Home
Bertrand Duperrin's Library tagged → View Popular
Entreprise 2.0 : Les promesses du management moderne enfin tenues ?
"Peter Drucker est le premier à définir le Knowledge Worker en 1929. L’excellent David Weinberger (un des terroristes du Cluetrain Manifesto) peut bien dire qu’il s’agit là d’une définition pompeuse, elle n’en reste pas moins prodigieusement visionnaire. Toute sa théorie sur les organisations du XXème siècle est articulée autour de ce travailleur de la connaissance."
-
Cette notion de management participatif est aussi au coeur de la reflexion de Peter Drucker :
Most discussions of decision making assume that only senior executives make decisions or that only senior executives’ decisions matter. This is a dangerous mistake.
-
La réputation dans le monde connecté est l’évaluation quantifiée de la contribution de l’individu par ses pairs.
- 2 more annotations...
Maximizing Business Value from Enterprise 2.0 through Fun & Motivation
"I am a strong believer that organizations, should focus and facilitate the use of these tools in order to maximize organizational benefits. To drive value, I've often referred to the engagement factors and in this post I wanted to focus on ons of the factors, "Motivation".
How do we address motivation? Do we adopt the "build it and they will come" approach? No. But what about Wikipedia? it seems like complete "self-organization" has made it successful. But consider that only 1% of the people who visit Wikipedia actually contribute content. That's alright with a population set of the world, but 1% of your company may not be enough and if you have specific objectives you may need to motivate others to participate"
-
In fact, bigger incentives causes worse results for cognitive tasks.
-
Fun, as a design principle shouldn't be overlooked as it impacts the application design from look and feel, through context, content and process. It also should be addressed when designing events leveraging social computing technologies
Simple Definition of Enterprise 2.0
“Enterprise 2.0 is about applications where business value is determined through the contributions of participants.”
Top-down and Bottom-up Project Management: Leveraging the Advantages of the Two Approaches
Significant changes are taking place in management and especially project management today. We hear that organizations, like the New York Times, Tribune Co., Ernst & Young switched from the so-called top-down management style to bottom-up management. Others, including some of the world’s biggest corporations, such as Toyota and IBM, implemented bottom-up management style elements in some of their departments. The popularity of the bottom-up approach to management is growing. In spite of this fact, the discussions about the two major approaches are still hot. Why have organizations become so anxious about changing their management style? If we compare the two management approaches, the answer to this question will be clear.
-
. Team members are invited to participate in every step of the management process. The decision on a course of action is taken by the whole team. Bottom-up style allows managers to communicate goals and value, e.g. through milestone planning. Then team members are encouraged to develop personal to-do lists with the steps necessary to reach the milestones on their own.
-
These methods include are Enterprise 2.0 technologies – wikis, blogs, social networks, collaboration tools, etc. They come into organizations and change the original way of executing projects. They turn traditional project management into Project Management 2.0 and bring new patterns of collaboration, which are based on collective intelligence. Collective intelligence is a collection of valuable knowledge from different fields that each project team member is an expert in. This knowledge is now successfully collected and shared shared in a flexible, collaborative environment brought by second-generation project management software. The project manager is the one to conduct the work of his team and choose the right direction for the project development, based on the information received from the individual employees.
New Twitter Research: Men Follow Men and Nobody Tweets
We examined the activity of a random sample of 300,000 Twitter users in May 2009 to find out how people are using the service. We then compared our findings to activity on other social networks and online content production venues. Our findings are very surprising.
Library clips :: More thoughts on community structure and creation :: January :: 2009
Whereas, existing organisational teams wanting to form a community are a bit harder as the team already has a structure and dynamic, instead of it being born in the community.
They like having order and one community being the definitive hub for a topic, but the problem is that this community is too big, and people don’t always feel comfortable participating in such a big circle.
Smaller communities are better as people trust their peers and feel confident to participate, plus they have a similar shared context, so community activity is to your calibre…soon it becomes your favourite coffee shop to hang out and talk with your favourites friends about your favourite topic.
-
1. Usually the lead wants to build a community for their people (a one stop shop of conversations and documents for their business unit). So we build a community for hundreds of people, and structure it by region or topic or sub-teams etc.
-
2. Another idea, much to the chagrin of the lead, is to have many communities, as now there will be more places to visit to find information, but that’s OK because we can perhaps aggregate or be able to batch communities together and search multiple communities in one go.
- 2 more annotations...
Gartner Asks - Are You Generation X, Y or V?
There are four levels of engagement in this new Generation V. Each level is related to the extent to which a customer engages with other customers and the level of engagement a business must have to enable them:
SPONSORSHIP
* Creators: Up to 3% o
Library clips :: Participation is the currency of the knowledge economy :: May :: 2008
-
Enterprise 2.0 is not based on utopian ideals. It is instead based on the very principles that drive all free-market economies. Organisations that adopt enterprise 2.0 will do so for auto-preservation and corporate gain - to help their bottom line.” Period.”
-
In this type of setting why would I want to share my knowledge, it’s my “power”, we are all on our own, and my personal know-how is going to get me ahead. If I don’t share I will meet my expectations (and no-one else), but on the same hand if I don’t find any knowledge, I may not meet my expectations.
- 1 more annotations...
Rex's Thought Spot: 5 Social Computing Benefits that Adoption Rates Don't Show
here are 5 points that should help you explain that it's not just about the percentage of people that actively participate.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
collaboration (10)- enterprise2.0 (7)
- communities (7)
- management (6)
- adoption (6)
- web2.0 (6)
- organization (3)
- management2.0 (2)
- motivation (2)
- socialmedia (2)
- incentive (2)
- engagement (2)
- metrics (2)
- knowledge (2)
- learningorganisation (2)
- socialsoftware (2)
- socialcomputing (2)
- intranet (2)
- transparence (1)
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in particip...
-
WebSocial (Select)
Sélection de textes pour le...
Items: 39 | Visits: 25
Created by: Alexandre Enkerli
-
SNS
Items: 113 | Visits: 51
Created by: Raphael Rousseau
-
OUTILS
Vous trouverez ici des arti...
Items: 9 | Visits: 13
Created by: Vincent Despagnet
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo