Enterprise 2.0
3 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.) from Acting for Change
Scoop.it!

Lorem ipsum dolor sit er elit lamet, consectetaur cillium adipisicing pecu, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull...

Lorem ipsum dolor sit er elit lamet, consectetaur cillium adipisicing pecu, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull... | Enterprise 2.0 | Scoop.it

Description


Via Celine Schillinger
हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.)'s insight:

My added insight

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.)
Scoop.it!

Warum Enterprise 2.0 nicht nur auf Technik setzen sollte

Warum Enterprise 2.0 nicht nur auf Technik setzen sollte | Enterprise 2.0 | Scoop.it
Viele Enterprise 2.0 Projekte scheitern, weil sie zu sehr auf die technische Realisierung setzen und dabei andere Faktoren außer Acht lassen. Das fand die Gartner Inc. jüngst heraus, die in einem Forecast die Entwicklung von Social Business und Enterprise Social Networks betrachtet. Die...
हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.)'s insight:

Das Team soll aus allen möglichen, kommunikationsorientierten Bereichen des Unternehmens kommen. Und nicht das Unternehmen gibt das Tool vor, sondern die Mitarbeiter wissen eh recht genau, was sie brauchen.

Zitat:

"Viele Problemlösungen und Innovationsansätze werden nicht von Fachspezialisten gefunden, sondern in vielen Fällen von fachfremden Amateuren aufgezeigt. Dieser ungetrübte Blick aus einem anderen Blickwinkel kann ein Problem auf die einfachste Art und Weise lösen." 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.) from Digitale Strategien
Scoop.it!

Wer ist in den Unternehmen für Enterprise 2.0 und Social Business ...

Wer ist in den Unternehmen für Enterprise 2.0 und Social Business ... | Enterprise 2.0 | Scoop.it
Eine Vielzahl an Studien der vergangenen Jahre beschäftigt sich mit Frage wer die Treiber bei Einführung von Enterprise 2.0 sind.

Via Michael Hafner
हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.)'s insight:

Fun fact: Human Resources sind die geringsten Treiber für die Enterprise 2.0 Entwicklung.

more...
Michael Hafner's curator insight, August 1, 2013 3:55 AM

Mashup: 90 Studien aus den letzten Jahren - Wer treibt Enterprise 2.0?

Management stagniert; Kommunikation, Marketing und IT auf dem Vormarsch

Scooped by हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.)
Scoop.it!

Nutzerzentrierte Intranet-Entwicklung: Mit einer systematischen Vorgehensweise zu mehr Effizienz und Zufriedenheit - contentmanager

Nutzerzentrierte Intranet-Entwicklung: Mit einer systematischen Vorgehensweise zu mehr Effizienz und Zufriedenheit - contentmanager | Enterprise 2.0 | Scoop.it
Intranets sind heute mehr als passive Informationssysteme. Immer mehr Anforderungen und Funktionen müssen die neuen „Digital Workplaces“ erfüllen. Da der Informationsumfang gleichzeitig nicht geringer wird, werden Vorbereitung und Konzeption immer wichtigere Erfolgsfaktoren. Wir möchten daher ein Beispiel aufzeigen, wie ein systematischer ReLaunch-Prozess für ein Intranet aussehen kann, welche Erkenntnisse und Learnings es gibt. Ein Ziel …
हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.)'s insight:

Gute Idee:

"Um sich von Anfang an besser auf die Nutzer zu fokussieren, kann das Erstellen von Personas helfen. Dabei werden typische Nutzer („Archetypen“) anschaulich beschrieben und können bei Entscheidungen oder Konzepten immer wieder als Kriterium herangezogen werden: Welchen Nutzen hätte Persona XY von der Funktion Z? Welche Inhalte würde die Persona am häufigsten nutzen und bräuchte daher einen prominenten Zugang? Für welche Variante von Funktion Z würde sich die Persona entscheiden? Diese und ähnliche Fragestellungen helfen, die Zielgruppen nicht aus den Augen zu verlieren."

 Und das natürlich auch:

"Vor allem aber ist es wichtig, dass die Mitarbeiter das Gefühl bekommen, ein Mitspracherecht zu haben. Wird alles über ihre Köpfe hinweg entschieden, haben sich nicht mal die Chance einen Interessenvertreter zu wichtigen Terminen zu schicken, sinkt die Akzeptanz des neuen Intranets von vornherein. Daher ist es für den späteren Erfolg des Intranets existenziell, den Nutzern Gehör zu verschaffen." 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.) from Acting for Change
Scoop.it!

Socialogy Interview: Celine Schillinger

Socialogy Interview: Celine Schillinger | Enterprise 2.0 | Scoop.it

I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting Celine, our involvement has been limited to virtual discourse online. I hope we can someday sit down face-to-face.


About Celine Schillinger






Celine describes herself this way:




An agent for change, I help global organizations thrive in the new social economy. Social re-engineering of business and organizations is a passion, to increase engagement and business performance. 




As Senior Director, Stakeholder Engagement, Dengue at Sanofi Pasteur, Celine is leading a social re-engineering of the company’s largest vaccine program.


The Interview


Stowe Boyd: I read a piece you wrote last year, Can Social Be Top Down?, and I thought we could start there. You noted that the conventional thinking about adoption of social tools and practices is that top-level executives have to act as advocates, but you question that. It’s obvious that other innovations — like bring your own device, file sync-and-share — don’t require advocacy of top executives. You made the point that today’s executives came up in earlier, competitive, and less cooperative work cultures. So, do you think we have to wait for this generation of execs to die, or can we change cultural norms despite them?

We can’t just stay passive and wait for better times, because adaptation to the social age is not a question of generation. - Celine Schillinger

Celine Schillinger: We can’t just wait for the old-minded leaders to disappear, because unfortunately they have bred and promoted younger generations of managers who think and behave exactly the same. I know many 30-40 year old “high potential” employees and executives who are totally ignorant of social tools and practices. They “don’t believe” [sigh] in Twitter, they take pride in not being on Facebook or else (LinkedIn is the limit), and they “have no time” to learn about available internal social tools and communities.


More importantly, they have full faith in the value of current operating models: pyramidal, elitist, command-and-control, segmented, analytical, process and compliance-based models. Their ambition is to make their way through the system, not to change it. To climb the corporate ladder, they reproduce what has seemingly worked well for their role models: presenteeism, obedience, and power games. Young and ambitious women as well as visible minority people realize at some point that this isn’t quite enough: in many corporate cultures, it remains much easier to climb the ladder when you’re a white man.


Anyway, we can’t just stay passive and wait for better times, because adaptation to the social age is not a question of generation.


We can always try to educate and convince the top-level executives, but I’m afraid focusing on this makes us lose time and energy that are needed for more useful endeavors. You have to pick your battles. In my opinion, it is much more valuable to 1) invest in one’s own understanding of this new world, and 2) build / contribute to the communities one needs to move forward.


We can change cultural norms by being the change.


Even in the absence of decision-making power, we can drive organizations into new directions – by embodying new ways of working (new behaviors, really). If we are astute… and connected, we can achieve great changes. Connection is our major asset. Deep connections, to learn from others, spread change, and establish purpose-based alliances (these are the strongest). Large-scale connections, that are made possible by social technologies, to show our muscles and be heard by the small corporate elite.


SB: There’s a kind of deep pessimism about internal change in your words, even if you are optimistic about being able to make changes via a movement of the adherents of a new work culture, who operate outside the business. Is that what you are getting at?


CS: Ah! A roller coaster is probably what describes best the mood of change agents. Whether we are consultants or internal practitioners, we go through successive phases of gloom and doom, when culture change seems at a standstill, and exhilaration when we achieve progresses. There is no small victory in this respect. Every opportunity we have to make people and organizations work differently shall be seized. The more concrete examples we are able to show, the more stories we can share, the easier it will be to overcome ignorance and resistance. Seeking support and external recognition outside of the organization, to push change forward internally, has worked pretty well in my case. Had I known how difficult it was, in particular in a traditional and conservative industry, I would have started much earlier. But there’s a strong appetite for change within organizations, too.


If someone wants to change something in their workplace, I recommend they search for like-minded fellow workers. People don’t speak up because they believe they’re alone and it is risky and useless; but when they realize they’re actually several, or even numerous, people feel stronger to drive change.


This is actually where I started my “transformational journey” into driving change. It all started by triggering, somewhat by chance, an internal community for gender balance on our corporate social network. The tool was available, so we seized it for a totally new type of initiative: self-organized, bottom-up, inclusive (functional and hierarchical silo agnostic), aiming at creating value. It has shaken the organization pretty much. We need more of this to disseminate social practices in the corporate reality, and ensure their sustainability.

If someone wants to change something in their workplace, I recommend they search for like-minded fellow workers. People don’t speak up because they believe they’re alone and it is risky and useless; but when they realize they’re actually several, or even numerous, people feel stronger to drive change. - Celine Schillinger

SB: Lee Bryant was the first that I know of who said ‘If you start going bottom up, everything has to be bottom up’. By extension, to adopt bottom-up self-organization, then the established top-down sanctioned organizational power structure is undermined. So, social practices and tools are inherently subversive. Your thoughts?


CS: This is very true: social practices and tools are subversive. But we shouldn’t say it too loud, so as not to make social look “dangerous”. Already, the corporate gate keepers perceive social as a challenge, and imagine a daunting world of activists and anarchy. They’re mentally framed by the industrial age management structures and practices, where order and control are far more important than flexibility and creativity. They see the consequences of social in its political variations (Arab Spring) and its use by unhappy customers or citizens. They certainly don’t want this to happen within the corporate walls.


As a result, most companies give a lot of lip service to social collaboration, but don’t invest seriously into it. Or, they focus on tools, because that’s the easy part. They leave the organizational reshuffling and culture change aside – and then wonder why adoption isn’t higher.


Inner social advocates are often mistaken for (or rather: caricatured as) idealists. Our main challenge is to explain that social is actually the new normal.


You can be for or against evolution, but evolution doesn’t care! The world is changing whatever companies do (or do not), and those that don’t adapt will just disappear. I’m doing my share to explain this, and frame it in a positive way. Lee Bryant provides precious inspiration to me, as does the Change Agents Worldwide group to which I belong.


SB: Alfred North Whitehead said ‘It is the business of the future to be dangerous’ so we can’t actually divide the two. I think the real challenge is getting people — managers and workforce, both — to grasp the fact that we are in a time when going slow and steady is perilous, and the counterintuitive acceptance of increased risk tolerance is the surest path forward. That’s not idealism, it’s pragmatism.


I agree that many companies are mired in the past, which is why I think the first step has to be getting people to realize that we are in a new era — the postnormal — where most of the premises that defined the previous postmodern era have dramatically shifted. Have you tried that approach?

Inner social advocates are often mistaken for (or rather: caricatured as) idealists. Our main challenge is to explain that social is actually the new normal. - Celine Schillinger

CS: It is utterly important to explain how the world has changed and why the old ways of working are recipes for disaster. We can’t just tell people they have to work differently, full stop. It is our responsibility as change agents to educate our colleagues, our managers, our organizations. We can do this by organizing educational workshops, by inviting external speakers, by coaching people individually, by sharing stories arising from our own, connected experience. I do this as much as I can.


Another powerful way is to connect those who “get it”. Creating a network of advocates facilitates the dissemination of the vision. It takes a network to spread a network culture. I wrote about this in my last blog post [link], which is about making organizations social. I believe this is about listening to people’s voices, letting them speak, encouraging them to speak (I hardly use the word “empower” now, since I’ve read this great piece by John Wenger) and leveraging the power of free speech. It starts with explaining what the new world is about, as far as we know it.


The new era is full of uncertainties, which can be fantastic opportunities. Companies are still trying to split complexity into bits of simple activities that can be standardized through procedures and administered by a specialist functions (= the usual way). Instead, they should quickly understand their survival depends on shifting mindsets to embrace complexity. There is no other way than developing flexible, adaptive, diverse, network-based structures, cultures and practices.


SB: The abiding question of Socialogy is to ask the question ‘what domain of science should we be looking into for better ideas about how business might be better conducted?’ Recent answers include social network theory, biology, and complexity. What’s your take?


CS: Those fields are indeed very interesting and obviously useful. But I’m a bit puzzled by science worshipping. Science is not the answer to everything. We will not “decode” all about emotions, irrational behaviors, coincidences, life. Science enables human progress, but people are not driven by science. Sometimes, things happen through stuff we don’t understand, and it’s fine.


I’m more interested in impact – changing behaviors – than decoding. So, beside searching for answers in science, I believe we should invest into developing people’s humanity, empathy, capacity to connect with one another. It’s time to bring back the humanities in the center of the picture. We can develop human connectedness through arts, literature, philosophy. Sharing questioning and emotions is at the core of what makes us more human; culture is a great way to foster this.


Globalization is a chance in this respect, as we can create bonds across borders more easily now, but surging inequalities (as shown by Thomas Piketty’s research) are a serious threat to connectedness. We have to do something about this. When we are more able to connect, when we understand each other better, then we’ll conduct better business.


SB: I’m happy to imagine the soft sciences — like anthropology, ethnography, and behavioral research — playing a large role in future business. The evidence suggests that business culture is afraid of creativity — witness the research on the astonishing traditionalism of most CEOs, and why creatives are sidelined — so I’m afraid that I hold little hope of the humanities and arts getting a foothold in business in the next five or even ten years.


Thanks for your time and thoughts.


CS: Thank you Stowe for giving me the chance to speak. Your work inspires many change agents. I hope together we can make the “future of work” concept become soon the “new normal” of work.


This post was written as part of the IBM for Midsize Business program, which provides midsize businesses with the tools, expertise and solutions they need to become engines of a smarter planet. I’ve been compensated to contribute to this program, but the opinions expressed in this post are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions.


Via Celine Schillinger
हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.)'s insight:

What I like:

 

" They (old-minded leaders) “don’t believe” [sigh] in Twitter, they take pride in not being on Facebook or else (LinkedIn is the limit), and they “have no time” to learn about available internal social tools and communities."

 

Yeah! LOL

 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.) from Acting for Change
Scoop.it!

Five Trends Shaping The Future Of Work

Five Trends Shaping The Future Of Work | Enterprise 2.0 | Scoop.it
When it comes to the future of work there are a few key trends which business leaders need to pay attention to.  Understanding these trends will allow organizations to better prepare and adapt to the changes which are impacting the way we work.

Via Celine Schillinger
हाइन्ज़ (Heinz D.)'s insight:

Communication within companies might look entirely different in twenty years than it does now.

more...
No comment yet.