Bertrand Duperrin's Library tagged → View Popular
Toute approche entreprise 2.0 doit répondre à un objectif d’affaires clair
"Le livre blanc ne cache pas les problèmes du secteur en citant d’entrée de jeu les chiffres de Gartner où l’on apprend que 70% des implantations de logiciels sociaux à l’interne sont des échecs. Trop d’entreprises, selon Socialtext, ont adopté l’approche entreprise 2.0 seulement pour faire partie de la parade. D’où la nécessité d’établir au départ une stratégie avec des objectifs d’affaires clairs qui peuvent être mesurés d’autant plus facilement."
-
Les départements les plus propices à améliorer leurs processus formels avec des outils sociaux sont ceux où les indicateurs de performance sont peu élevés, où tout le monde procède à sa façon sans savoir comment font les meilleurs d’entre eux et où on réinvente la roue au lieu de profiter du travail déjà accompli.
-
Les départements les plus intéressants pour introduire des processus informels de collaboration en ligne sont ceux où les gens ont beaucoup de difficultés à se coordonner quand le rythme de leurs activités devient trop rapide. Les détails tombent dans les craques faute d’un partage efficace de l’information.
- 4 more annotations...
Social Networking on Intranets
As people embrace social media in their private lives, they naturally expect to use similar tools within the enterprise. This is especially true for younger workers who use these tools in everyday life. Open communication, collaboration, and content generation are as much a part of their standard toolkit as using a computer or mobile phone.
So, how should companies deal with the increasing expectation that Web 2.0 will drive Enterprise 2.0?
* Taking the slow road means that companies will risk losing workers who expect innovation in the outside world to reflect directly on how they communicate at work.
* Going for quick adoption means that companies must find ways to overcome the risks to corporate culture that adopting these tools can entail.
If your organization is still unsure about what to do with these emerging technologies and how to adapt them to suit its culture, you're in good company. A main finding from our study's interviews is that most companies are not very far along in a wholesale adoption of Web 2.0 technologies — unless "thinking about social software" is considered progress. The oft-repeated refrain from interviewees was "talk to us next year."
-
Business need is the big driver. Although our report discusses specific tools (blogs, wikis, and such), enterprise 2.0's power is not about tools, it's about the communication shift that those tools enable.
-
So, rather than saying: "X is hot on the Web, let's get it on the intranet," say: "We need to accomplish Y; can X help us?"
- 2 more annotations...
An alternative way to define IT project results
IT projects need define a combine the engineering work to be done and the results that they create. Doing so requires more than giving the project a business based name. Here are a few steps for an alternative way to define an IT project.
Combining these three ideas, when companies pay to execute a project, it’s not the project they want, it’s the result. They want more revenue generating customer relationships, not processes around a CRM system or even the capability to look up customer names. What they want is the result.
-
First, companies don’t pay for activities, they pay for results. As explains in the blog post http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_mcdonald/2009/06/30/activities-vs-results—the-difference-makes-all-the-difference/From this post.
Second, those results come from changing capabilities which are a more powerful definition of the business. So it’s the capability people want. http://blogs.gartner.com/mark_mcdonald/2009/07/02/capability-is-more-powerful-than-process/
-
Results can be defined in the following ways:
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo
