which is in creating strategies to provide for flexible information architectures and applications (technologies) that support the business architecture (roles, goals, people, processes, skills and culture) that, when combined, can deliver significantly greater value than a single business problem and isolated tool by itself. We call this an Innovation Architecture.

If we can be of help via our assessments, consulting or workshops, contact us now to schedule a private 30-minute executive briefing on how we can most effectively work together.

Schedule a private executive briefing now

Last night I was wrapping up the weekend watching The Simpsons with my 2 daughters. Sure, occasionally there is a poignant message or two – usually lost on the kids. But in last nights episode there was a strong and important message directed right to every KM, ECM and E2.0 manager. Intentional or not – it was there and you did not have to think to deeply to catch it.

The Simpsons find themselves in Machu Pichu (don’t ask why – its not worth it). The narrator is explaining the significance of the site and states something along the lines of “This great civilization built a great wall around its people to protect it from the outside and keep their culture pure. But great walls also lock out knowledge, (Seriously that is the word he used.) and as a result the Incas were not adept at understanding the rest of the world or dealing with change. When the conquistadors appeared they were confused, ran and were destroyed.”

OK – you all got it right? “But great walls also lock out knowledge.” (Yes, the historical accuracy is off here – but the tie to ECM, KM and E2.0 – nonetheless poignant and worth reiterating.) “But great walls also lock out knowledge.” I spared my kids the thought that popped into my mind, “EXACTLY and that is the mission of every KM, ECM and Enterprise 2.0 manager”, to manage the BALANCE between security and collaboration. It is a topic I have spoken, written and blogged about many times. IAI published a primer on this very subject. I am currently in the process of working with Susan Scrupski, and members of The 2.0 Adoption Council on this very issue.

A group of the Council members who had to deal with strict privacy laws in Europe could have taken the “Machu Pichu” approach and erred on the side of security. But in the interest of collaboration to support agility and innovation, they worked a bit harder and used techniques and technologies to strike a clever balance between security and collaboration.  Sure – some of us may look at such approaches and say “D’oh”, or even “Duh”, but far too many have yet to really embrace this balancing act as the primary focus of long term success in the world of Knowledge Management, ECM and E2.0.

If you haven’t, I again invite you to read the primer on Content Security, and the 2.0 Adoption Council report when it is available next month.

1. The event was being produced by Kavin Moody of CIMS, who I had worked with a few weeks back on a similar symposium at Olin Innovation Lab (Olin College of Engineering), and was impressed with the group and his work.

2.  The speaker, Karen Sobel Loeski was highly recommended by my colleague Joe Wehr, whose opinion I respect and value greatly.

3. The topic was just a bit left of center – Leading the Virtual Workforce.

So I decided to go. WOW – OMG am I glad I did.

Karen Sobel Loeski was not only a dynamic, engaging and entertaining speaker, but her message was fascinating.  As those of you who follow my work know, when I address collaboration and knowledge management audits I utilize an 8-dimension model. Using a variety of techniques I measure the effectiveness of (and obstacles caused by) these 9 facets.

In performing these assessments leadership style is assessed – as part of team structure, communication and structure. But, Karen’s work focuses deeply  on leadership.

While I  pontificate on the value of leadership and best practices in leading collaborative teams – and the need for a different approaches when teams are virtual – Karen actually has come up with something called the virtual distance, an approach by which one can measure the reach or gap that exists amongst a virtual team.

I will not go into her talk and work in detail here. I recommend that you buy her 2 books – really.

I will summarize my favorite points.

1. The need to address the issue of virtual distance is critical in this era of Enterprise 2.0.  One of the biggest value propositions of E2.0 is the ability to support and facilitate effective team-based collaboration regardless of time and distance between team members. This is empowering, but as we migrate to a virtual workforce, we need to realize that the approach and role of team management needs to be adapted. All too often we hear that E2.0 is about collaboration without leadership, anarchy, and the destruction of business management. Karen (and I) averts that this simply is not so. Teams – virtually any team (no pun intended) – begs for leadership – of some sort. The leader of a virtual team faces different challenges and requires different sensitivities and skills but is as critical as a “traditional” team leader.

2. Although typically associated with geographically dispersed teams, virtual distance can occur between 2 people sitting in the same car (you had to be there to appreciate this comment). Virtual distance is a cognitive and psychological distance as well as a physical distance. Karen provides a 10-dimension model to assess the virtual distance of a team.

The Virtual Distance Index^TM

3.  Glocalization of our workforces has changed many issues for business – not just leadership style. We need to reexamine how we evaluate the value of our workers and the work they perform. ROI models steeped in “cost/time of widgets produced” models simply do not work any longer.  Karen offered many great examples; one:  Adobe Reader makes no money directly for Adobe, so it has no value right? – We all know the answer is “wrong” – it is “new value”.  Although “its not about the technology” – technology is changing the economic models of the past.

Interestingly enough, I was speaking with Michael Idinopulos of SocialText the other day. SocialText  provides a host of services (including assessments) along with their E2.0 technology, because (as a virtual company themselves) they appreciate that the value derived from technologies that enable virtual collaboration and teaming is only maximized if the culture AND LEADERSHIP associated with the technology usage are specifically adapted to leverage the technologies and the environments they create. Michael addresses the issue of “leaderless collaboration” very well in his post Transparency, not Anarchy.

I think part of the reason we are having such a difficult time getting through this transition is partially based in our lexicon. Perhaps we need to think of another term for technology-enabled teams and collaboration  that transcend time and distance.  We call them virtual – but there is NOTHING virtual about them.  They are very real, and they are very powerful.  I’ll wrap this somewhat lengthy post up by stealing a quote from Karen’s presentation – she quoted Albert Einstein “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.”