For most, resumes are simply a high-level snapshot of generally recognized terms, projects, education, certifications, etc. They’re effective for generating interview questions but do not reveal the nuanced depth of someone’s true experience; especially if their roles are heavy in knowledge-based work as most are.

Enter the challenge with the growing interest in ‘Expertise Location.’  In many discussions I’ve had people feel that by just uploading resumes/work history into a collaboration platfrom this will enable others in the organization to find the experts associated with any given topic.  Not so fast.

The problem is that a resume uploaded today is likely to be out-of-date within weeks or months.  People’s work in organizations is often quite fluid between different projects, functions and departments and not only is that nearly impossible to capture in text, almost no one is going to go back and update their uploaded resume [until their looking to submit it elsewhere].

This is where the advancements in collaboration platforms comes in handy.  Most of the platforms on the market [i.e. Jive, Socialtext, Telligent] will track the different areas in which someone is partcipating and allow others to find them based on that activity.

So when an analyst hired for their prior roles in finance is quickly sent out to your understaffed office in a high growth area they’ll be learning new skills very quickly.  These skills likely won’t make it onto their resume on your system – but they will reveal themselves through the activity generated in a collaboration platform while getting up to speed on these new competencies.

If  your collaboration system and the corresponding processes are set-up correctly you now have an expert in some unique areas that someone in the future can find and leverage.  If not, what are the chances that someone else in the same situation struggles with similar questions, challenges and roadblocks on their road to expertise?  And what is the impact to individuals and the organization when this happens?

In 1988 tunnel boring machines aimed at one another began their slow attack from France and the United Kingdom respectively.  The ultimate death match resulted in the Chunnel – a consistent, fixed mode of mass people/cargo transportation across the English Channel.

A similar thing is happening with the inevitable convergence between the fields of Enterprise 2.0 [communities of practice, collaboration networks, knowledge management] and Social Marketing [customer communities, influencer networks, social media, Social CRM].  With the goal being a consistent link between workforce, partners and customers and with the infrastructure to provide a continuous ebb and flow of knowledge, ideas, reputation and all things intangible.  Kinda like the Chunnel.

The success of the Chunnel, as with merging Enterprise 2.0 and Social Marketing initiatives, depends on clear objectives, planning, tools, people and sheer determination.  There’s a big difference too, though.  The Chunnel diggers started at the same time on each side.  I recommend starting your internal/Enterpise 2.0/collaboration initiative before engaging customers or influencers in your customer community/social media initiative.  Don’t meet in the middle.  Why?

Ideally you want some experience with internal collaboration before customers are engaged.  Or ‘Get your house in order before you invite over company.’  Think of your workforce as your immediate family, and your suppliers, partners and vendors as your neighbors.  They can see your house a little messy – especially if it’s due to a snazzy renovation.  Your customers are more like your dates – your best foot is always forward.

It’s for this reason that a strategy where internal collaboration is enabled first is best.  Work out the kinks of collaboration with your internal workforce, suppliers/partners, etc. first so that you’re prepared to respond to customers ridiculously faster than with a silo’d organization.

Evolution of Enterprise 2.0 and Social Marketing

The worlds of Enterprise 2.0 and Social Marketing are the result of a similar evolution[in my mind].  Enterprise 2.0 represents the needed transition in learning and knowledge management from formal [classrooms and databases] to informal [communities and Web 2.0] while Social Marketing is the same evolution in marketing from traditional [print and banner ads] to social [customer and influencer communities].

They have a different audience but the same objective – integrating anyone you count on for success into your strategy for better products, services, efficiency or enhancements to your business model – aka innovation.  Internal and external communities are the incubators of ideas for improvement.  Bring them together successfully and you’ll have the most valuable resource needed for the new economy – knowledge.

Next Steps for Enterprise 2.0 and Social Marketing

As the respective fields are evolving it’s in everyone’s best interest to…wait for it…collaborate.  Shocking, eh?  And this is where those nasty changes in process come into play.  Just b/c it sounds like a great idea for teams form Marketing, Knowledge Management, Innovation, IT, HR, etc. to work together for the sometimes utopian goal of a freeflowing exchange of information through a company’s value network it doesn’t mean it’s easy.  Inconvenient things like politics, personalities, power and culture are all front and center.

This is where we find it helpful to use a tool to visualize and measure process as it occurs in today’s dynamic times. A value network analysis shows stakeholders their current process flows [intangibles included] and let’s them determine how best to rearrange them for mutual benefit.

However it’s done, though, these areas need to be working together – the tunnels within your organization and to those that you count on for success need to be dug and the infrastructure needs to be in place so that knowledge, ideas, reputation and all of the other intangibles you rely on can flow as they need.

There’s a lot of talk going on these days about how businesses need to embrace their social nature and intangible elements in order to compete [see Enterprise 2.0, Social Business Design, etc.]. The reason being that very few businesses produce anything tangible and even those that do still rely on a complex web of relationships, ideas, insight, brand, collaboration and leadership in order to do it.

This evolving understanding of the business landscape reminds me of man’s understanding of a different scape >>> space.

Until recently it was believed that our Universe of visible stuff [planets, stars, comets, gas, etc.] would continue expanding for a bit and then begin to recede. But the data didn’t agree. The expansion of the universe was actually found to be accelerating at a rate that means it will continue to expand eternally.

What’s behind this mystery? Dark matter and dark energy. Their presence is required in order to explain the behavior of the objects in space that we can see. The same is true for the networks and intangibles in organizations.

Dark matter is described as being “undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred by gravitational effects on visible matter.” Sounds like office politics to me.

Seriously, though, dark matter and dark energy are true forces with which to be reckoned. Estimates are that they make up about 95% of the known universe as the chart here shows.

Scientists were recently able to visualize these forms of matter and energy through what I’m sure is some pretty basic math [not]. What they produced was both eye-opening and jaw-dropping. It shows what was previously invisible and is allowing them to better understand it and its effect on us.

The picture here shows a lonely Hubble [to the lower left] as it peers out into the distance and sees massive clusters of galaxies [the bright spots in the image] surrounded by enormous globs of dark matter.

The ability to see these formations as well as analyze the data that comprise them allows scientists to better understand how the Universe works and how our role in it can be affected.

Until recently most organizations focused just on visible things [products, materials, warehouses, property, etc.] in order to operate and compete. The problem was that only focusing on tangible things left out the major driving forces of business today [i.e. relationships, ideas, knowledge, brand, etc.].

And just as scientists needed to be able to *see* dark matter and dark energy in order to measure and understand it, we too need ways of visualizing the critical elements of organizational performance in order to affect it in the new business landscape. Enter Organizational Network Analysis and Value Network Analysis - two tools designed to see how organizations really operate today.

An Organizational (aka Social) Network Analysis reveals the social fabric of an organizations and, depending on the question asked, can show us who people go to for information, which geographic locations that may be out of the loop, where holes may develop as a result of succession planning, and countless other scenarios.

The image here is the actual output from one of our clients with global operations. Dots=people; lines=information flow. Just knowing that you can see that there is no information flowing from site to site – it all comes through corporate. Not being able to see this as well as analyze the data behind it wouldn’t allows us to create and execute on a strategy to save money, reduce rework, increase innovation, etc.

A Value Network Analysis shows us how work really gets done from more of a process perspective. The key differentiator is that a VNA includes both the tangible [i.e. reports, deliverables, communications] as well as intangible [i.e. credibility, confidence, brand, etc.] elements that are required for success in business today.

The image here is another real example from a global client. There were several departments at headquarters whose collective objective was to support the activities of various global sites but they had never been able to visualize how their activities were affecting the sites. The VNA revealed that despite their best intentions, the sites [the oval on far left; mid-way up vertically] were not receiving the intended support and allowed us to create a strategy that coordinated and focused these activities into a process that reduced workload and better supported stakeholders in the field.

The topics of Social Media, Social Networking, Enterprise 2.0, etc. are all the buzz these days. There’s even a raging debate on whether to include the word ‘social’ [my opinion is that 'intangibles' is more inclusive/accurate than social but not nearly as sexy]. Scratch the surface, though, and much of these discussions revolve around technology. I’m the first to admit that there are some pretty slick tech offerings out there to help organizations operate in this new landscape but to implement them correctly there must be a comprehensive understanding of the whole environment.

So just as scientists have leveraged Hubble and some wicked math to learn about how our Universe is structured and therefore how we can play in it, businesses must have a deep understanding of their culture, ecosystem, processes, people, etc. before launching any of these social [intangible] initiatives. So…what does your organization really look like? Can you illustrate the invisible forces that are truly determining your path?

This $5 billion Fortune 500 mining company has operations scattered around the globe; and each location relies on an extended network of constructors, consultants, communities and governments in order to explore, build, mine and reclaim the land.  The challenge was that each location was acting on its own – conducting similar activities in parallel but without any awareness of each others issues, ideas or insights.

This results in mechanics struggling with a tricky diagnosis that had already been unlocked elsewhere, a geologist being puzzled by a core sample that had been identified by a colleague on another continent or a Supervisor that heard a vendor for another region had a critical fix for his haul trucks but didn’t know who it was, how to get ahold of him or time to try.  They were wasting time, money and opportunities for innovation while increasing frustration.

Solution:

Orbital RPM conducted an Organizational Network Analysis [ONA] to determine the professional fabric of the organization and a Value Network Analysis [VNA] to determine how work from headquarters was affecting regional sites.  The results revealed virtually no interaction between sites and teams in headquarters that were not supporting their colleagues in the field despite their best efforts to do so.

This information will be used to build global collaboration networks so that operations run more efficiently and more ideas for Innovation are produced.  A global collaboration platform will be utilized to enable the exchange of knowledge and capture of ideas.

Most People: What is it that you do again?

Me: I help companies operate and compete in a knowledge-based economy.

Most People: Huh?

Me: I work with companies on their learning,development, knowledge management, innovation, marketing, HR and other processes to help them do business now – which is much different than how businesses have ever operated in the past.

Most People: [blank stare]

Me: I’m a consultant.

Most People: Oh…I know what they do.

Although the above is exaggerated I’m not naive enough to think that the label ‘Social Business Design’ will cause the conversation to be too much different than it is now – but I strongly applaud the team at Dachis Group for coining the term and providing a rallying cry for a whole industry [software suites, authors, consultants, etc.] of folks that will contribute to transforming organizations for a landscape that has no boundaries and relies on relationships, ideas, conversations, knowledge and all things intangible.

Social Business Design may become the next buzzword but I think it’s a simple yet eloquent and descriptive term for the results required to compete in a knowledge-based economy.  So much so that we’re incorporating it in our communication about Orbital RPM’s offerings.

And while I lend credit to Dachis Group and Altimeter Group for energizing this arena I also thank and credit the following fields for their work in what I feel provides the foundation for a transformation to operating socially [representative honorees shown in brackets - there are way too many to list]:

• Social Network Analysis [i.e. Rob Cross/Cross Networks Analytics, Valdis Krebs]
• Value Network Analysis [i.e. Verna Allee, Value Networks and team]
• Systems Thinking [i.e. Peter Senge/Pegasus Communications, iSee]
• Industrial/Organizational Psychology [i.e. Kurt Kraiger]
• Organizational Design [i.e. Peter Drucker]
• Scenario Planning [i.e. Art Kleiner]
• Organizational Learning/Knowledge Management [i.e. Etienne Wenger, John Seely Brown, Jay Cross]
• Leadership Development [i.e. Reg Revans, Steve Kerr, Michael Marquadt]
• Workspace Design [i.e. Frank Becker, Charlie Grantham, Jim Ware, Camille Venezia]
• Innovation [Peter Skarzynski, Rowan Gibson, Clayton Christensen]
• Social Marketing [i.e. Charlene Li, Peter Kim]
• Social Software developers/vendors

Combining insights from these [and other] fields brings a comprehensive solution to organizations wanting to become social businesses.  The timing is right to combine the best of what’s new [i.e. web 2.0 & social marketing] with age old approaches [i.e. communities & action learning] that will help with this transformation.

This is what we’ve been doing for the last 5 years.  Now we have a name for it.

-  Arie De Geus, former head of planning for Shell Oil Company

Organizations, each year, spend billions of dollars on training and development (T&D) in order to enhance the knowledge, skills, and abilities of their employees and ultimately, to gain a competitive advantage. In 2007, for example, it was estimated by the American Society for Training and Development that U.S. organizations spent about 134 billion dollars on T&D alone.

Despite the tremendous amount of money that is pumped into organizational training efforts, there is a growing recognition of a “transfer problem.”  What I mean by the “transfer problem” is that trainees have difficulty effectively and continually applying the knowledge and skills they learned in one context (the training environment) to a different context (their job). In fact, researchers have found that only ten percent of learning that takes place in training actually transfers to the organizational context… ten percent, folks!

Note: You’ll notice that much of the content on this site is dedicated to informal or non-traditional forms of learning since this is shown to contribute the most to knowledge sharing and productivity.  Formal training isn’t going away anytime soon, though, and in whatever capacity it will play in learning strategies it still needs to be done correctly.

So why is it that trainees have so much difficulty transferring their learning to the job context? Dr. Raymond Noe has outlined some of the obstacles to effective transfer of training:

1. Work Conditions (e.g., time pressures, inadequate equipment available in the job context)
2. Lack of peer support (e.g., peers discourage the use of new skills or speak disparagingly about trainings)
3. Lack of management support (e.g., managers don’t understand the importance of training, do not provide opportunities for employees to practice their trained skills, and do not reinforce the use of skills)
4. Personal characteristics of the trainees (e.g., trainees don’t believe that they are capable of using their skills, trainees fail to monitor themselves to ensure that they are using their skills)

Quite obviously, organizations need to address these obstacles in order to boost training transfer. First of all though, it’s important to note, as many researchers do, that training transfer is a process. That is, interventions must be implemented before, during, and after training in order to create contextual conditions that strengthen transfer. Here are a couple of tips for enhancing training transfer compiled from various research-based articles:

1. Relate training to organizational objectives. Before training, trainees need to be given realistic information about the training program–how it relates to organizational objectives and how they can apply their new knowledge and skills on the job. This type of pre-training information session is likely to give trainees a sense that they have organizational support and to increase trainees’ motivation and readiness for learning.

2. Give trainees a voice. Rather than assigning employees to specific training programs, organizations may also consider allowing employees to have a say in terms of the type of training they receive and the design of the training. When employees are given the authority to make decisions about what and how they learn, they are more likely to be engaged during the training and ultimately, to transfer their skills.

3. Set training goals. Supervisors should consider sitting down with their employees and setting specific, time-bound goals related to their employees’ participation and acquisition of skills during training. For example, they might pinpoint specific projects that the employee would complete within a certain time period using skills and knowledge acquired in training.

4. Use self-management strategies. Employees need to be prepared to practice their skills even if the work climate is not particularly conducive to it (i.e., when the environment contains a lot of obstacles to transfer). First of all, trainees need to become aware that there is a tendency for trainees to forget knowledge gained in training and to lapse back into previously learned skills and behaviors. Once they realize that lapses occur frequently, employees can then work with their supervisors to create a transfer plan that tackles all identified environmental and personal obstacles to transfer. For example, in response to expected time pressures that would inhibit transfer following training, an employee may decide to have a conversation with his boss and ask him to lighten his workload immediately after training so that he can begin to adjust his skills to a new context. If he lacks self-monitoring skills, he might also identify different individuals within the organization that could coach and encourage him through the transfer process – a great way to interlace your training within a social networking or expertise location initiative.

These tips can help build a strong transfer climate and a strong transfer climate is an essential component of a learning organization, with a greater capacity to learn, grow, and adapt. Particularly in a rapidly changing business climate, this capacity is absolutely crucial.

Although it’s flying off the shelves, SharePoint is known to be strong when documents are the central focus – this creates space in the market for SharePoint’s Featured Partners who extend the functionality to support communities of practice, knowledge networks, innovation and more.

As I look at these after-market products as compared to the potential that collaboration and learning communities can bring to an organization I have to wonder how long it will take before one is just gobbled up and integrated right into SharePoint?

One of our projects now is hung up in IT due to our desire to use a SharePoint plug-in ASP provider with Community of Practice functionality – it’ll be nice when all of this comes in one ‘box.’

For many of the organizations that I speak/work with regarding knowledge networks/communities of practice they have [or are planning on implementing] a collaboration software package with many slick bells and whistles but without a clear path and strategy for getting up and running – this often results in an empty knowledge landscape with little showing except for some bells and whistles strewn about.

Even in the CIO world it’s popular to say that collaboration and innovation isn’t about the software but what do you do in addition to buying software? 

The Iceberg in IT

The delimna I frequently witness is what I call the ‘Iceberg in IT’ conundrum.  Someone decided that people needed to collaborate more and told IT to implement a package that enables collaboration.  While a good software package is certainly a required step, I prefer to put it near last instead of first. 

Using the admittedly cliche and ubiquitous iceberg metaphor above, social software is simply the visible thing that enables collaboration to happen.  When IT is told to purchase it when there is no strategy to generate adoption, it will feel cold and barren [sorry - couldn't help it].  In order to truly affect how this can help people do their jobs there is a large amount of work that needs to done behind the scenes…hence the 7Cs of success:

• Capturing:  the notion of collaboration is foreign in many organizations so people often need to be shown what potential is there if they were to collaborate.  We always visit different geographic locations and capture [via video, audio, memory stick, etc.] what people are working on so that we can determine common topics and have some seed material to begin populating the software system.
• Connecting:  even software that’s designed to connect people will do little in that regard if left on its own.  People [especially when at the early phases] need some help connecting with one another – simple things like setting up bridge calls and facilitating conversations serve to build trust and awareness and provide nuggets of content that can be housed in the platform.
• Combining: in a dispersed organization you’re bound to find bits and pieces of similar work living in a great many places.  Helping the users combine that information using the wiki feature of a platform, for example, will show users the efficiency in working together while training them on what in the world a ‘wiki’ is.
• Contextualizing: the most effective collaboration initiatives will integrate members from an organization’s suppliers and customers and related academic institutions.  Translating that into compelling content that will make sense to your users will be critical in getting them to absorb and leverage it.
• Confirming:  similar to above, if you’re getting knowledge from various sources, care must be taken to ensure that what’s being provided is accurate information so that it can be acted upon.
• Circulating:  what good is the best information if no one knows about it?  The role of a community/network coordinator is essential in circulating news about what’s new, recent questions, etc.
• Communicating: having someone dedicated to getting the word out about the success stories in your knowledge network will go a long way in generating interest, excitement and ,of course, additional funds that will be necessary to continue operations.

Having an effective Web 2.0 collaboration platform at the center of this activity certainly will make it much easier to coordinate but the software alone [today's versions anyhow] will never replace the behind-the-scenes efforts required to start and sustain collaboration and innovation.

BusinessWeek just published an article about how groups around the world are preparing for the Knowledge Economy.

Notice the focus on the design of the physical space that they’re proposing and how that will help foster the necessary community that will be required for collaboration, learning and innovation.

Now I’m clearly a little biased in my support for this message – but that bias first came from all of the other sources that turned me on to this trend.

Using the ideas in the article, what can your organization do to prepare for the knowledge economy?  How can your workspace be configured to best support the way work happens?  How can you integrate the collaboration of your customers, suppliers and employees into the learning and innovation that will drive your organization forward?

The Regional Field Sales Teams at General Motors are responsible for selling and delivering wholesale automobiles to GM’s network of franchise dealerships across North America.  Regions are further divided into zones and Zone Managers are charged with overseeing their zone team of sales, marketing, service, accessory parts and many other functions.  Geographic dispersion combined with high pressure and a fast pace resulted in local teams solving issues on their own and working fairly isolated from peers that were performing very similar duties.  Rework was high and the ability to innovate was low.

Solution:

Orbital RPM conducted a Social Network Analysis in order to determine how information was being exchanged amongst the Zone Managers across the country.  That information was used to illustrate gaps where knowledge flow could be improved, individuals to be used as part of the core team and a strategy for beginning the transition from local silos to a knowledge network of Zone Managers.

Once the strategy was engaged and Zone Managers were shown the power and potential of collaborating with their peers to help with everyday items as well as innovative ideas a technology solution was implemented from Orbital RPM’s Social Software service.

Outcome:

“We were looking for a new way to approach the learning and development of our field leadership.  Orbital RPM helped us by acknowledging that most of our workforce’s learning occurs informally.  To that end, they designed strategies around social networking to support that.”

-Tom Burch, General Motors Training Manager