Home
Bertrand Duperrin's Library tagged → View Popular
Le modèle collaboratif de l'Open Source appliqué à l’entreprise : à quand "l’Open Entreprise" ?
"En cela, le mouvement Open Source rejoint le credo déjà partagé par un grand nombre : nous quittons le monde de l’organisation hiérarchique – command and control - pour entrer dans un nouveau monde plus foisonnant, plus créatif, plus riche humainement. En cela aussi, le mouvement Open Source décline à sa manière les mots : participatif, collaboratif, 2 ou 3.0, communautés, crowdsourcing... "
-
La proposition de valeur
organisationnelle de l'Open Source est d’avoir su répondre à la croissance du couple
complexité-temps (toujours plus complexe, plus rapidement), par une intelligence
répartie dans l’organisation. -
La proposition de valeur d’une organisation collaborative à un
dirigeant devient : "dans un monde toujours plus complexe et rapide, pour ne
rien perdre en pouvoir, je répartie la responsabilité".
Going beyond the hype: Identifying Enterprise 2.0 best practices
Those trying to read the tea leaves about Enterprise 2.0 these days can see that the software at least has arrived in a bare majority of companies, even if it’s just Facebook or Twitter across the firewall. Genuine adoption and meaningful integration into business processes has certainly happened in a number of organizations, but is still the edge case today rather than the rule. That’s not to say the current case studies aren’t reporting gains, they generally are. But the message here is that many enterprises are now actively in full contact with the social computing world, whether they want to or not, and now it’s time to understand how to deal with the benefits and issues.
Netflix: « Plus l’entreprise grandit en taille, plus nous donnons de liberté à nos employés »
Quand une organisation croît en taille, constate Netflix, son fonctionnement devient plus complexe. La direction tend souvent à réagir de la même façon: plus l’organisation grandit, plus elle resserre le contrôle sur ses employés, via Netflixslide des procédures sans cesse plus strictes. Le but: éviter le chaos.
En optant pour cette voie, le management pave toutefois le chemin d’une nouvelle difficulté. Les talents fuient les procédures rigides qui laissent peu de place à la créativité. Soit ils se détournent de l’entreprise. Soit ils passent en mode passif et ne s’investissent plus qu’un minimum.
Sur le court terme, le resserrement des processus peut avoir un impact positif sur le résultat. L’effet, toutefois, n’est pas de longue durée. L’organisation génère des foyers d’inertie. Les employés, valorisés par rapport à l’application des processus actuels, résistent au changement.
Or, l’environnement économique est mouvant. De nouvelles technologies et de nouveaux concurrents apparaissent sans cesse. L’entreprise ne parvient plus à s’adapter assez vite aux nouvelles circonstances de marché.
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:
Reconciling social computing with the enterprise
This increasing distance between these two worlds creates a gap — a disconnect, even — that increasingly cuts organizations off from their most valuable assets (their people) and also exerts a subversive force on organizations as their workers help themselves to the tools of their own volition, bring their (and arguably better) new behaviors and processes to work, and try to get things done with them, whether that’s crowdsourcing, Enterprise 2.0, online customer communities, etc.
Communities Shouldn’t Be Islands
The bad news, from the same post, is that there is just as much compelling evidence that these newfound tools are highly fragmented in their usage. As he puts it, “few enterprises are taking a ‘holistic’ approach and are using them in a more targeted and/or fragmented manner.”
That’s a real pity, because we know that when a single, unifying community platform is available and done well, it can successfully knit all of the communities together so that none have to be islands.
-
Organizations need policies that set expectations for how social tools will be used. For example, who can and cannot engage directly with a customer in the community.
-
I’ll boil down controls to mechanisms that the technology affords to help enforce and automate the policies. This is an area where a lot of social business software could use some work.
Fear Factor in the Workplace - Room for Debate Blog - NYTimes.com
What really disturbs surviving employees about downsizings is that they cannot control or rationalize the events. If I have a co-worker who frequently arrives late and does low quality work, I can rationalize her layoff by saying to myself, “She didn’t carry her weight and deserved to be let go.” If, instead, my co-worker seems to work as hard and as well as I do and then, through no fault of her own, happens to be the victim of a “reduction in force,” I cannot rationalize that. More important, I fear that I cannot control my situation: in the first scenario, I have a sense of control over my fate by continuing to do high-quality work. In the second scenario, working hard or working well doesn’t seem to help me retain my job.
-
: If six people are left covering the work of 10, no one has time to think up new and better approaches to work. Invariably, people work harder and not smarter after a downsizing.
-
Adding to the problem is that people take fewer risks and become less creative. Creativity requires trial and error, and no one knows what happens to those who experiment with a new approach and then fail
- 2 more annotations...
The Content Economy: The digital company 2013 - key points
# The “millennials” will expect to use technology at work as freely as they do in their personal lives. They will also be ready to collaborate.
# Senior management will have a clearer understanding of IT capabilities than is the case today.
# Social networks will be a fixture in the 2013 workplace, despite executives’ ambivalence on their role.
# The use of collaborative technologies will help cut through geographical and organisational barriers, and will give wings to virtual team-working.
# Digital tools will give employees greater control over the information they can access, which means less control for managers.
It's Time to Invert the Management Pyramid - Vineet Nayar
It is not a stationary relic I'm talking about. I'm talking about the brand new dinosaur on the block - the classical management pyramid. Time has come to dismantle it and adapt to a new evolutionary and unstructured model that leverages the team effect to ensure that companies can lead change rather play catch up or be left behind.
-
The Industrial Revolution brought along with it the problem of management and the Wars brought with them the solution. In every war there was the General, the man who controlled and commanded. He had 'managers' who reported to him; these managers in turn had several 'assistant managers' who reported to them, and the whole configuration went on to make the traditional organizational structure, or the Management Pyramid
-
Back then, things were rather simple: Manufacturing was the buzzword, selling was not a very complicated process, folks were simple, families were joint, and 'top-down' management worked very well.
- 5 more annotations...
Google, United Airlines, and Orson Welles - Jeff Stibel
So the difference here is really one of time: with the Internet, problems sprout up and spread quicker than ever; but solutions are still handled by us slow (but thoughtful) real people.
We live in a dangerous world these days, where "intelligent" algorithms determine for us what is real and what should be trusted. Should Google be held accountable for this? Should they fix their news algorithms so that they are forced to verify stories and information?
Facebook, l’accès au service permet de garder ses employés
Un sondage commandité par Telindus et mentionné dans ITBusinessedge.com révèle que 39% des 18-24 ans américains considéreront quitter leurs emplois si l’entreprise bloque Facebook et qu’un autre 21% seront dégoutés d’une telle pratique.
informal coalitions: The “keep it simple” mantra and the complex dynamics of organizations
So, reducing the clutter of unnecessary or overly complicated structures, systems and procedures would certainly make organizations simpler. But the socially complex nature of the underlying dynamics of those organizations would remain
Lost in Matrix Management - Gill Corkindale
One theme has emerged loud and clear from executives I have been coaching this year: the utter frustration of operating in complex and shifting matrix management systems. The complaints are legion: multiple and complex reporting lines, confusion over accountability, competing geographical and functional targets, lack of role clarity, too many people involved in decisions, lack of support from senior managers, and the politics and conflicts arising from continual organisational restructuring.
-
Matrix structures broke down the hierarchies, allowing teams to share information across task boundaries and enabling managers and staff to build their knowledge and experience across projects.
-
employees became confused over conflicting loyalties, with line managers retaining central control and dotted line managers imposing extra demands.
- 2 more annotations...
Cognitive Edge : Reducing rules, increasing service
It is very doubtful that good governance causes good performance [...] The relationship also has reciprocal elements: good performance is likely to facilitate good governance.
Traction Software, Inc. | Blog578: "Control Doesn't Scale" Part II - Let Go to Grow
The irony of enterprise 2.0 is that you actually get more control because the free form nature of the tools allow the business people to decide on where structure occurs, not the people who make the software.
Is It An Illusion of Control?
People would rather exercise self control rather than being controlled.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in control
-
Russia Nato America
World peace is important as...
Items: 1 | Visits: 66
Created by: liveinfreedom .
-
E-commerce Hosting
Zeus Cart offers easy-to-us...
Items: 1 | Visits: 60
Created by: jacksan
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo