Data-Driven Collaboration Part 3: Sustaining Performance through Continuous Value Delivery

In Part 1 of our series on Data-Driven Collaboration, “How Rich Data Can Improve Your Communication,” we identified how to plan for collaboration by ensuring that goals were established and aligned with our organizational strategy. We then moved on to Part 2, “Recognizing Personas and Behaviors to Improve Engagement,” to explain how you can build engagement by managing behaviors. In this, the final post in our series, co-authored by Swoop Analytics and Carpool Agency, we will identify how to sustain the momentum to ensure that value is continuously delivered as a matter of course.

Previously, we identified the importance of migrating from simple activity measures to those that signify when collaborative relationships are being formed. It is through these relationships that tangible outcomes are achieved. Therefore, it is not surprising that analytics—as applied to sustained relationship-building—plays an important role in continuous value delivery from collaboration.

For example, a CEO from one of Carpool’s clients had been using Yammer to receive questions for a regular Q&A session, but they’d grown concerned that the CEO’s infrequent posts in the group were creating an echo chamber among the same small group of contributors. Careful analysis showed that this was more perception than reality, and the group showed a great deal of variety in cross-organization conversation. As this was precisely the executive’s goal in forming the group, the team doubled down on their investment in this executive-to-company relationship.

Monitoring Maturation Using Analytics

At SWOOP, we have been benchmarking Yammer Installations from start-up to ‘normal operations’ for some time. With Yammer, the typical pattern of start-up is a bottom-up use of ‘Free’ Yammer, which for some, lasts for many years. Without exception, however, sustained usage only occurred after a formal launch and the tacit approval of senior management. We observed different patterns of start-ups from the ‘big-bang’ public launch, through to more organic, yet managed approaches. Whatever strategy is used, organizations always reach a stage of steady-state operations or, at worst, a slow decline.

CLASSIC YAMMER

For an Enterprise Social Network (ESN) like Yammer, we have found that the average engagement rate of the 35+ organizations in our benchmark set is around 29% (i.e., non-observers) with the best at around 75%. It is evident from our benchmarking that for larger organizations—for example, more than say 5,000 participants—it can be hard to achieve engagement levels above 30%. However, this doesn’t mean that staff aren’t collaborating.

We are seeing a proliferation of offerings that make up the digital office. For a small organization, Yammer may be their main collaboration tool, where team level activities take place. For larger organizations, however, Yammer may be seen as a place to explore opportunities and build capabilities, rather than as an execution space. Increasingly, tools like Slack, HipChat, and now Microsoft Teams are being used to fill this space for some teams that depend on real-time conversations as their primary mode of communication.

A Collaboration Performance Framework

As organizations mature with their use of collaboration tools, it is critical not to be caught in the ‘collaboration for collaboration sake’ cycle. As we indicated in “How Rich Data Can Improve Your Communication,” collaboration must happen with a purpose and goals in mind. The path to achieving strategic goals is rarely linear. More regularly, we need to adopt a framework of continuous improvement toward our stated goals. For many organizations, this will take the form of a ‘Plan, Do, Check, Act’ cycle of continuous improvement. However, in this age of digital disruptions and transformations, we need a framework that can also accommodate transformational, as well as incremental innovation.

At SWOOP, we have developed a collaboration performance framework drawn from Network Science.

DIVERSITY GRAPHIC

The framework balances two important dimensions for collaborative performance: diversity and cohesion. It identifies a continuous cycle of value delivery, whether it be radical or incremental. Let’s consider an innovation example, with an organizational goal of growing revenue by 200%:

Individuals may have their own ideas for how this radical target could be achieved. By ‘Exploring’ these ideas with others, we can start to get a sense of how feasible our ideas might be, but also have the opportunity to combine ideas to improve their prospects. The important ‘Engaging’ phase would see the ideas brokered between the originators and stakeholders. These stakeholders may be the key beneficiaries and/or providers of the resources needed to exploit a highly prospective idea. Finally, the ‘Exploiting’ phase requires the focus and strong cooperation of a smaller group of participants operating as a team to deliver on the idea.

The performance framework can be deployed at all levels, from enterprise-wide to individual business units, informal groups, teams, and right down to the individual. In a typical Carpool engagement, we work with smaller teams to demonstrate this cycle and then use the success stories to replicate the pattern more broadly. A current client started with a smaller community of interest of 400 people, and is now expanding the pattern to their global, 4,000-member division.

Deploying Analytics and the Performance Framework

Like any performance framework, it can’t operate without data. While the traditional outcome measures need to be present, the important predictors of collaborative success are relationship-centered measures. For example, your personal network can be assessed on its diversity by profiling the members of your network. Your personal network’s cohesiveness can be measured, firstly, by how many of your connections are connected to each other; and secondly, by how many of these connections are two-way (reciprocated). We can then add layers provided from HR systems such as gender, geography, organizational roles, age, ethnicity, etc. to provide a complete picture of diversity beyond typical dimensions.

In the example below, we show the collaboration performance of participants in a large Yammer network over a 12-month period. You can see how challenging it might be to become an ‘Engager’, maximizing both diversity and cohesion.

BUBBLE GRAPH

We profiled their personal networks for their diversity, cohesion, and size, and plotted them on the performance framework. Interestingly the data exposed that the nature of this Yammer network is a place for exploring and, for some, engaging. There is a gap, however, in the Exploiting region. This is not to say that these individuals were poor at putting projects into motion. More likely, at least in this organization, the ESN is not the usual place to collaborate as a team. If there is no easy transition from the ESN to a team environment, then we have a problem that many ESNs experience: lots of activity but a perception of few tangible results directly from the ESN. Carpool’s approach puts this data together with data from other services and sources to create a holistic picture of the results and impact of the organization’s collaboration evolution.

Continuous Monitoring

For many organizations, continuous monitoring simply means monitoring activity on digital platforms. As we indicated in “Recognizing Personas and Behaviors to Improve Engagement,” activity monitoring can be a poor predictor of performance. At SWOOP, we look at activity that establishes or strengthens a relationship. In the screenshot below, you can see measures such as the number of two-way reciprocated relationships; the degree to which relationships are forming between the formal organizational departments; and who is influential, based on the size of their network, not how frequently they contributed. We identify key player risk by looking at how polarized a network may be among a selected few leaders. Even the Activity/User measure inside groups predicts how cohesive that group may be. By providing this data in real-time, we have the best opportunity for both leaders and individuals to adapt their patterns of collaboration as they see fit.

COLLABORATION CHART

At Carpool, our engagements use a set of such dashboards to regularly check in on all the various channels and stakeholders, and make recommendations on an ongoing basis that accounts for the holistic communication picture.

Final Thoughts

In this series, we have taken you on a journey from planning for, launching, and productively operating a digital office. At the very beginning we emphasized the need to collaborate for a purpose. We then emphasized the need to ‘engage’ through relationships and adopting appropriate behavioral personas. Finally, we have explained the importance of adopting a collaboration performance framework that can facilitate continuous delivery of value.

In order to do all of this effectively, we not only need analytics, but interventions triggered by such analytics to improve the way we work. Analytics on their own don’t create change. But in the hands of skilled facilitators, analytics and rich data provide a platform for productive change. Collaboration is not simply about how to get better results for your organization, but also to get better results for yourself, by helping you to be a better collaborator.

Want More?

We hope these insights into data-driven collaboration will give you new ideas to innovate your own approach to internal communication. If you have any questions, or would like to learn how to establish, nurture, and grow deep internal communities, Carpool and SWOOP has a team who are ready to help you grow your business and drive collaboration today.

Yammer Benchmarking Insights #3 – Collaboration at the Personal Level

 In this episode we drill down to the most detailed level. That’s you, the individual collaborator.

At SWOOP we have designed behavioural personas to characterise individual collaboration patterns based on your pattern of activity.For example, if you are a Catalyst, you are good at getting responses to your posts. Catalysts are important for energizing a community and driving the engagement of others. If you are a Responder, you are good at responding to other people’s posts. Responders are important for sustaining a community and extending the discussions. An Engager is able to balance their Catalyst and Responder behaviour and is seen as the Persona to aspire to, as the Engager effectively balances what they give to others in the form of posts, replies, likes etc. and those that they receive from others. Therefore they are well placed to broker new relationships. Broadcasters tend to post without engaging in conversations. Observers are simply not very active, with less than a single activity every 2 weeks. We see Broadcasting and Observing as negative personas.

behavioural-personasWhat does an organisation’s portfolio of Personas typically look like? The results below are generated from our benchmarking results from close to 40 organisations. The lines indicate the minimum-maximum range and the blue square is the average score.

persona-proportions

The large range of % Observers, between less than 10% to over 70%, may reflect the large variation in maturity amongst the organisations we have benchmarked. It may not only be the case of maturity though, as it is fair to say that the smaller organisations have an easier time engaging a higher proportion of their staff with the Enterprise Social network (ESN).  We show the break-up of the active (non-observer) Personas, which shows that Catalysts lead the way with just over 40%, followed by Responders at just under 30%, Engagers just over 20% and Broadcasters at 10%. This would indicate that in general, ESNs are relying on Catalysts to continue to drive participation and then Responders to sustain it.

Personas within Groups

Given that groups are the space where most of the intense collaboration is likely to happen, we were interested in what the Persona patterns were for the leaders of the best performing groups. We used a combination of two-way connection scores and activity scores to identify the strongest groups. We then applied the same measures to the group members to identify the group leaders. In other words, a group leader is someone who has a high number of two-way connections with other group members, and meets a threshold level of overall activity.

Firstly, we plotted all members on a graph, locating them by the size of their network (y-axis) within the group and the number of 2-way connections they have in the group (x-axis). The bubble is sized by their relative levels of interactions (activity). As you can see, the group leaders are clearly identified in the top right hand corner of the graph as different coloured nodes.

persona-tracking

Secondly, we then plotted the top 5 leader’s Persona movements in 1 week intervals, over a 6-month period. In the example above you can see that the leaders played the Catalyst, Engager and Responder roles primarily. The size of the bubbles reflects their relative number of connections made (breadth of influence), for that week. Not all leaders were active every week. What becomes interesting is that we find some leaders have preferred Personas that are sustained over time. Leaders 1 and 4 in this case have a preference for Catalysing and Engaging. Leader 5 prefers Responding. Leaders 2 and 3 appear to be comfortable switching between Personas.

What appears to be important here is that high performing groups need leaders that can cover the spectrum of positive Personas i.e. Catalyst, Engager, Responder. While it’s fine to have leaders who have a preference for a certain behavioural Persona, it is useful to have leaders who can adapt their Persona to the situation or context at hand.

Personal Networking Performance

At SWOOP we use a fundamental network performance framework, which measures performance against the complementary dimensions of cohesion and diversity. We have indicated that individuals with a large number of two-way connections are likely to have more closed and cohesive networks. Cohesive networks are good for getting things done (executing/implementing). From an innovation perspective however, closed networks can be impervious to new ideas. The best ideas come from more open and diverse networks. In our view therefore, maximum network performance occurs by optimising diversity and cohesion. In other words, it’s good to be part of a strong cohesive network, but this should not be at the expense of maintaining a healthy suite of more diverse connections.

In the graphic below we have plotted the members of one large group on the Network Performance graph. In this case the diversity is measured by the number of different groups that an individual has participated in. The size of the bubbles reflects the size of the individual’s network (breadth of influence).

personal-network

We have labelled regions in the graph according to our Explore/Engage/Exploit model of innovation through networks. We can see that the majority of group members exist in the ‘High Diversity/Low Cohesion’ Explore region. This is consistent with what many people give for their reasons for joining a group. The ‘Engage’ region shows those members who are optimising their diversity/cohesion balance. These are the most important leaders in the group. In an innovation context, these people are best placed to broker the connections required to take a good idea into implementation. The bottom right corner is the Exploit region, which for this group is fairly vacant. This might suggest that this group would have difficulty organically deploying an innovation. They would need to take explicit steps to engage an implementation team to execute on the new products, services or practices that they initiate.

The Innovation Cycle – Create New Value for Your Organisation

We conclude this third edition of Yammer Benchmarking insights be reinforcing the role that individuals can play in creating new value for their organisations. For many organisations, the ESNs like Yammer are seen as a means for accelerating the level of innovation that is often stagnating within the formal lines of business.

As individual’s we may have a preference for a given style of working, as characterised by our Personas. Your personal networks may be large, open and diverse; or smaller, closed and cohesive; or indeed somewhere in between. It is important however to see how your collaboration behaviours contribute to the innovation performance of your organisation. Innovation is a collaborative activity, and therefore we recommend that in your groups you:

  1. Avoid lone work (Observing/Broadcasting) and look to explore new ideas and opportunities collaboratively, online (Catalysing/Engaging/Responding).
  2. Recognise that implementing good ideas needs resources, and those resources are owned by the formal lines of business. Use your network to engage with the resource holders. Make the connections. Influence on-line and off-line.
  3. When you have organisational resources behind you, it’s time to go into exploit mode. Build the cohesive focussed teams to execute/implement, avoiding distractions until the job is done.

 

Who Should Decide How You Should Collaborate or Not?

In a recent post pre- Microsoft’s recent Ignite 2016 conference, we intimated that we hoped that in the push to build the ultimate office tool that the core features of the component parts were not sacrificed in the name of standardisation. I can happily say now that post MS Ignite it appears that, at least for the product we are most interested in, Yammer, has re-surfaced as a more integral part of Office 365, without sacrificing its core value proposition. As a Yammer core user, it appears now that as circumstances arise, where our collaboration partners might need to manage content, collaborate in real time, schedule and manage an event, we will be able to seamlessly access these core functions of other components like Sharepoint, Skype, Outlook etc.. Now while of course we know events like MS Ignite are mostly to announce intentions, more so than working products, it is comforting to see a positive roadmap like this.

In effect Office 365 is now offering a whole multiplex of collaboration vehicles. There will be individuals looking for a simple ‘usage matrix’ of what to use when. Yet collaboration can mean different things to different people. Is working in your routine processing team a collaboration? Is reading someone else’s content a collaboration? Is sending an email a collaboration?

How do we define Collaboration?

A couple of years ago Deloitte Australia’s economics unit produced a significant report on the economic value of collaboration to the Australian economy. As part of the process Deloitte surveyed thousands of workers looking for how they spent their time at work, specifically related to collaboration activities:

collab-blog-tif

While the numbers will vary between individuals, we can look at the categories as typical work tasks and then look to map them to O365 components. For me the nearly 10% ‘Collaboration” is a natural home for Yammer, and probably “Socialising”. Routine tasks fit nicely into Sharepoint and Team sites. Outlook for Routine Communication. The individual work maps very nicely to core office 365 tools like Word, Excel and Powerpoint. So what we can see is that O365 can be nicely mapped to the O365 components. But does just knowing this help us use it productively? Who decides how we should interact and how?

Who should control collaboration?

The Deloitte work characterisation separates “collaboration” out from “interactions” as activities that staff engage in to be able to improve the way they work; improvising and innovating. While it may constitute only 10% of their work time on average, the impact is in improving the productivity of say routine tasks, routine communication and even individual work. So is it the role of managers to dictate modes of collaboration for their staff? Maybe its community managers of workplace improvement specialists? As the workplace moves to become more distributed and networked it is quickly becoming beyond that capability of specialist roles to orchestrate collaborative processes, without bloating the middle manager layers.

So what are we left with? I believe that it all comes back to the individual to “negotiate” how they interact and collaborate and how. As it turns out, the one who knows best as to how to improve your productivity is yourself. This comprehensive study on time-wasting by Paychex found that the most effective way to reduce time wasting is more flexible time scheduling or time off. Carpool recently ran an experiment in working from anywhere. Carpool CEO Jarom Reid speaks about the productivity improvements available when you have the flexibility of not being tied to a physical office. In the industrial age we became used to executives jobs being solely about linking and communication. However Reid, being the leader of a digitally enabled organisation, values having personal time where he can feel more productive than in the office. Andrew Pope writes about the dangers of over-collaboration. We all want our collaborations and interactions with colleagues to be productive. We feel we are over-collaborating when we feel we have wasted time in non-essential meetings. Pope suggests that individuals should take control of their collaboration activities to match their natural styles and tendencies, rather than trying to adhere to a particular organisational norm.

How will Office 365 Help?

So how would the new world of Office 365 support individual preference led collaboration? For those of us that have been used to living in Yammer or Sharepoint or Outlook it does put the onus on the individual to become competent in all the key toolsets, if we are to accommodate the potential preferences of our collaboration partners and avoid “tool solos”.

The nice thing about the Office 365 roadmap is that the tool silo walls have become more elastic. We can form a group from Yammer to explore an idea and then form a team to exploit the idea still inside Yammer, without having to move to a Teamsite. Alternatively, we can reach out from a Teamsite into a broader community group inside Yammer, if and when the need arises.  The benefits in making this investment in learning is the flexibility it can afford to enable you, as an individual, to be in charge of your own productivity and performance.

 

 

 

 

Looking Beyond the Product to the Purpose: MS Office 365 Groups

Need a conversation starter? How about the Mac vs PC? IPhone vs Galaxy? Facebook vs Twitter? Beach vs Mountains? Clinton vs Trump? Nothing better to while away a few hours than an animated conversation and debate about why I might prefer one product over another. We all know in the end that despite extensive reported analyses and feature lists and the like, our choices are likely deeper than a simple feature by feature trade-off. It’s much subtler than that. An Apple zealot is aligning with Apple’s stated core purpose; its user experience mantra. People will keep lining up outside Apple stores as long as Apple can sustain its mantra. A swipe instead of a click may not seem much, but for an Apple zealot it reinforces their strong preferences to buy Apple.

These were the thoughts going through my mind as I took the deep dive to try and understand what Microsoft’s Office 365 Groups was really all about. Like most Yammer followers I fear the day when Yammer groups might be replaced by some generic “one size fits all” group structure. Of course Microsoft are quick to point out that O365 Groups are not a product but a “Groups Service”. I then spent over an hour listening to a Benjamin Niaulin more in depth webinar on the ‘product’. Benjamin used slightly more colourful terminology like a ‘fabric’ or ‘experience’ to describe O365 Groups. Yes, it appears like the ultimate ‘plug and play’ for groups. And like Benjamin, I believe there is a lot of positives to be said about the O365 Groups vision, if indeed Microsoft are able to get the ‘plumbing’ right. But I was still left with one nagging concern. As a long term Yammer supporter I believed in the purpose of the founders. I could forgive some deficiencies (I can’t edit a post I made…really?) because I felt that our purposes were aligned and therefore on the whole, the pluses would far outweigh the minuses. O365 Groups felt like Head Office had come to invade my world for the ‘greater good’. While I’m fully supportive of the ‘greater good’; could we just ensure that no ‘babies are thrown out with the bath water here?’.

Benjamin Niaulin did a great job of promoting the O365 Groups’ ‘Experience’ over the underlying products, imploring us to think in terms of user experience rather than Yammer, Sharepoint, Outlook, Skype etc.; which brings me to the point about ‘purpose over product’. Our experiences are largely driven by purpose, which is also impacted, but not totally directed, by our work roles. In our work analysing organisational networks  we regularly see collaboration patterns following the formal organisational structures. This reinforces to us that work is being conducted as designed by the organisation. However, it’s far from black and white. We also just as regularly see informal patterns of collaboration that are utterly invisible to the senior management. Is this non-compliance? Sometimes it is. More regularly though, it’s simply people being people and improvising around the formal lines of business, to fulfil their needs and purposes.

So if O365 Groups is to fulfil the promise of a customisable user experience one must look below the product features of the underlying products, through to the core purpose of what that product was created for in the first place. With many of these product components now having been acquired by Microsoft, it is important to not lose what made these products attractive in the first place. With this in mind the O365 Groups’ ‘Experience’ can build on the strengths of these products, rather than what many of us fear; a compromise solution that will detract from the experiences that we have worked hard to achieve in the pre-O365 Groups world.

For me it would be as simple as sitting down with some lead users and developers of the underlying product suite and asking questions like (with my answers for Yammer as an example):

  1. What core principles do you think this product’s designers had when they first developed the product?”
    • Not a hard one. I believe ‘networking and community’ is the core theme
  2. “What are some core features that to you exemplify the core purpose?”
    • The ability for anyone in the organisation to create and self-manage a group/community, without management oversight, is a core feature for community.
  3. “What was the core business problem that you believe these designers had in mind?”
    • As evidenced by the post-acquisition activities of the Yammer founders, the ‘Unresponsive Organisation’ was a key business target
  4. “What current features/use cases have been added for convenience more so that reinforce the core purposes?”
    • I think some of the features to ‘compete’ with shorter term team collaboration options e.g. instant messaging (now gone anyway), high frequency email alerts (though can be controlled). Perhaps security is another; do we really need private groups in Yammer?
  5. “What are the 3 most important new core purpose features you would like to see irrespective of the Office 365 Groups charter?”
    • With a focus on reinforcing the core ‘networking and community’ purpose, I would like to see a stronger focus on facilitating deeper relationships in communities. Also it’s important that communities do not become siloes in their own right, so some visibility of interconnectedness (or otherwise) between groups/communities is important. Thirdly, perhaps extending the group admin features to cater for differing group/community leadership roles like conversation moderator, content manager, event organiser etc..

If we were to complete a similar exercise with leaders/developers of Team Sites, Outlook, One Drive, Skype I suspect we would find:

  • Non-overlapping core purposes. Office365 Groups needs to avoid any erosion in functionality that support core purposes.
  • Several non-core features of one product that are core features of another. These can comfortably be stripped away once the plumbing is complete to the alternative source, if and when needed.
  • A product roadmap that would build up the product peaks (core purpose), rather than fill up the valleys with compromised features.

office-blog

Q&A: Start-ups vs Large Corporates

start-up-versus-corporate

SWOOP Analytics celebrated its 2nd Birthday late last month with our distributed workforce face to face, many for the first time; and also many of our early adopter partners and clients. Unlike most start-ups addressing the consumer market, SWOOP Analytics targets the ‘big end of town” i.e. large corporates and public institutions who’s procurement practices go far beyond someone simply pushing the ‘buy’ button. We have been fortunate to have several highly experienced executives and consultants advising us on our product startup journey. We thought we would take advantage of their presence to conduct a mock Q & A panel session, modelled on the ABC show Q & A. We chose our panel members based on their experience with working and advising both start-ups and large corporations. Our panel topic was “How can Startups work Effectively with Large Corporates”.

Here were our selected panel members:

Dr. Eileen Doyle

Eileen is an experienced executive and company director for big end of town companies like BHP, OneSteel, Boral, GPT, Port Waratah Services, Oil Search and the CSIRO. We also identified Eileen as one of the most connected female company directors on the ASX in our ASX networking studies. But most importantly she is also an Angel investor in Swoop and a former chair of Hunter Angels, so she was well qualified to join our panel.

Ross Dawson

Ross is recognized as one of the world’s leading futurists. He is regularly engaged for keynote speeches and consulting advice by the ‘big end of town’ clients like Macquarie Bank, Ernst & Young, Proctor & Gamble, News Ltd and many more about what is coming ‘down the pipeline of future technologies’. A long term friend of the Swoop founders, Ross is an entrepreneur himself, with several startup initiatives on the go.

Allan Ryan

Allan is the founding director of the Hargraves Institute, celebrating its 10th birthday this year as a leading community for major corporations focusing on innovation.  Many of Australia’s leading organisations have been sharing their innovation experiences and practices in the Hargraves community. And Allan has had a front row seat in observing how large and complex organisations are addressing the innovation challenge.

swoop-panelists

The panel were actively ‘grilled’ by an enthusiastic audience. And the panel to their credit, responded in good spirit. Here are some nuggets of wisdom shared by our panel:

  1. How can big corporations work more effectively with start-ups?

Eileen shared the mindset is different in a large corporate, where you have to look at risk in a different way. The balance between risk and reward is tilted to risk in a large corporate and reward in a start-up, which is why the majority of start-ups fail. Interaction between the two works well when there’s a genuine need that the large corporate has, which aligns with what start up is doing. Her advice is investors will not get rewarded if corporations don’t take risks, it’s ok to fail which we need to learn to celebrate.

Ross shared that it’s key for big corporations to set up mechanisms to deal with start-ups, like accelerators, incubators and hackathons. There needs to be more structures and governance to support transformation. As a Futurist he helps people think about the future to make better decisions today, that will make a different in the future.

From his work at Hargraves Institute, Allan shared that large organisations are maturing rapidly. His advice to start ups was to find the most mature area which has the need for your service and give them a solution that doesn’t give them great risk to test and try.

  1. Quality versus innovation?

An audience member asked about the importance of IT security for starts ups and another shared it can be boring to get the basics right, how crucial is this for successful innovation? Panelist’s shared:

  • Start-ups need to get their disaster recovery and IT security right, at least to the level of the Organisation they’re engaging with.
  • Start–up products need to have their quality right and be tried and tested. Quality is more important than innovation where there are winners and losers.
  • Start-ups need to adopt a philosophy of forever getting better in the basics and making sure they’re improving.
  1. Can Australia become the Silicon Valley of the Southern Hemisphere?

For Australia to further foster the success of start-ups Panelist’s suggestions included:

  • Linking the quality of Australia’s research to effective commercialisation on a global scale
  • Promoting innovation as ‘invention accepted by the market’ by private and public businesses spending more in this area.
  • The Government providing tax breaks and recognition of greater risk.
  • Universities taking a what’s best for the whole country mindset versus what individual academics might want to do.
  • Encouraging small businesses to be more innovative and teaching kids how to have fun doing new things.

Our takeaway message was large corporates have multiple entry points, so it’s important not to get discouraged and keep looking for the people that have roles with a larger risk profile in them.

Image citation: https://www.tnooz.com/article/startup-chic-vs-corporate-geek-can-gen-y-retention-predict-success/

 

 

What do Customer Communities have in Common with Employee Communities?

In June we wrote a blog post “Is Bridging the Enterprise-Consumer Social Networking Divide a Bridge too Far”, which went to some length in describing why these two worlds appeared to be operating in different solar systems.  In fact, we pointed out that blindly adopting the media centricity and activity measures from consumer social networking into the Enterprise, could actually cause more harm than good. In this post we want to explore what might be common and potentially useful adoptions from the consumer world to inside the Enterprise. I must say that this post has been influenced by Michael Wu  coming to town and telling us a little about his perspectives on the ‘Science of Social’ . Michael is the chief scientist at Lithium, an organisation that specialises in customer communities. While my interest in customer communities is somewhat less than my interest in Enterprise communities, Michael Wu is well regarded in the world of data science, so I was sure to learn something from him; and I wasn’t disappointed.

The two key insights I took away was that Enterprise Social Networks (ESN) are not social networks as we have come to perceive them; and secondly there is some useful commonality between customer communities and employee communities.

On the first insight, this is how Dr Wu characterised the customer engagement journey:

customer-community

In his commentary he positioned Facebook as a social network of pre-existing relationships, of which only some were based on shared common interests. In his view social networks were good for building awareness and reach, but not in influencing a purchasing action. For this level of influence, he promoted the role of the customer community; where actions could be more effectively influenced by those with a shared context. In essence he was arguing that each played their respective roles at different parts of the engagement funnel. When I look at ESNs like Yammer, there is no explicit connections being built like in Facebook or LinkedIn i.e. connections being sought and accepted. We do have Twitter like ‘Follows’ which can be interpreted as a network; but follower networks are more like one-way subscriptions trails and therefore would only weakly imply a relationship exists. So in essence, ESNs do not have the benefit of an authenticated social graph in the way that Facebook and LinkedIn do.

The point in common is in Figure 2, showing the customer community. The lack of a social network to create ‘reach’ is less of an issue for the Enterprise, as they have corporate directories for that purpose. The Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action phases in the funnel could equally be applied to the multitude of employee communities established in the ESN. Having an ‘Action’ as the end point we feel is entirely appropriate for an Enterprise community. As we have written previously, without actions, tangible value from an ESN is questionable.

dr-wuA key new message that Dr Wu provided was on his recent work with Geoffrey Moore on a four gears model for viral adoption. Wu suggests that those joining a group or community (acquire gear) immediately gain a ‘weak tie’ with all other members on the strength of their shared interest. The ‘engage’ gear helps turn some of these ‘weak ties’ into ‘strong ties’ and eventually trusted relationships; through the vehicle of online discussions and conversations. The ‘enlist’ gear acknowledges that there will be ‘super users’ who will drive the conversation and facilitate many of the connections. In SWOOP these are our Catalyst  and Engager  personas. In the Customer community, these people become the influencers and advocates. The final gear is ‘monetise’, which means making a sale and earning some revenue. Some would suggest that this is totally appropriate for the Enterprise as well. However, it is fair to say that Employee communities can be much more diverse than a customer community and therefore the action isn’t always as easily connectable to a monetary return. That said, this ‘performance gear’ should be able to connect actions taken by the community members, to the Enterprise’s mission and goals, as a minimum.

So there we have it. While Consumer and Enterprise Social Networks do appear to work in different solar systems, there is just enough of an overlap to make the learning worthwhile.