Earlier this month the North American MAKE  (Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise ) award winners were announced and the list is as below:

• Apple
• APQC
• ConocoPhillips
• Fluor
• Google
• Hewlett-Packard
• IBM
• IDEO
• Microsoft
• MITRE

Some of the parameters on which MAKE awards are given are:

• Creating a knowledge-driven enterprise culture
• Developing knowledge leaders and workers
• Innovation (R&D, creativity and new product/solution/service design and delivery)
• Maximizing enterprise intellectual capital
• Enterprise-wide collaboration and knowledge sharing
• Creating a learning organization

The question I have is:

How many of the above organizations have a dedicated KM Function responsible for implementing KM within these organizations and full time CKO’s leading the KM Function? To the best of my knowledge, Apple, Google, IDEO do not have any KM function and yet they are considered.

Some time back I had written this post about “Does KM needs a Dedicated KM Function to be successful” where I had raised some questions about organizations like Apple, Google and others being truly representative of today’s knowledge led enterprises in every sense and do not need a KM function to practice KM. It’s just a way of being for them…

So, do we really need a dedicated KM function for achieving the above? Well, Apple, Google, IDEO and others don’t think so…

Surely, somewhere something is just not right in the KM world…

With the advent of web2.0 and the perceived success of these technologies, tools, applications & platforms on the internet, making these tools & applications available behind the firewall seems to be the flavor of the season. It seems that any organization worth it’s salt ‘has to have‘ a enterprise 2.0 or web2.0 or a social strategy.  Most of the time, the people leading these initiatives don’t understand the essence of ‘web2.0/social’ applications and these initiatives then get reduced to rolling out blogs, wiki’s, social networking tools behind the firewall and asking people to use them.

This strategy of just rolling out social networking tools, without understanding why social computing works on the internet, is a recipe for disaster and any enterprise2.0 or social computing initiative based on a focus of just the ‘technology’ part will be short lived and not go anywhere. Anyone leading a social computing initiative behind the firewall needs to understand the ’social science’ behind the ‘computing’ to appreciate why it has worked in the internet world and what all ’social’ factors need to be considered and appropriate changes that need to be made in order for it to work in the more restricted ecology of a modern organisation.

Some of the underlying ’social’ concepts that one needs to understand are:

• User Participation: What factors drive user behavior and participation in social computing platforms on the internet? What are the key drivers and how is the organizational playground different from the internet w.r.t these key factors & drivers?
• Emergence & Evolution: Do the managers & leaders of the organization understand the role of emergence in social computing or are they impatient and need all answers upfront and a ‘predictable‘ outcome with all intermediate steps outlined?
• Managing vs Nurturing: Does the environment of the organization  create space for nurturing of people, ideas, thoughts, aspirations of employees or is the organization all about managing numbers, KRA’s etc.
• The Arena Itself: What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander here. The dynamics, the participation levels, the numbers of people participating in the social applications on internet would be vastly different from that behind the firewall.
• Value Networks: Do organizations that want to extend the social computing platforms to their customers/partners etc understand that this is not just as simple as offering these platforms to customers? What are the additional things that need to be done?
• Cultural Alignment: The ’secret sauce’ according to me in the whole recipe of social computing behind the firewall. One could have an organization that understands all this but still does not have the right cultural alignment to make social computing work. What are the critical factors w.r.t culture here?

Social computing has the potential to transform how business operates, how the flow of business knowledge, insights, intelligence and collaboration happens across the organization. Social computing can create alternative & more effective ways of communicating and collaborating across the organization, but the  key to that promise lies in how well the leaders of the social computing initiative understand the above ’social’ concepts & realities.

I will try and outline the key aspects of  each of the above points in more detail in my subsequent posts.

The dot com era in the late 90’s and early part of this decade had all kinds of businesses vying to be on the internet and become ‘online‘. You had online shopping, dating, banking, grocery, friends, home pages etc etc.

In the past 3-4 years, the same can be said about the ’social’ or web2.0 phenomenon. everyone ants to build some kind of a social network application and ride the wave. So, this had me thinking that if in today’s world, one wants to build a truly successful social application, where are the opportunities for this? Which areas should one look at for building the next big social application.

I analyzed the current successful (a relative term) social applications and the ‘areas‘ that they are in. These are by no means the definitive social applications but are listed as representative samples of applications in various areas.

The first level nodes in the mindmap below represent the areas. For example, YouTube is about making videos social & open, twitter is about making SMS/messaging social & open and so on…

Click Here for a bigger image

I believe that if one wants to build the next successful social application, then one could always try and build a better and game changing social application OR find out areas that are not yet ’socially enabled’ and create social applications in that space.

I can bet that the next twitter/facebook would not be in the areas mentioned above but in adjacent areas or areas not mentioned above.  Now, I need to go and find out those areas and..!!!

Getting ideas

Dave Snowden in his address on Social Computing & KM during the KM India summit brought about a point on how current organizational structures are not suited for creating social networks and hinder performance. Dave explained this with the Matrix Organizational Structure where people have multiple reporting relationships and no one is sure which way their loyalties should be.

Dave talked about the “Crew or Military Model” of team formation which he termed as more adaptive in nature based on the concepts of  “Role” & “Expectation of role”. He explained this with an example of how teams are formed in airlines or ships. People who may or may not have worked before come together to form a team and work as a team based on an understanding of what each persons role is and what to expect from that role.

In the IT industry this model, in intent, is a model that most software development organizations ‘aspire’ to implement while creating teams for developing software. I believe that in theory this is a good concept but there are several questions that need to answered and various soft aspects thought.

• “Crew” model would work for teams where the tasks are repeatable, tasks which have little room for variation and have to be done “the same as before way” on time. Tasks which have the procedures defined and the job of the person doing is to just follow the procedures and do it.   For example;  airline crew. pilot, co-pilot, air hostess, stewards, checkin counter assistants. The kind of tasks involved are routine, repeatable, well documented, and need to be performed with precision every time.

• In the software industry, for example each development project is unique and the development life-cycle is ‘not predictable‘ to say the least.  To compound matters, skills required may not be available and training may have to done while on the job. This is not the case in crew model where almost all the times things are predictable and follow a predictable sequence.  For example, in an airplane you can predict what would happen from the time you take a boarding pass and go to your seat to the time you get down from the flight. It is all very very predictable, linear & sequential. There is no room for variation — unless it is a private chartered russian flight

• Though one may say that even in software development we have roles like PM, Technical Leads, DBA’s etc etc and we know what is expected of that role. However, the reality is that software development is an iterative, some what chaotic, emergent process. There is a complex interplay between all stake holders to create the ‘intangible’ software that people want. Now by very nature of their business, airlines/ships can’t have an iterative, some what chaotic, emergent process to the nature of work that teams do there. Imagine a team of  air hostess emulating an iterative, some what chaotic, emergent process to serve the passengers.!!!

• Another important element is the “customer engagement” in the whole development life-cycle itself where requirements are fluid and can keep changing. Now one could argue that even in a ship or a airplane there is engagement required with the customers, but that engagement and the choices available and hence the options that the crew can exercise are from a limited set that is almost well known in advance.  It would be only in an adverse situation of a ship capsizing or a plane mishap (e.g. hi-jack) that the engagement model between all the participants becomes fluid and relatively unknown.

• The most important aspect I feel is the “nature of work” itself.  By very nature, software engineering calls for continuous learning & updation of skills while on the job. This is not necessarily true for airline or ship teams. Not to say that they don’t need to learn or improve their skills but that is within a very narrow band and at a slow pace than in software engineering. This aspect leads to totally different  behavioral, motivational, aspirational & emotional factors within individuals that then influence people, teams & how they work.

• I also think that teams in crew models the teams need to “coordinate” with each other to perform the task whereas in software development teams need to “collaborate” with each other to perform the task. These two things may look similar but call for totally different actions, engagement models within teams.

The above are just some of the many questions out there. What do you think?

Would ‘Crew or Military’ models of team formation work effectively in software developments? What could be other challenges and opportunities?

Let me illustrate what I mean by 2 examples:

#1: Some time back I had posted about alleged malpractices of Skoda India and so did many other bloggers around India. This incident had nothing to do with me personally and was just my views on what I had heard on an automobile forum. I do not (and don’t intend to) own a Skoda car and yet someone from Skoda India read my blog and here is the comment they posted on my blog and the emails they sent to me had the following (name/email/phone number masked to prevent misuse):

“Please get in touch with Mr. XXXXX from the Skoda after sales department on xxxxx@skoda-auto.co.in or 0240 xxxxxx to resolve your concerns”

Now this action on behalf of Skoda India an act of reaching out just for the sake of reaching out. It has no value at all and just be reading it shows the lack of sincerity that is obvious in the interaction. Here I saw presenting my views and I don’t even own a Skoda and how would reaching out to  “Skoda after sales department” help me ??

#2: Sometime back I along with few friends went to a reputed/upscale restaurant for dinner and since we had landed up there without reservation we had to wait for a table. After some time of waiting we were given a table and a smartly dressed, smiling, english speaking waiter came to the table and asked us if we would like regular water or mineral bottled water. We mentioned our choice and he went away and brought water and even poured for us.
As we settled down, the manager came to our table and mentioned that we were given a table that was actually meant for some one else  (a family that had been waiting for some time now) and would it be possible for us to wait for another table and have that family take this table. He made a sincere request and we all agreed and we told the waiter that we will wait  for a table. After some 10 minutes or so we got a table and we settled down there.

Now the same smartly dressed, smiling, english speaking waiter comes to our table  and asks us this question: “would you like regular water or mineral bottled water sir”. we were like zapped..!!! That person, just 10 minutes ago had a conversation with us and had taken our preference and even poured water for us and how come he doesn’t even remember what kind of water do we want???
He was just smiling and that smile just said one thing… “fake smiles & customer service — just for the sake of it”…

Let me put in a disclaimer first: I am no innovation & creativity expert and firmly believe that innovation needs to be embedded in our thought process in everything we do.

However, I have been involved with and seen quite a few aspects of innovation, creativity etc from close quarters and have interacted with the so called innovation SME’s from the industry quite often.

Few days back, some of my friends were discussing about innovation & role of ‘innovation experts’ and an interesting case of  an ’self styled, keyboard’ innovation expert came up. She was working as an innovation expert and was responsible for creating an innovation culture within the organization.  It came about that all she did was bitch about how the organization was not ready for innovation & no one listened to her & how that organizations innovation strategy was all wrong, etc.. etc. Now, think of it, she was responsible for doing all this.  If all this was already there and the organization was ready and things were rosy, then why did the organization even need her in the first place

Friends from that organization mentioned that all she did in that organization was read books, blog, attend conferences, confuse people with theories, use jargon and project herself as an innovation expert. “she was happy talking about innovation rather than helping with/demonstrating innovation” was what people told me.

Here are some of the key points that came out of an intense discussion about these so called/self styled “innovation experts”.

• Most of the times these innovation experts have NO CLUE to what they are talking about and are far removed from reality/business context
  • The irony is that these experts try to cover this aspect in the name of innovation/creativity to be as blue sky as possible
• Most of the experts have read a couple of books on innovation etc and then use jargon’s from these books to ‘demonstrate’ their know how as innovation experts
  • In the process these so called innovation experts have become “keyboard” or ‘armchair” experts doling out advice
• Most of the experts are REAL experts in scanning the internet for news/articles that talk  about innovation and then these ‘keyboard’ innovation experts try and show which technique was used and how a great idea it was
  • Here they refer to books that they have read to justify their theory and techniques used
• The above 2 (reading books & commenting on techniques used in articles) creates a self fulfilling cycle where the only work these so called ‘innovation experts’ are doing is the above 2
• Most of these experts have not done ANY innovation in their own domain/work areas. ZILCH is mostly what you will find. All they like to do is “talk” and not “do”. Most of their talking/writing is also almost always about ‘past’ and seldom about future. At best their future talk is very ‘general’ and of very low value

It is also important to mention that there are some great “innovation students” who are not called “innovation experts” but have managed to learn and appreciate about the role of innovation/creativity in their core work area. I know of a couple of such ‘innovation students’ who are very very technically competent and in senior positions and are successfully trying to mesh innovation/creativity into their every day work and things they do.

My money on furthering the cause of innovation lies in such ’students’ rather than the  ‘experts’… These experts are nothing but the One Eyed Kings in the Land of the Blind…

A series of interesting and very powerful real life events are unfolding that are showing the power of a well know online community vs corporate muscle power.

“Mr Harish has been an unfortunate recipient of Skoda’s appalling standards of service. His only fault? That he spent 12 lakh rupees on the wrong brand. His Skoda had parts worth a whopping 4.0 lakh rupees replaced by counterfeit ones by Skoda’s official dealer / representative; fake parts that could have taken a toll on his family’s life (e.g. fake brake discs installed in his car). Now, Skoda is busy fighting him in court. Not to mention, his Skoda Octavia has yet not been returned to him. IN A YEAR!

Instead of apologising and making up to its so-obviously-wronged customer for their dealer / representative misdeeds, Skoda continues to fight the poor gentleman.

Harish turned to Team-BHP for support and posted his entire Skoda ordeal here (Skoda dealer changes parts in my car = Consumer Court = Car not returned in a YEAR!) with FACTS and supporting pictures.

Skodas response: Threaten the community and trying to curb freedom of speech.

Obviously, this has created a stir within the Team-BHP Community. Members are angry and united against Skoda.

Follow the full story here:

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/54881-skoda-dealer-changes-parts-my-car-consumer-court-car-not-returned-year.html

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/55796-team-bhp-stands-truth-but-skoda-wants-instigate-team-bhp-its-users.html

This is going to be a big one and will show the power of online communities in the digital age.

Does an organization need a dedicated and separate KM function in order for it to do KM?

If one looks at great organizations like Google, Apple Yahoo (who are considered to be great Knowledge led organizations), they don’t have dedicated KM functions. What’s important is that the basic tenets, ethos and culture of KM needs to be part of the organizations ‘being’, the way of life — akin to the breathing process, doing it continuously without even realizing it.

All the above organizations (and many more) are role models in the knowledge era. The great thing about these organizations create processes & structures that truly embody the spirit of the ‘needs’ of the knowledge worker and through that they are able to attract the best talent and provide them with an environment that goes to the core of what knowledge management espouses.  They don’t do KM for the sake of KM and saying ‘oh, we also do KM and realize the importance of it and hence we have dozens of knowledge managers supporting KM’…

I personally believe in the approach taken by the Google, Apple Yahoo type organizations as an effective way of doing KM.

For the ‘regular’ organizations I believe that creating a dedicated KM function is a good thing to bring ‘focus’ on KM and giving it legitimacy. This will send the right signals and help get going.

However, for KM to be truly effective in those organizations, over a period of time, the KM function should strive for  enabling the different parts of the organizations to do KM themselves and not rely on the KM function. This is where KM needs to be part of the organizations ‘being’, the way of life. This should be the role and end goal of CKO’s and they should also be measured on this aspect. Once the above has started to happen (and this should happen in a measurable/definite time frame) then the KM function should be considered for  dissolution and the charter of the KM function should become to just oversee it’s disbanding

The above may look good in theory but there are practical challenges like (just some of the many…):

• Over a period of  time the person leading the KM function can get attached to it and can find it difficult to let go.
• KM has overlap with almost all functions and in the beginning there is less conflict and at a conceptual level people agree for KM to work on the areas of overlap and make progress. As clarity emerges and overlap areas gain traction, the different functions start voicing or thinking about what do these overlaps mean and start questioning this.
• This creates ground for small battles in bigger organizational ‘turf wars’ and results in various functions/departments further entrenching in their beliefs/positions and the organization opting for ’status quo’ approach to please all.

It’s sad but a true mirage and we continue to rely on “Knowledge Management needing the KM Function to be successful” approach…

A recent book that I was reading reminded me of a yet to be published book that has been lingering in my mind for a very long time.

We have the seminal book — ‘my experiments with truth’ by Mahatma Gandhi and for long I have desired to read a contemporary and a corporate version of that message. A version that has been written by a great corporate leader, talking about ‘moments of truth’ from a corporate context. A journey through the tough moments in the corporate world with all the human elements of their right and wrong decisions, human failure, temptations, greatness, etc. The book would NOT be about the ‘company/organization’ but about the business leader and their ‘moments of truth’.

The book can be written by a business leader, looking back at his/her own corporate journey(from a ‘moments of truth’ perspective) or can be a compilation of chapters from all the great business leaders of this country(or the world).

I am sure that the young professional would benefit immensely from such experiences. Too often we have books that portray our business leaders as heroes but very few, if any, that talk about their being human and their ‘moments of truth’ in a corporate context. I also know that this is a very sensitive subject and not many people would be willing to share their ‘moments of truth’…

eb2.0 & Automotive portals? wow..!!! As a passionate automobile enthusiast and a firm Web.20 believer, it represents the best of both worlds for me.

I have been following the auto portal scene in India from the late 90’s and have seen them evolve, stagnate and fade away. Have witnessed portals such as indiacar.com, cybeersteering.com, bsmotoring.com come and stagnate in the late 90’s and early 2000’s.

When ‘AutoMartIndia‘ (now called ‘FirstChoice‘) was launched in early 2000’s, as an automobile enthusiast I was excited as it represented a paradigm shift in the way Indians bought & sold ‘used cars‘. In fact, the term ‘used cars’ came into existence — at least in India after that only. Previously ‘used cars’ were always referred to as ‘second hand‘ cars.

In the last one year or so, I have been very impressed by carwale.com. The way these folks have approached about building an auto portal is simply great. They put in one feature at a time, must have analyzed user behavior to ensure that it was working spot on, and then built on the simple web2.0 premises of usability & simplicity tied together and anticipating user needs. Once you looked at carwale.com, you realized — why the hell did other auto portals not think of it? This is exactly what I as a user wants.!! Features like used car prices to the granular level of models/city and mileage are a great boon to users. carwale perfected this with tapping into it’s user base to come up with city/model specific indicative pricing for used cars. There are a number of other features that one can go on and on about the value proposition that carwale.com provides — both to end user(car buyer) and car sellers (individuals & used car dealers).

Of late numerous auto portals that are replicas of carwale.com have come up. In my opinion, while this is testimony to the fact that carwale.com is successful and good, is also resulting in mee-too auto portals‘ whose value proposition is exactly same as that of carwale.com. While this can also be termed as expansion of market, this leads to stifling of innovation & new business models. These mee-too auto portals are doing exactly what the auto portals of late 90’s did — copy each other.

Don’t believe me: Just look at the home pages of three different auto portals(carwale.com, carazoo.com, driveinside.com). It would be very hard for a user to distinguish one from another.