An ancient virus has come back to life after lying dormant for at least 30,000 years, scientists...
We join spokes together in a wheel, but it is the emptiness of the center hole that makes the wagon move.
We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want.
I was considering attending the Dachis Social Business Summit in Austin this past month, but a variety of conflicts made that difficult, so I punted. I was asked to speak there last year, but family issues — my mother’s cancer — made that impossible. Now, I am wondering if I would have heard anything new, if I had attended.
In 2009, I was excited by the concept of the social business, based on the wide acceptance of social tools in the open web and the premise that social network-based technologies might lead to new forms of collaboration, innovation, and transparency in business. I led a conference in April 2010 on social business, and brought together a dozen or so of the smartest people I know to muse on the impact that the social web is having on the world of business.
Zoom forward a year, and how things seem to have changed. Social business is a term in wide use, but it is not being held up in distinction to enterprise 2.0 (or the even earlier knowledge management), but pitched as the direct successor of these past failed, efforts. Or even worse, as just a synonym for enterprise 2.0, a field of inquiry that seems bogged down in endless discussions about barriers to adoption and ROI. Is this deja-vu all over again?
Luis Suarez falls in this camp, conflating every previous era of tool-driven business consultingology into one, as in KM, Enterprise 2.0 and Social Business: One and The Same:
For a good number of years you have probably heard me state how Enterprise 2.0 (Now morphed into Social Business) has started already to follow the same path that traditional Knowledge Management did back in the day. To the point where I have been mentioning how some of the key aspects from both Enterprise 2.0 and KM are, essentially, one and the same! Including making some of the very same mistakes KM went through back in the day. And that’s when it gets tricky, because, if you ask knowledge workers out there nowadays, their thoughts and opinions of traditional KM are no longer that positive anymore. Actually, quite the opposite! For a good number of years, KM has been enjoying, unjustly to be honest, a rather negative reputation, even more prevalent with the emergence of social computing within the Enterprise.
I think Luis and the others that are promoting this slight-of-hand are falling prey to the marketing machinery of enterprise software vendors and consulting companies.
It goes without saying that these players will fall upon whatever shiny new ideas come along, ideas that are taking attention away from their existing patter, and they will rapidly attempt to redefine the ideas to their purpose, which is to sell soap and lots of it.
At first, they try to deny the value in the new ideas — like The Social Business Naysayers in 2009 — but they will quickly shift to the new terms when they see it catching on in the marketplaces for ideas.
Don’t get me wrong: metaphors matter. They help frame a discussion, and give shape to otherwise difficult to distinguish alternatives. But if we get back to a more fundamental definition of social business, the reframing attempts of the marketers won’t work:
A social business is an organization designed consciously around sociality and social tools, as a response to a changed world and the emergence of the social web, including social media, social networks, and a long list of other advances.
By definition, social business can’t be the same as knowledge management, since there was no social web back in the day. There was, however, a large and active community of knowledge management software companies and consulting firms that wanted to contract to help companies apply that software. That pattern has persisted, for sure. And those companies, or others cut from the same cloth, are certainly interested in riding the new wave, and to do so they will respin their old rhetoric using new adjectives.
But they aren’t generally promoting a vision of radically re-conceived management and communications, like this:
Metaphorically, a social business will seem more like a village than an army, and where a lot of 20th management approaches will be obsolete. We can expect these features:
- ubiquitous use of social tools, and social networks,
- greater levels of personal autonomy,
- self-organization of groups and projects,
- very porous boundaries with the world,
- high reliance on non-financial motivation, or personal meaning and purpose,
- internal marketplaces for ideas and talent,
- and senior management operating more like Hollywood producers or investors than autocrats.
That’s very, very different from what these salespeople are selling, which is 20th century business with some new streaming collaboration software and a reorganizing of the cubicles. Like a sketchy car salesman taking an old car with a worn out engine and slapping a new coat of paint on it, using this year’s color.
Meanwhile, organic change is seeping into businesses, simply because the social web is too effective and too seductive to be delayed. These consultants and software vendors will make money, but they aren’t the driver of change in this dynamically changing environment. If anything, they are more of a source of confusion than clarity; more heat than light.
If you want to see the future of the social business, look to the smallest and youngest companies: watch how they operate. They have the least stake in the software and practices that held companies together (and back) in the previous century. And look to the software that is youngest, as well: it has the least connection to the dim, dark days of knowledge management and enterprise 2.0.
The industrial influence in business management and theory is profound. In essence, for the past hundred years business has been objectified as a machine, divided into various components, like a clock or an electric generator. Components are composed of subcomponents, and so on, until you get down to nuts, bolts, and flywheels. People are — in the industrial scheme of things — gears in the machine, and their purpose is to perform a defined role in the assemblage.
This is the unexamined premise of how many businesses are ‘designed’ — to the extent that they have been consciously designed, instead of unconsciously shaped by decades of 19th and 20th century management dogma. First, the rise of assembly lines, vertical integration, and the rise of business processes. Then, the emergence of new communication technologies (telephones, email, web), that spawned the reengineering and knowledge management patterns of thinking about business, each with fatal flaws.
Today, the social web is happening, and acting like a solvent on these business constructs: not just superficially, or metaphorically, but at the very core of industrial beliefs.Today, the social web is happening, and acting like a solvent on these business constructs: not just superficially, or metaphorically, but at the very core of industrial beliefs. Note: this isn’t just a bunch of humanist rhetoric: the social society is exploding, and new ways of interaction that were unaffordable or impossible before are not only cheap and possible but being adopted widely because of a long list of reasons, not the least of which is simplicity and effectiveness. People are thronging on social sites like Facebook and Twitter because they are a straightforward way to stay connected with others, and this in turn shapes our worldview.
As these new realities percolate in the open web and in the new web-influenced culture, people carry these experiences into the world of business. Indirectly, based on their experience in the open web, which leads them to consider how the social tools could work in the business context. And more directly, some pioneers are dragging social tools into the business context, and seeing where it all goes.
And some, a few, are trying to think through a new model for business, reconstructed around what we have learned in the open web, balanced with what we know about the conduct of business. A new hybrid, intentionally devised to keep the best of the old (or at least the parts that will still work) and fuse that with the new, social models that dominate the web revolution.
From a social viewpoint, the architecture of business seems all wrong. People aren’t really designed to do one thing, like a cog in a watch. They have various relationships with other people, and through these relationships they have influence on the work going on all around them. They are not alone, like a moth in a bell jar. We are not alone, in our work. Even the most repetitive of work — screwing bolts on an assembly line, or delivering the mail — happens in the context of other people, and is made more valuable by their exertions.
Increasingly, people’s work is being viewed as a shared aspect of social relations. Time is a shared space, where we cooperate toward shared ends.Time is a shared space, where we cooperate toward shared ends.
One casualty of this large-scale shift in business doctrine may be the hallowed business process. The notion of a process — a defined series of steps in the production of goods or the delivery of services — subordinates individuals to the their roles in the process.
For decades, business planners have made a distinction between repetitive, lock-step processes, where very little variability is involved (think pharmacy), and more free-form, unstructured processes where a higher degree of variability is expected (think emergency room). Taking the abstraction of a process out of the world of chemistry, manufacturing, and logistics, and treating the people involved as so many chemicals, gears, or trucks seemed like a good idea in the past, but is not going to be workable, going forward.
We will have to devise a new, richer way to think about people’s interactions — via social networks — and our connection to mechanical processes and devices. In effect, we will need to model work with two layers, one where people are communicating with each other in a very fluid and flexible way, and another where machinery communicates with us and other machinery in less fluid ways. Some of these communication paths will be very limited, like a copier blinking to represent it is out of paper. But increasingly, even machinery is becoming much more communication-rich, and the way that machines respond to the world is surprisingly humanlike: coke machines that signal their internal state, like temperature, and the fact that there are only two Sprites left, or cars that will automatically start to brake if they sense no hands on the steering wheel.
More importantly, the customers in the emerging social world will have new expectations about their role in business ‘processes’ and may be significantly less willing to be treated like pigeons pecking at levers in exchange for pellets.Customers in the emerging social world will have new expectations about their role in business ‘processes’ and may be significantly less willing to be treated like pigeons pecking at levers in exchange for pellets. Consider the Jetblue customer snowstorm service disaster of a few years ago, or the not-so-subtle pressures of a discerning public leading to higher and higher levels of customer support based on the ability to gripe online, and to rally widespread support, like Jarvis’ Dell Hell campaign.
We will still get some value out of thinking through business models structurally, and choreographing steps in production or the delivery of service. But the sophistication of machines and customers means that more and more of the steps will have a wider range of alternatives, which leads designers to have to focus more on putting the right information into people’s hands — both workers and customers — than minimizing choice. For example, provisioning checklists for various well-understood medical procedures — like putting in an IV — supports medical practitioners in tense situations, and increasing the likelihood they will not omit a simple step when hurried. This has lead to significant decrease in infection and other side effects. However, it does not seek to replace the interaction between the doctor or nurse and the patient. Instead, the checklist makes it easier for the practitioner to use the time available to learn more about the patients status, because they are freed from having to recall from memory the appropriate six steps in establishing an IV.
Connectedness should always take precedence over efficiency, especially where the efficiency comes at the cost of customers, but even in the interactions between workers, the process should be secondary to the strategic principles of the firm.But the major shift here is conceptual. Processes, like the IV checklist, will still be with us, but they will have a lowercase ‘p’, and be understood as being secondary to higher business priorities, like the humane treatment of the medical patient, or the rights of travelers, or the need to superachieve customer satisfaction with consumer electronics. These goals will always trump the rote step-by-step rules and roles of a inflexible business process. Connectedness should always take precedence over efficiency, especially where the efficiency comes at the cost of customers, but even in the interactions between workers, the process should be secondary to the strategic principles of the firm. And, in the final analysis, this is the final evolutionary step away from the excesses of industrial management thinking, into a social way of structuring work.
My old friend Dennis Howlett revels in the role of doubting Thomas, perhaps more than anyone I know. His most recent screed has been attacking the Enterprise 2.0 meme, and by implication, those that are espousing it. His initial foray was entitled Enterprise 2.0: what a crock, and he basically attacked the notion that E 2.0 has anything going for it.
Personally, I find Howlett’s argument unconvincing, but then I look at it differently. In my experience (and I have been working the field long before E 2.0 came about) metaphors are lies, since they overemphasize some characteristics and leave out others. I don’t expect metaphors to be ‘true’, just to create insight.
Enterprise 2.0 has been a simple and useful metaphor that assumes that Web 2.0 technologies (like contemporary social media, social networking, social tools, and the underlying set of technologies that make up the Web 2.0 model: open source stack (LAMP), web as a platform, open APIs, and so on) can be beneficially applied in the enterprise context. This means the eventual displacement of various enterprise technologies and business practices by new ones, strongly influenced by what is happening and working in the open (not enterprise) web.
Howlett’s post caused a minor stir in the E 2.0 corner of the galaxy, including a response from me:
Dennis Howlett recently stated that Enterprise 2.0 is a crock, basically making the case that the knowledge management-ish arguments in support of E 2.0 don’t gibe with the way companies actually have to operate, what their drivers are, or what problems confront them. Andy McAfee responded with a not particularly brief or convincing response, stringing together a number of very narrow use cases — like bringing new hires up to speed, or internal prediction markets — and stating that since these problems exist, and since various solutions to those problems are being herded together as Enterprise 2.0ish applications, therefore Enterprise 2.0 is a good thing, worthy of our attention.
I did find a few points that arose directly from Howlett’s posts and the resulting debate at the Enterprise 2.0 conference interesting:
As I wrote back in September in that same response:
social changes in and of themselves is, from my point of view, not a very illuminating exercise at the best, and at the worst, completely misleading.
In a way, you could interpret Denis’ polemic as making a similar point, but I don’t think that his perceptions are based on the sense of a sweeping change in the world of business, but rather the views that the timeless nature of business operations have nothing to do with
Howlett’s grumping is just some context for my point: ‘Enterprise 2.0′ is a not particularly useful characterization of what is going on with the spread of Web 2.0 technologies and practices in the world of business.Note that I am a strong advocate for the use of the Web 2.0 handle, despite the various attempts by iconoclasts to topple it in 2008, or Arrington’s theory that a overpheromoned party of cool kids meant the demise of 2.0. I think Web 2.0 is fairly well-understood to represent a set of convergent and mutually supportive ideas — the Web as a platform, open standards, APIs, social tools, fast and low-cost development tools and techniques — that have come to define a generation of Web development and business. Enterprise 2.0, on the other hand, does not have the same coherence.Perhaps this is because so many of the principles of Web 2.0 are blunted by the command-and-control needs of the enterprise. You cannot state that Enterprise 2.0 is Web 2.0 for the enterprise because much of what defines Web 2.0 does not easily translate to the enterprise context.
In particular, Web 2.0 as a phenomenon is strongly tied to social tools — social networking, social media, and so on — in which the individual is primary, and asymmetric networks of relationships with other individuals form the principal mechanism for connection and information flow. However, this does not gibe with the enterprise obsession with groups: where the rights and responsibilities of individuals are derived from group membership, and these rights are granted by the enterprise.
This apparently minor mismatch between the individualistic web and the organizational one desired by management leads me to believe that we are looking at the wrong end of the sausage machine. We need to switch our attention to the shifting nature of work itself, and how business needs to be reconsidered in a rapidly changing world (which includes a revolutionary social Web, notably). Toward that end, all manner of innovations, tools, and practices might be evaluated for their utility and impacts, but they cannot be considered hanging in space, in some sort of strategic vacuum.
First and foremost, management must settle on some principles around which work itself can be reworked. Difficult questions must be posed, and deep and principled thinking must take place before tactical software and business process changes can take place. In essence,
forward-looking companies will devise something like a constitution and a bill of rights that attempt to lay out a worldview about the purpose of the firm, what it stands for, how it will treat its customers, what is expected from employees, and what the social contract between the company and individuals — employees and customers — is.
So, I have come to believe that this is the place where companies need to focus their attention: socializing the business, not adoption of Web 2.0
I guess it is unsurprising that in Howlett’s most recent polemic, he takes aim at the ‘social business’ heresy that he sees arising:
I’ve argued for years that the notion of anything that has ’social’ attached to its moniker is about as welcome as breaking wind in a spacesuit. I’ve also argued that I’ve never heard anyone ask for some Enterprise 2.0 though I’ve heard plenty ask for ERP, CRM etc. Most recently, the new buzz phrase ’social business design’ has hit the streets. Here’s one definition:
Social Business Design is the intentional creation of dynamic and socially calibrated systems, process, and culture.
Its goal: helping organizations improve value exchange among constituents.
Good luck with that one.Perhaps the panel would have done better had they taken a leaf out of Andrew McAfee’s book. In his presentation about Enterprise 2.0 no-no’s, he says:
Like too many words in the English language, ’social’ has taken on a handful of different meanings. Though most would probably agree that technically it’s an accurate word when used to describe various enterprise solutions, the implications are not always desirable.
“I have never come across a word that has more negative connotations to a busy pragmatic manager,” said McAfee, explaining that he’s seen many-a-boss assume that ’social’ tools wouldn’t help anything but employees talk too much and goof off.
Though McAfee didn’t suggest a new or better word to use (collaboration? communities?) he finished the presentation with an interesting image choice to illustrate how some managers interpret the use of ’social’ solutions: two dirty hippies hugging it out at Woodstock, surrounded by litter and despair.
[My emphasis added]
At this point I must give Andy McAfee full credit for acknowledging the bleeding obvious. Isn’t that what I’ve been saying for years? The problem for those trying to pimp this stuff is they’re now stuck with two things: ’social’ intermingled at every turn because no-one can think of anything better and 2.0 which roots them at a moment in time. It’s a classic example of bandwagon marketing that looks sexy yet has gone nuts in the process. Crowdsourcing at its worst.
So, if I can try to cut through the incredibly intertwined logic here, Howlett is making this case:
Dennis is joined by others, like Mark Fidelman, in his disdain for ‘social business’:
I happen to agree with Howlett on these two points. First, using Social and business in the same sentence scares decision makers in the corporate world today especially with a lackluster economy. We can use social to describe aspects of Enterprise 2.0, but not lead with it. In my
experience as a senior executive in large and small companies and with my discussions with executive peers, social does not resonate with board members or decision makers with large budgets.
Second, I don’t see many companies buying Enterprise 2.0 solutions. Sure they are purchasing solutions from vendors in the Enterprise 2.0 space, but there is not a collective push for an Enterprise 2.0 solution in the corporate world today. Companies do buy ERP, MRP and CRM because they are succinct mission critical solutions with proven ROI models and case studies.
We need more groups like the Adoption 2.0 Council and industry analysts like Gartner, Forrester, CMS Watch, Gilbane etc. to create ROI models and to start categorizing Enterprise 2.0 solutions into recognizable buckets. For example (and I am not an expert on naming conventions) I bet if there is an Enterprise Business Collaboration (EBC) category with well defined boundaries, case studies and ROI models, companies will start to budget for it.
What, more ROI studies?
In the final analysis, this seems like yet another example of paradigm change. Kuhn, in The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions, detailed the research that demonstrates that schools of thought fail and are replaced by revolutionary viewpoints exactly when the old theories cannot explain what is happening in new research.
Kuhn also makes the case that the old paradigm — in this case the conventional establishment IT perspective of functional silos and silo-based business processes — cannot effectively disprove the new paradigm, and vice versa:
According to Kuhn, the scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so different that their theories are incommensurable — the new paradigm cannot be proven or disproven by the rules of the old paradigm, and vice versa. The paradigm shift does not merely involve the revision or transformation of an individual theory, it changes the way terminology is defined, how the scientists in that field view their subject, and, perhaps most significantly, what questions are regarded as valid, and what rules are used to determine the truth of a particular theory. The new theories were not, as the scientists had previously thought, just extensions of old theories, but were instead completely new world views.
Such incommensurability exists not just before and after a paradigm shift, but in the periods in between conflicting paradigms. It is simply not possible, according to Kuhn, to construct an impartial language that can be used to perform a neutral comparison between conflicting paradigms, because the very terms used are integral to the respective paradigms, and therefore have different connotations in each paradigm. The advocates of mutually exclusive paradigms are in an invidious position: "Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proof." (SSR, p. 148). Scientists subscribing to different paradigms end up talking past one another.
Here, I think we have a bastion of the old guard arguing that the new ways of thinking are illegitimate, have not been proved, and those that espouse them are crazy.
I deeply and strongly believe in a different worldview, as I recently stated, on the Social Business Epicenter blog:
Today, more than ever, management is reexamining and rethinking the basic principles of business: how to innovate and prosper. To that end, managers are looking to stay in step with a changing world, and the rise of the social web in particular.
How should today’s business leverage what is being learned about the social web? Certainly what is going on today is more than just social media marketing, limited to marketing and community outreach efforts. Some of the leading thinkers in this area believe that we are at the start of something much larger than a retake on marketing.
We are seeing a rethinking of work, collaboration, and the role of management in a changing world, where the principles and tools of the web are transforming society, media, and business. The mainstays of business theory — like innovation, competitive advantage, marketing, production, and strategic planning — need to be reconsidered and rebalanced in the context of a changing world. The rise of the real-time, social web has become one of the critical factors in this new century, along with a radically changed global economic climate, an accelerating need for sustainable business practices, and a political context demanding increased openness in business.
These issues cannot be dealt with one by one, but instead approached as connected elements of a new world order for business.
I believe that Kuhn was right: there is no way to logically encompass the new, revolutionary worldview through the terms and values of the old. Which is one of the motivations of leaving behind the Enterprise 2.0 handle: it is too mired in years of argument firmly rooted in the web 1.0 and pre-web world views.
To the extent that a post-industrial or 21st Century worldview has begun to emerge, it is being applied to a new set of principles and practices surrounding the future of work and business. It cannot be judged by the dictates and dogma of the past, as much as the naysyers would like that to be true. We will have to develop a new set of values — and rules for defining them — based sui generis in the heart of what we discover, not what we find in the trunks up in the attic, left over from an earlier generation of IT strategy.
Winston Churchill once said, “Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together- what do you get? The sum of all fears.” If you collect a group of commentators, just like any Sunday morning news show, you will hear the sum of their fears, all the reasons why not.
I am interested, these days, in spending my time with folks who are rethinking the premises of business, society, and media, since it is self-evident that we have critical problems in all these areas. And it is unlikely that the means that we used to get ourselves into the mess that the world is in, now, will work in getting us out, and into something better.