Our Blog:

I have been surprised recently by the number of my contacts, who are very active in Enterprise 2.0 and Social Business, who are not yet registered for the Paris Summit on the 7th and 8th of February.  Clearly they have not looked at the site (http://www.e20summit.com/index.html) or watched the videos (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2EF3A8CB6BE667A1), otherwise they would have registered immediately!

Quite apart from the exceptional list of speakers, I am very  much looking forward to catching up with good friends, many of whom I’ve met at other conferences, as well as putting a face to the Twitter name of some that I feel like I know, but have never met.

It is not too late to register, so can I suggest that you do so now.  Use my specal reduction code, e20ambassadordd, and you will get a reduced fee.

See you there.

David Demetrius

@demeto

Is this a scenario you recognize?

You deliver a free seminar for about an hour to a group of managers that you believe could really do with using social media (Enterprise 2.0, Social Business, call it what you will) to sustain and grow their business(es).  You show them the benefits of the various platforms.  You explain what is available (the ones they know such as LinkedIn, Facebook, as well as another fifty or so they’ve never heard of.  You outline the potential risks of choosing the wrong platform or of failing to put in place the appropriate policies and controls.  When you finish, your audience claps, cheers, congratulates you on a very enlightening presentation and for your command of the subject.

So what’s the problem with all that?

What happens next is that these newly enlightened managers rush back to their offices and look around for a young member of staff who is on Facebook and say “I’ve just learnt all about social media for business.  We need to do that.  You’re on Facebook, so you’ll know all about it.  I’m assigning you to set up what we need.”

When, after six months, they have not seen any of the promised benefits, they shelve the project and decide it was a bad idea and that they should never have listened to you!!

(David Demetrius @demeto)

There are many, many reasons why I don’t like emails.  I strive constantly, so far without success, to achieve the success in getting them out of my life that my good friend, Luis Suarez (@elsua) has managed.

But top of the list of my pet hates concerning emails is the problem of “email tennis”.

I’m sure you have all experienced it.  You write an email to someone with a perfectly polite message, such as:  ”I thought your presentation at the meeting yesterday was good”.  Then it starts.  The dialogue goes something like this.

“What do you mean, it was good. I worked on that for two weeks and all you can say is it was good.” (cc: your boss)

“For God’s sake. I try and compliment you and you can’t even be grateful.” (cc: your boss and the other guy’s boss)

“Typical of you. Trying to make it look like I’m the one being unreasonable, not you.” (cc: half the staff in the department)

And so it goes on, back and forth over the net until by the end of the day the whole company and a few hundred other people who have been copied in are all in the loop and all throwing their own comments in as well for good measure.  And you were just trying to compliment someone!

Now if that had been by phone or face to face your tone of voice in the original message would have conveyed your sincerity and the dialogue would have gone as follows:

“I thought your presentation at the meeting yesterday was good”

“Gee thanks!”

End of conversation!

No misunderstanding and a couple of man-days of effort saved!!!

(@Demeto)

At the recent Switch conference in Porto, I touched briefly on whether entrepreneurialism is compatible with the collaborative nature of Social Media and Enterprise 2.0.  It seems to me that there is an inherent clash between the two approaches.

Although there are of course exceptions, an entrepreneur tends typically to be someone who:

• has their own clear ideas of where they should be taking the organisation
• is working towards a relatively long-term strategic goal
• only shares their knowledge to the extent necessary to achieve their goals
• tends to have a hierarchical attitude towards organisational structure
• launches a business very locally and perhaps later spreads to other geographic regions

The above attributes do not marry well with the collaborative nature of Social Business, wherein:

• strategy is often the result of crowdsourcing ideas
• the web is usually used to identify the next incremental step, not the long-term goal
• information is shared openly with complete strangers
• organisations tend to be very flat and relatively unstructured
• from the outset, businesses tend to be global

To succeed in this highly interconnected world, a new breed of entrepreneur is needed.  Entrepreneurs of the future will need to be:

• less self-centred and more open to others’ ideas
• more prepared to share their own ideas with the world
• less convinced of their own superior status in the organisation

But there are definitely some attributes that have always been important for an entrepreneur that do not change in this Web 2.0 world.  They must always:

• have enormous drive to succeed
• be prepared to work very long hours  often to the detriment of their personal life
• believe in their goal
• look after and support their team

and above all have the humility to accept that they don’t know everything and can always learn more from those around them.

I’m sure that many readers will disagree with my comments here, so your thoughts on the subject would be very welcome.

@demeto

CONSIDERING THE VALUE OF SOCIAL SOFTWARE TOOLS

With companies’ recent attempts to engage employees and customers through advanced software solutions and collaboration tools, IT departments often have difficulties deciding which platforms to use and justifying the investments made. In this respect, it is vital to the planning process and the decision-making process to perform a thorough cost-benefit study and preferably to understand the Return on Investment (“ROI”) of the platform, before embarking on the project.

Given that the results of these collaboration tools, which are sometimes intangible in nature, often are not directly measurable, simple ROI techniques are insufficiently appropriate for capturing the (long-term) results of these tools.

Below we provide an overview of how the Value Measuring Methodology (“VMM”) developed by Booz Allen Hamilton, in conjunction with Harvard University can be applied to social software tools. Much of this overview is based on valuable insights from the ‘Highlights on VMM’ by the Best Practices Committee of the Federal CIO Council (October 2002).

The need for measurable results

According to a recent study by Bazaarvoice and the CMO Club, the true expectation of chief marketing officers is that they want measurable results from social media.

In most organisations, the following requirements tend to apply when embarking on new ventures and projects:

• Senior management should be provided with the information necessary to communicate priorities and to establish consistent measures for evaluating existing or proposed initiatives;
• The venturers and project managers should have visibility of the relevant needs and priorities of stakeholders and customers;
• Risk and risk mitigation should be considered early in the development process, before other alternatives are defined; and
• Value measures should be provided (including metrics and targets) that capture project value, guide definition of alternatives, and facilitate on-going performance and results-based management.

How to achieve measurement

Given the complexities of accounting for costs and identifying risk in traditional ROI calculations, the VMM offers a solution for measuring value in technologically advanced systems, such as software solutions built using Web 2.0 and developed in order to benefit from social collaboration.

THE VALUE MEASURING METHODOLOGY

Background

In order to define, capture and measure value associated with electronic services, Booz Allen Hamilton together with Harvard University in January 2002 published the first version of VMM. Following its publication VMM has been improved and tested in a real-world environment. Given the complexities of accounting for costs and identifying risk in traditional ROI calculations, VMM offers a solution for measuring value in technologically advanced systems, such as software solutions built using Web 2.0 and developed in order to benefit from social collaboration.

Purpose and approach

VMM was designed to be used by governmental organisations, for example in e-Government initiatives, but it can be applied by organisations wishing to maximise shareholder value as well, when deciding whether to invest in electronic services. The purpose is to demonstrate the benefits of a project to a variety of stakeholders.

According to the Best Practices Committee of the Federal CIO Council (2002), whilst it is preferred to use VMM at the start of a new project, it may also be used in later phases, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the project, or to decide on the feasibility of its continuation. All through the lifecycle of a project, VMM can be used in order to justify spending, re-evaluate objectives and performance, or validate management controls. During this process, employees from across all functions and decision-making levels should be involved.

VMM is based on public and private sector business and economic analysis theories and best practices. It provides the structure, tools and techniques for comprehensive quantitative analysis and comparison of value (benefits), cost and risk at the appropriate level of detail. VMM produces an outline, guiding the process for the selection, design analysis and management of an investment.

A method for quantifying and comparing value, cost and risk

VMM is a solid foundation for a project and offers insight into the possible alternatives. According to the Best Practices Committee of the Federal CIO Council (2002) in their analysis of the value proposition, VMM:

• Allows measurement and comparison of baseline and ongoing evaluations of value, risk and cost;
• Provides a quantitative understanding of value through calculation of metrics, including ROI;
• Provides a clear picture of how value and cost are affected by risk;
• Allows strategic selection of initiatives to include in an organisation’s investment portfolio;
• Provides insight into the interrelationships of value, cost and risk;
• Produces quantified measures of value, cost and risk to guide the continuing selection, management and evaluation of an investment;
• Provides a better understanding of variables to justify an investment or alternative course of action;
• Addresses the needs of stakeholders, including the public through analysis of alternatives; and
• Supports development of an IT investment portfolio that balances value, cost and risk.

For social software tools, VMM offers a complete and quantitative approach to capturing their value and deciding on investment and feasibility. It focuses on all stakeholders and takes into account the possible alternatives. Also, VMM considers the effects of uncertainty (risk) on the outcome of the project.

IMPLEMENTATION OF VMM

The basic steps involved in implementing VMM are:

• develop a decision framework;
• alternatives analysis;
• pull the information together; and
• communicate and document.

We have developed in Fyronic a structured approach and methodology for these four steps, which will be of assistance to organisations that are embedding Social Media and Enterprise 2.0 tools in their strategy for engagement and collaboration with their various stakeholders.

We would very much welcome comments on this approach.  We can be contacted at by email at Fyronic or via Twitter.

David Demetrius (@Demeto) & Chris Demetrius (@Chris_LD)

Authors: David Demetrius (@demeto) & Franky Redant (@f_redant)

Much is written about adoption of Enterprise 2.0, but adoption is nevertheless slow in most cases.  My belief is that this is largely because those selling the idea to top managment are not hitting the right buttons.  As a former Chairman and CEO of several companies and  a company director for over 30 years, I think I know what would have convinced me to adopt E2.0, had it existed at that time.

How not to sell it

There are several ways to ensure that all but the most geeky techies on the management team will NOT buy into the concept.

• Don’t call it Enterprise 2.0: This sounds too gimmicky.  It doesn’t convey any message that revenues and profits will increase any time soon.
• Don’t use the word ’social‘: CEOs know that it is good for employee motivation for them to have a happy social life, but most of them believe that (apart from Christmas parties and occasional staff drinks) this is something best kept out of the office.
• Don’t emphasise the technical points: Most CEOs do not want to hear about iPads or whether iPhone or Blackberry is better for accessing Twitter when traveling.  And if you descend into discussions about bandwidth, you’ll have lost them completely!

What buttons should you hit?

Instead of the above, I strongly recommend that you concentrate on the following messages.

• Talk about engaging with stakeholders: This is something CEOs understand and know they need to do.  They see stakeholder engagement as one of their key roles in life, be it with employees, customers, suppliers or whomever.  A system that makes this simpler and frees up some of their own time for other activities will be very attractive.
• Emphasise the benefits of collaboration: CEOs know innovation is important.  They have been brought up under the ‘Change or die’ maxim.  Providing them with a collaborative system to innovate more effectively will appeal to them. Real life examples (of which there are many) of companies cutting time to market of new products will impress them.
• Explain the alternative: You can’t sell E2.0 using simple ROI as a measure (any more than you can calculate the ROI of having a roof on the office), but you can point out the costs and risks of NOT incorporating E2.0 in the business.
• Kill the security question early: One of the major concerns of CEOs is that any social media application will put the company at serious risk of leaks of confidential data. Explain early that this is something that clearly has to be avoided, but that there are excellent existing tools for ensuring this (quite apart from clear company policy guidelines, which the CEO will hopefully confirm are already in place).

I hope this helps.  As I think of other suggestions, I’ll tweet them.  (@Demeto)

David Demetrius (Partner and co-founder of Fyronic)

Here are the slides of our seminar on Engaging with your stakeholders using Enterprise 2.0 and Social Media.
Good reactions from everyone in the room. Thnks for attending. Watch out for more..

Fyronic is organising a seminar about the use Enterprise 2.0 and Social Media.

This seminar will help you understand how to use new Social Media and Enterprise 2.0 tools (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Yammer, Social Networking, wiki’s, blogs, folksonomies …) to increase interaction between yourselves and the various other parties you deal with (members, employees, customers, partners etc.)

It will provide information on the relevance of such tools to your organisation. Emphasis will be on the functionality of the various tools, rather than the technical requirements.

If you want to ensure the sustainability of your organisation, if the use of Social Media and related tools are not already part of your strategy, they certainly should be!

The seminar will be held in English.
Date: Tuesday 6th July, 15:30 – 17:30 (followed by drinks and refreshments)
Venue: British Chamber of Commerce in Belgium, Boulevard Bischoffsheim 11, 1000 Brussels

To Register please send an email with your details register@fyronic.com

As we are all swamped by too much information in mails, tweets, facebook posts, documents, rss feeds etc, it becomes more and more difficult to organise this data, to filter it and to find the most relevant pieces of information we are looking for.

An interesting new way of looking at this vast amount of data, is Pivot. Pivot is an experiment from Microsoft Labs to look at data in a different way. Based on the concept of collections, it allows you to see collections of data in different ways and browse through them in a more visual way than ever before.

Have a look at the video that presents Pivot.

Should be interesting to learn where Microsoft will take it next, or will it remain only an experiment.
If they take this further, it could prove very helpful in an intranet environment too.