#e2.0

I first joined Twitter in March of 2006. At the time part of my job at Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power, a division of The Boeing Company, was to examine platforms described as examples of what was then referred to as Web 2.0, as well as new applications being referred to as “social media.” I was doing this as a member of the Knowledge Management team for the division, and as the Knowledge…

“Well done is better than well said.” Talk is cheap. Talking about a project won't get it completed. We all know people who constantly talk about the things they are going to do but rarely ever take that first step. Eventually people begin to question their credibility. Taking action and seeing the task through to completion is the only way to get the job done.

Espérons que le futur donnera raison au passé.

Thank you Benjamin !

We are starting beta tests of our iPad app and wanted to take the time to express our appreciation for our users who have provided a list of feature request, explain our design philosophy for this first release and then invite you to join our beta testers by sending us an email at [email protected]

iPad in the Enterprise

Our friend @asymco has put together an historical summary of the adoption of various desktop & mobile OS' and devices. Admittedly, its a bit confusing but reinforces something we've seen anecdotally in boardrooms and meeting rooms across the world: the iPad is displacing the laptop as the device of choice for enterprise users.

What this has meant for us is a desire to focus on the iPad first as a device target, putting it ahead of Android or HTML5, for example. And to really deliver an enterprise-class solution that's focused as we are on the design of professional productivity & group collaboration solutions, designing for the iPad changes everything.

Fieldforce is focused on the problem of being a part of or managing a field team. Teams of sales, support or service professionals who are out of the office more than they're behind a desk. These team are increasingly turning towards smartphones and specifically the iPad to do accomplish task-specific activities like customer sales & support calls, call planning, field education & training, and basic CRM and HCM functions. And the common need for all of these actions is to do them quickly, seamlessly and on their mobile device.

The design of the Fieldforce app on the iPad therefore was driven by the need to allow users to get directly to the actions that matter. And to build, from the ground up, an effective team-based collaboration tool. 

If we've done our job right, we've built the design around a seamless combination of communication and productivity tools where the app "anticipates," and wherever possible presents distilled information in the most easily actionable way. We pre-populate and synthesize information for the users based on their physical location, history and team based context.

Unfortunately there is no definitive roadmap for success or perfect case study we can all replicate. The very nature of Enterprise 2.0 is that the solution needs to be adapted to the one thing that makes every company different: its people.

Autour du dernier billet de Claude Super , proposant un nouveau contrat avec toujours la même pertinence, j'aimerais faire un lien entre le résumé qu'il propose tiré du travail de MIX : All work can be viewed as a service et l'excellent graphique qui résume les différences entre les pratiques actuelles et une orientation services et Qibud.

Pourquoi dans mon espoir du vendredi ?

Parce que ce genre d'approche rejoint les fondements même de Qibud. 

Nous proposons un modèle dont chaque activité réussie enrichi le profil et les "compétences avérées" de celui qui l'a réalisé et de celui qui l'a proposé. Chaque fois que quelqu'un s'investit, il en retire au final récompense et reconnaissance. Ses capacités de services augmentent avec son implication, créant une dynamique de cercle vertueux.

Notre modèle intègre également dans ses fondements ce que nous appelons le "self-involvment" ou le postulat que chacun est plus efficace et productif lorsqu'il choisit de s'investir que quant on le lui ordonne. C'est le changement du Chain of Command, l'abandon progressive des principes hérités de l'organisation taylorienne pour les principes de l'organisation organique, plus proche de l'être humain et répondant donc mieux à ses aspirations.

Alors qu'en un travail résonne avec tant de pertinence avec le nôtre, il est de notre devoir de le relayer.

Nous ne sommes que des gouttes dans l'océan du management, mais les océans ne sont formés que de l'accumulation de petite gouttes.

Alors, mon espoir du vendredi est que nous soyons de plus en plus nombreux à faire évoluer les mentalités et les réfléxions sur ce sujet.

Si ces mots vous parlent, relayez-les et devenez-en les portes-paroles. Si vous n'êtes pas sûr que le monde changera assez vite pour que vous en profitiez, pensez à vos enfants...

Pour ceux qui nous suivent, vous savez certainement que Qibud est basé sur une gestion organique de l'information. Nous commençons donc une série qui visent au travers d'un ensemble d'articles, de références et de réflexions de démontrer les avantages de l'approche organique.

Premièrement, la base, le terme et les concepts ont été inventé dans la fin des années 50 et s'oppose clairement à l'organisation mécaniste ou industrielle.

Organic organisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A term created by Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker in the late 1950s, organic organizations, unlike mechanistic organizations (also coined by Burns and Stalker), are flexible and value external knowledge.

Also called organismic organization, this form of organizational structure was widely sought and proposed, but never proved to really exist since it, adversely to the mechanistic organization, has the least hierarchy and specialization of functions. For an organization to be organic, people in it should be equally leveled, with no job descriptions or classifications, and communication to have a hub-network-like form. It thrives on the power of personalities, lack of rigid procedures and communication and can react quickly and easily to changes in the environment thus it is said to be the most adaptive form of organization.

An organic organization is a fluid and flexible network of multi-talented individuals who perform a variety of tasks, as per the definition of D. A. Morand.

Organic Organizations Leads to Teamwork An organic organization is when the organization exist dependently, meaning that the organization takes into consideration the needs of their employees. Since in an organic organization the ideas and opinions of the employees are taken into consideration, this leads to group leadership and teamwork. Group leadership, is better than individual leadership because there are several people controlling the environment, instead of one person telling everyone what is expected. Since organic organizations takes into consideration the ideas of the employees this opens the doors to create teamwork among employees. The use of Organic Organizations is good because in some way it becomes an incentive to employees to perform to the best of their ability.

[edit]References

The application and implementation of E2.0 is now taking an interesting turn.

While some think that it is to be integrated to other Enterprise applications like ERP others think it must be a stand alone application and kept clear of ERP applications.

This is a difficult question to answer from the point of designing and architecture of E2.0. Each side puts forward arguments that appear strong enough and credible though it does confuse us a lot.

So, we must look at this problem more deeply from a fundamental level based on design principles to have an answer.

I would start in this manner. Communication inside an organization follows the Pareto principle of 80:20, i.e. while 20% of the information is structured, 80% of it is random and unstructured.

ERP applications are very well suited to handle structured information flow. However, they were not designed to take care of unstructured flow of information. The proponents of ERP and E2.0 merger argue - why not? What is the harm if we integrate the two into one application that makes it stronger? Management would then have total control on the information flow sweeping across the organization.

That is precisely where the flaw lies in the design. What is that?

What happens when we mix random signals with periodic signals (ordered)? We all know what might happen. Our music systems wouldn't work any longer. It would be noise all through. Same would happen for any signal processing systems like TV, computers, mobile devices and even for a simple microphone  when 'gain' (feedback loop of noise) enters the system.

The lesson that we get is simple. Random signals and periodically Ordered systems can't be mixed up otherwise only meaningless noise is generated which is of no use to anyone.

The idea of E2.0 on the other hand is to harness the energy latent in such random signals (or a stream of non periodic information) to boost ideas, innovation, improvements, solving problems in order to spur growth of organization. We are in fact drawing the energy from the self organizing behavior of the random information and putting it to use.

So, logically the bottom line is that ERP and E2.0 are strange bedfellows that would refuse to make love and produce an intelligent child for the future. So they are best kept apart and dealt separately in order to be useful and productive.

Therefore, it is important for designers and system architects to take note of the fundamental conceptual error in suggesting a marriage between E2.0 and ERP systems.