Back to Main Page

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.

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.

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 that talks about incorporating people that aren’t formally part of your organization into it’s methods for innovating.  The article profiles a video game company that leveraged a fan-base on Facebook to create a new game – and along the way they slashed development costs and even a hired a few top coders.

This philosophy of ‘crowdsourcing’ will be critical as we get further into the knowledge economy.  I encourage organizations to assess who they count on for success and then develop strategies to incorporate all of those groups into their learning/innovation pipeline.  [Note: a value network analysis is a great tool to help visualize this.]

Who does your organization count on for success [i.e. suppliers, consultants, customers,...]?  How can you incorporate their insight and suggestions into your next big idea?

Here are some of the methods used at Orbitl RPM:

Knowledge Networks + Communities of Practice

Tips, best practices and insights already flow through most organizations.  Some of the informal interactions that happen around the proverbial water cooler are where the most useful information gets transferred.

It happens in the break room, out to lunch or via a response to an email question.  Orbital RPM adds strategy and structure to this informal organizational element that allows people to learn more from others.  We help cultivate knowledge networks and communities of practice, or groups of people who transfer their knowledge and insights with others in the same role or with the same objectives.  

For executives we offer membership in learning communities that are composed of other executives from similar but non-competing organizations.

For all other employees we specialize in cultivating knowledge networks and communities of practice as a forum for them to learn from others, develop their own solutions and add more value to their employer.  These groups may also include representatives from the organization’s value network.

Knowledge Transfer

NASA’s Lunar Program lost critical knowledge during the downsizing craze of the 1990s when Saturn 5 engineers were encouraged to take early retirement.  One NASA manager confided, “If we want to go to the moon again, we’ll be starting from scratch.  All of that knowledge has disappeared.  It would take at least as long and cost at least as much to go back.”

When people leave an organization, whether through retirement or before, an immense amount of experience, tips, and stories goes with them.  Proactive organizations are finding and sharing that knowledge before it’s gone.

Orbital RPM uses a process that captures and transfers the tacit knowledge that organizations need to avoid re-inventing the wheel, or in most cases, something much more sophisticated than a wheel.

Learning Histories

Knowledge networks tend to focus forward in order to address common issues and collaborate toward innovation.  This neglects the significant events in that group’s recent timeline that can provide content for budding networks as well as resources for knowledge transfer when network members move on. 

Where appropriate, a deliverable will be records (audio, video, text, etc.) of the lessons learned from past transformative events so that mistakes can be learned from and ideas advanced.

The New York Times recently published this map which shows data searches where users jumped from journal to journal as part of the knowledge they were seeking.  What a great visual of knowledge networks in action…

What would a map of your workforce look like as they went after the knowledge they needed to do their job?  Does your current learning and development/training strategy support it?

Many organizations are recognizing that the picture above resembles how work gets done in their workforce and leveraging tools such as social or organizational network analysis and value network analysis to create a strategy to support these knowledge networks as ways of transferring knowledge, improving performance and increasing innovation.  How about yours?

I haven’t participated for quite some time but this month’s Big Question on the Learning Circuits blog was too intriguing…

If you peer inside an organization in 10 years time and you look at how workplace learning is being supported by that organization, what will you see?

The Knowledge Economy

I’ll preface the rest of the post by saying that I feel we’re currently well into a knowledge economy and that in ten years this transition will be even more apparent so my response will hinge upon that being true.  I view a knowledge economy as one being populated by workers creating and relying upon quick access to, and acquisition of, information that they need – organizations can range from construction to IT…as long as they depend on the acquisition of relevant info/knowledge in order to perform and improve they are staffed with knowledge workers in my opinion.  I do feel that the knowledge economy will bring with it different learning and development needs for the knowledge workforce.

The Truthful Answer

Quite frankly, I think the honest answer to the Big Question listed above is…not too much different from what we see today.

Just like other societal transformations, I think our move into the knowledge economy will take a long time to cement itself into the philosophies and methodologies of organizations – this includes learning departments.  There are so many factors ranging from mental models of those that have been in the industry for a long time to infrastructures and contracts that are entrenched and cannot be uprooted quickly that will prevent a speedy transition to fully supporting the needs of the workforce in a decade.

I recently wrote about the 2008 Chief Learning Officer [CLO] Magazine report on trends in the industry and the Executive Summary of this report shows no signs of much movement in the field. Do I think this will change substantially over the business landscape in ten years?  No.  I certainly feel that there will be pockets of progressive organizations that will make some great shifts [as indeed there are already several examples of this today] but for the overall learning industry to fundamentally change how it sees the world of L&D I think will take much longer.

The Wishful Answer

I hope I’m being cynical and that the above proves not to be true because I feel that the next 10 years presents an enormous opportunity for L&D to ramp up it’s organizational credibility to a place where we’re not yearning for a seat at the proverbial table…it’ll just be there waiting.

What I’d love to see of L&D departments in 10 years is one that oversees knowledge in the organization.  Departments that acknowledge that the vast majority of learning and development takes place outside of the classroom or computer [although some is better delivered in those places as well] and implement methods that reflect this ratio.

To me this looks like departments that ensures communities of practice and knowledge networks are thriving, active and supported by the right IT tools.  Ones that takes the role of redesigning the workspace [wherever it may be] of employees so that knowledge flows freely, ones that assesses the entire value network of an organization so that learning strategies can be extended to members whose performance affects that of the organization, ones that effectively integrate new-hires into their new network and provides the content they need when needed, ones that develops leaders to lead in a collaborative web and ones that promotes innovation throughput by running off of the energy created by the aforementioned methods.

The End

As I said above, I think that L&D Departments have a golden opportunity at the moment – to make this transition and show their organizations the value they can add by truly supporting the business workforce.  If this transition isn’t made I’m afraid other disciplines such as knowledge management may rush to fill the gap left by L&D.  I really see these fields merging as I think the lines between them will begin to blur – so after all this rambling, maybe that’s what things will look like in 10 years…

CLO [Chief Learning Officer] Magazine released their 2009 Business Intelligence Industry Report today.  In full disclosure I have not read the detailed report [which is being sold for $495] – I just read the free Executive Summary but from the pieces in there I received a good enough overview to be disappointed.

A common lament in the L&D world is how to get a ‘seat at the table’ – in other words how can the L&D function be seen as being strategic enough to warrant participation in the C-level strategy interactions that determine the direction and operation of the organization.  Based on what I read in this summary it’s not surprising that the ‘tables’ out there don’t have many name tents with ‘L&D’ on them.

Before I provide specific examples I’d like to offer some context on my viewpoints and philosophy.  I believe that we are currently living/working/playing in a knowledge-based economy, or one in which know-how, experience, networks, tacit knowledge and who you know provide the real competitive advantage to improve efficiency, bring products to market, deliver to clients, etc. – and it doesn’t matter if you’re in consulting or cement.  Assuming this is true, the approaches used by L&D need to transition to support this new world as well and what I read in the CLO report indicates that they haven’t.

There are multiple examples in the summary of ways that L&D departments haven’t adapted to support a knowledge-based organization in an information society – from methodologies to analytics to perceptions of the C-level.  Some examples below…

Learning Delivery Methods

In an age where informal learning/knowledge networks/collaboration is known to be the source of the vast majority of learning and information for workers of all types one would think methodologies to support these would be creeping [if not entrenched] into corporate learning portfolios.  Rather, formal classroom training “clearly remains the most common method used.”  In a close second place, “the combination of live and self-paced e-learning is the second-most common delivery modality used by organizations.”

The nature of learning ‘delivery’ is flawed from the start when a knowledge economy dominates the market.  Organizations that commit most of their L&D resources to prescribing, designing and delivering everything that their workforce needs to know rather than reallocating those resources to help support and facilitate the exchange of the collective intelligence that already exists are missing a key competitive advantage in the information society.  Dispatch those trainers to begin creating learning histories to prevent brain drain, to act as facilitators/knowledge brokers between geographically dispersed teams with similar objectives or to help redesign the office layout so that informal exchanges can happen more effortlessly.

Learning Analytics

This section was the most shocking to me.  Not only do the methods being used by most of these organizations sound outdated, the report acknowledges that the metrics [when they're gathered] are proving that they’re providing little value.  Some notable quotes/stats…

• “Not surprisingly, little progress  has been made during the past year with the correlation of learning to various other business metrics…”
• “Approximately 1/5 of organizations correlate employee productivity to learning.”
• “Less than 1/10 of organizations correlate extended enterprise performance to learning.” [umm - wow!]
• “In reality, most organizations measure little beyond the basics, such as course enrollments, completions and learner satisfaction rates.”

Learning & Development Staffing

The report then talks about staffing – mentioning that “heads of HR and corporate education and chief learning officers represent the largest groups that believe the enterprise does not have enough staff to support the learning initiatives.”  What does the C-level think? – “only 12 percent of CEOs, COOs and presidents believe the organization does not have enough staff.”  Based on this chasm in perceptions the report concludes that this “obviously highlights a lack of communication between learning executives and senior-level business executives.”

Does it really?  If I were an executive at one of these organizations what I would see is our L&D department using methodologies suited for a past era, applying useless analytics to those ineffective methods, complaining because they need more staff and then saying that I’m out of touch with them because I think they’re staffed just fine and that I’ll likely trim their department if we hit a rough patch.  I don’t blame those executives one bit for their views of these L&D departments.  After all, let’s review a stat from the Analytics section above – “Less than 1/10 of organizations correlate extended enterprise performance to learning.”  Any other department that boasted those stats would be lucky to have a seat period – let alone one at the Executive table.

Where to now?

I think this should serve as a wake-up call to the L&D field as a whole – the world we live and work in has changed…we need to change with it.  There is a burgeoning field of knowledge management/learning communities/knowledge networks/social networking/workspace design/collaboration/etc. out there that is primed to take on the L&D role in organizations that are preparing themselves to compete in a knowledge society.  The lines between knowledge management and L&D should be becoming very blurry in my opinion.  If not, when you leap for the L&D seat at the table you may land on the lap of someone setting up their KM table tent.