90% people, 10% technology

Sunday, 29 June 2008

It's the sociology, telecommuters


The New York Times wisely runs a full page of op-eds today on the impact of high gas prices, "Is Your Tank Half Empty or Half Full?", but none deals with the biggest problem introduced by telecommuting: How to really work effectively at a distance. The Times is not alone in headlining telecommuting (well, in truth, only one piece in today's paper, "Pajama Life" by Nicole Benson Goluboff, actually even touches on this). I've seen dozens of articles about the sudden move to telecommuting in the past few weeks, dozens. Having covered this topic in rather excruciating detail over many years, let me leave it at this for now: Our old slogan, "90% people, 10% technology," remains true. It's not about bandwidth, whiz-bang software, or mobile devices. The magic is in the sociology. Keep four things in mind, correct as necessary, and your telecommuting will work just fine: People, Purpose, Links, and Time.

Slide1_2

Monday, 12 May 2008

Washing and drying your bluetooth earpiece

"It's not a good idea," says my friend Rich. He, Mr. Technology to those who know him as one of the early movers and shakers in the Boston area, has been having trouble with his cell phone, which led us to a conversation earlier today about various encounters between phones (and their accoutrements) and water. I know.

I happened to drop my Blackberry in a body of water recently. (No further details will be provided.) But it did provide some solace to Rich, who keeps his earpiece in his sweatshirt, which on occasion, requires a trip to his washer and dryer. And thus...he's out an earpiece. So next time, check the pockets. And keep your cell phone out of your sweatshirt pockets altogether. I know.

Thursday, 08 May 2008

The most influential people in IT

Delighted to find my friend John Halamka named #31 among eWeek's "The 100 Most Influential People in IT." He also plays a mean Japanese flute as per below. And at #38, my Facebook friend Andrew McAfee, who invented the term "Enterprise 2.0." And (I'm still going down the list), my friend Tom Davenport (#70), whose thinking keeps knocking down shibboleths; the intrepid Mass congressman, Ed Markey (#73), who was worrying about the Internet before most people puzzled over whether to capitalize the word or not (see this press release from our MassNet inaugural event in 1995 that he keynoted); Ross Mayfield (#74), co-founder of Social Text and a virtual friend; and Good to Great, etc. author Jim Collins (#87), whom we once shared the podium with at a Royal Dutch Shell Scenario event. Way to go, guys. Proving again that it's good to be a friend of mine - just kidding, just kidding....

Saturday, 26 April 2008

The conversation continues

'member when I went slideless to the Boston KM Forum? My topic was Moving Beyond Web 2.0 Resistance. Turns out that conversation continues next Friday, May 2 (Rebecca's, Reservoir Place, 7:30 AM):

Selling KM in a Hostile World: One line of commentary by Jessica Lipnack at the recent program on KM 2.0 concerned emotional and psychological barriers to getting colleagues to adopt new behaviors and technologies. She went on to make the case for creating a comfort zone and welcoming environment to help alleviate resistance. But there is much more to explore around the notion of a hostile world that has to be considered and planned around when we contemplate our KM initiatives. Join us to discuss how to move from outright barriers to may-be to probably.

Registration Form for Friday Only

Registration Details (Cost, logistics, etc.)

 

Thursday, 10 April 2008

Powerless Point

Last week, I was cleaning up a presentation ("Virtual Teams in the Age of the Network") that I gave last Fall at the Brookings Executive Education program for a new one I'm giving there next Tuesday. It was, let me see, a frustrating (no), aggravating (closer),  *!#$%^***!! (getting there) experience.

For reasons known only to some programmer (not even a developer) who's probably cashed out by now for life on a private Caribbean island, I could not change the footer. Page numbers would not appear. Bullet symbols would not convert from vertical lines to small dots. Line spacing would not reduce.  Please don't send me suggestions as I didn't just fall off the PPT turnip truck. I tried saving with a new file name, copying content of troublesome slides to new slides, changing slide master, etc. We all know the tricks. A colleague with a PC (yes, I'm Mac, he's PC) - after struggling as well - was finally able to make most of the changes.

So when I was asked to speak at the Boston KM Forum, I decided to go slideless. Just stand up and speak. True, the topic lent itself to addressing the audience directly: "Moving Beyond Web 2.0 Resistance." Which ultimately is not about technology but about people, ye ole' "90% people, 10% technology" rule.

When Larry Chait introduced me, he said I would not be using slides. A hearty round of applause followed. And as I spoke, I sensed that people were actually listening, as in making eye contact, nodding their heads, responding when I asked questions. Note to other speakers out there: IT FELT GREAT!

Doug Cornelius live-blogged my talk which Paul Levy has responded to with "Throw off the crutches of ppt!" - where he gives a really good list of reasons why Powerpoint may not be exactly the most powerful way to engage an audience. Read them both. And thanks, guys. Maybe we can teach a class about how to give a presentation without slides.

One last thought: Edward Tufte gives a very good seminar (and has written an essay called "The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint," in which he gives some excellent suggestions for how to use PPT if you must). I attended it a few years ago and, humbly, feel that when I do use slides, they're the better for it.

Thursday, 03 April 2008

Email: friend or foe?

Just spent the past couple of days with a group of dedicated public servants giving a "teamnet" workshop - teamnet* meaning "network of teams" as there were five teams in this session together comprising a major governmental initiative to increase knowledge sharing. I know there are readers thinking "government" and "knowledge sharing" must surely be an oxymoron. But once again, I come away from a few days with government folks revering their commitment to a life that is not glamorous, that doesn't pay much, that is often frustrating, that perforce means working in a system that is unbearably slow but which offers rewards of a different kind. Service. Thanks to all involved.

We talked about email a lot. The complaints are familiar, the sheer volume, the endless cc:'s, the wonton use of attachments...but there was one voice, one strong voice for the power of email as an information sharing vehicle - rather than as a communication device. This fellow has been on listservs for a very long time; people in his network depend on them for conveying truly useful information. I agree. There are good uses for email. We just need good operating agreements that people need to do their best to adhere to.

What about you? Are you tapped out on email, wish it had never come into existence? Has your organization come up with some good guidelines regarding attachments, cc'ing, subject lines, and the like? Has anyone out there tried what Intel has, "Zero email Friday", which I mentioned here once before?

*We coined the word "teamnet" in our 1993 book, The TeamNet Factor (Wiley).

Wednesday, 05 March 2008

From West Newton to Lund to Christchurch

Mr. Sampson has taken the next step with the "Do we need face time?" checklist. Blogged "green teams" first here near Boston, which was picked up and expanded via blog in Sweden, and now has up-leveled again in the countryside outside Christchurch in New Zealand.

Michael's drawn a decision tree that logically steps through the 11 questions in the current checklist. If this, then that, good for the cognitive type that functions this way for sure - and excellent for stimulating a group discussion.

Take a look and send suggestions. My first: maybe add a "benefits" branch if you make the choice to travel? I sometimes write a lot while traveling, which is an incentive.

The entire "When to Travel Flow Chart" is at this link; here's a snippet:

Do_we_need_to_meet_flow_3

Saturday, 01 March 2008

Collaboration 2.0

Collaboration20mid It's out. David Coleman and Stewart Levine's new book, Collaboration 2.0. We were delighted to write the Foreword to this book. Here it is in its entirety (for those who fail to buy the book - oh, no!):

Collaboration 2.0
Foreword by Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps

At the Seventh International Conference on Complex Systems in 2007, Barbara Jasny, Senior Editor at Science, cited a statistic that provoked a collective “wow” from the audience of complexity scientists. The current record for the largest number of collaborators submitting a paper to her prestigious journal? 350 [corrected update, 445].

Jasny pointed to the truth that reigns in all domains these days: once the province of isolated geniuses, good work and breakthrough ideas congregate on the playground of those who can play well together. In our highly interconnected world, everything interacts with everything else and in order to understand—or accomplish—anything, we need to work together better. And, typically today, that means making use of innovative technologies and becoming adept at the human side of collaboration.

Not long ago, the word collaborator had a bad connotation in Europe, implying working with the forces of evil during World War II. But in a relatively short amount of time, collaboration has reclaimed its original meaning—“co-labor,” to work together—and has become a popular term even in countries where it was anathema as recently as a few decades ago.

Now in North America and South, in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the exquisite nations of Australia and New Zealand, to collaborate means that you know what you’re doing. The trick is to do that supremely well.

When we were interviewing executives for our book Virtual Teams, nearly every conversation ended with a variation on the same idea: “You know, it’s 90% people and 10% technology.” This phrase has become something of a slogan for us and when a technologist has the capacity to speak from the people side, we always take notice.

We first met David Coleman a number of years ago at a conference on—take a guess—collaboration. He impressed us with his knowledge and his sense of humor, both vital to collaboration, and we’ve followed his work since, depending on him to be up on whatever was happening in that world. Invariably, he stresses that people are the ones using technology and that how and for what purposes they use it are far more important than the technology itself.

When we learned that David had teamed up with Stewart Levine to write the “next rev” of collaboration, we were intrigued and it took us approximately one second to agree to write this Foreword.

Stewart’s grasp of the people side of the equation is comprehensive and practical. Good psychology, good people skills, and good common sense combine in his many ideas for how to make collaboration work.

The offerings in collaboration technology can appear like items in a supermarket, all the little cans bearing only tiny variations in ingredients to distinguish them. What David helps us see are the signs marking the aisles, pointing out the categories that we need to consider before making our choices, then applying expert stars to the ones he regards as best picks.

On the people side, Stewart enables us to zero in on the essence of collaboraton. At the beginning, during the middle, and in the final analysis, collaboration is about communication. Prone to wanting to make our views known, we fail to listen. And listening across boundaries is the most difficult behavior of all. The borders that separate us stand in the way of our humanity and we need to dissolve them. The ability to truly hear what others have to say is the most powerful form of communication, Stewart writes. We agree.

And though the word business appears in this book some 117 times, it is far more than a manual for business. As our scientist friends indicate, our world and indeed our future depend upon collaboration, which the authors make clear in their final pages. From global warming to alleviation of poverty to stemming the population explosion to reducing the threat of “weapons of mass effects,” the human family needs to learn how to work together better very quickly and to become adept at using the best tools for doing so.

This book is your GPS for collaboration now and in the years to come. Open it anywhere and you’ll learn something. Apply what you’ve learned and your work will become easier—and our hopes for the generations to come will soar.

—Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps, CEO and Chief Scientist respectively of NetAge, a consultancy that helps organizations work together better, and co-authors of many books, including The Age of the Network and Virtual Teams.

Sunday, 24 February 2008

Metanet at 25

Tmnbanner Metanet, the online conversation started a quarter-century ago by Frank Burns and nurtured forevermore by Lisa Kimball, is celebrating with a party in Washington, DC, at the end of March. Lisa is such a prodigious networker that we profiled her in The Age of the Network (see "All the way to New York to buy a modem," Chapter 7). Wish I could be there. Metanet was the second online community I joined (EIES was first). Over the years, many good ideas and, more importantly, deep friendships have grown from the connections it's spawned. All will miss Frank at this celebration, whose laugh I can hear just typing this. Congratulations, Lisa, and warm fuzzies to all my friends from Spirit, the women's conference there.

With Lisa's permission, I'm posting the anniversary party details here as I know at least some friends from those days are reading:

MetaNetwork is 25 years old this spring and we're having a party!  You and all your family are invited !

It will be held in the afternoon of March 29th - probably around 2pm ...at the home of:

Lois Mandelberg
6303 Waterway Place
Falls Church, Virginia  22044

mamalois[at]hotmail[dot]com

703-658-7776 (h)

Plans for pot luck are being organized in the MetaNet25 conference on Metanet ..

Hope we'll see you there!  * lisa

Sunday, 17 February 2008

"This isn’t your father’s [or mother's, ahem] telecommute"

Jennifer Sutton, a "virtual friend," as in we've known each other online for 15 years but have never met in-person, alerted me to a couple of very good posts from A List Apart, an online publication for website designers. This article, "The Long Hallway" by Jonathan Follett, draws an interesting distinction under the section head (which I love and am impelled to edit), "This isn’t your father’s [or mother's, ahem] telecommute:"

On the surface, the long hallway of the virtual company shares characteristics with the well-established practice of telecommuting [as they use similar tools and processes].

However, there is a fundamental difference between telecommuting and the long hallway. To be a remote worker means that the core function of a company lies elsewhere. Telecommuters work remotely for businesses that already possess an established culture and physical buildings. They are satellites orbiting a larger concern. For virtual companies with long hallways, the company exists wherever its people are—and nowhere else.

I concur that this is a vital difference and one that creates different cultures in both types of concerns. Those working in "the long hallway" are culture-creators from the get-go, while telecommuters, no matter how sensitive their home enterprises, are adapting to norms and mores (more-ayz) that already exist. Good distinction, Jonathan. The whole piece is worth a look.

Those pesky conference calls

I've drawn from CIO.com's Esther Schindler's work before ("If you died, would your online friends know?") and I'm certain I will again as she's paying attention to the right stuff (at least so far as my concerns go).

She's done it once more, this time with "Running an Effective Teleconference or Virtual Meeting." Now, I've been railing against the endless lists of pointers about virtual teams, some of which are true contributions to the fields, others that are just passing thoughts, but this one from Schindler's article strikes me as quite insightful:

  • Log on 15 minutes before the start of the meeting, since some online products require downloads and installation.

  • Be aware of background noise.

  • State your name when you speak.

  • If you catch yourself multitasking, be responsible for your full participation.

  • Turn off cell phones and PDAs.

  • Stay out of your e-mail.

These pointers come from page one of the article. All four pages are reading-worthy. There is but one point that I take issue with, based on the research I keep hauling out from the best-practice study we reported with Ann Majchrzak and Arvind Malhotra, "Can Absence Make a Team Grow Stronger?", Harvard Business Review, May, 2004. That research states unequivocally that two of the very best uses for virtual team meetings are brainstorming and decision-making. Schindler's article quotes DePaul University associate professor Daniel Mittleman:

"When you are brainstorming everyone gets to contribute ideas," Mittleman explains. "When you are consolidating ideas, some ideas get swept off the table. People don't like to give up their favorite ideas. They like it even less virtually." That's because people have no sense that everyone else understands their pet idea, and no perception that their own interests were accommodated. Mittleman advises. "This is why many virtual decision making meetings fail. It is not enough to lead a group through a vote; it is vital to lead them through buy-in to the results of that vote. Buy-in requires a sense of being heard and a sense that one's interests have been accommodated—or at least understood."

Sorry, Prof. Schindler. I agree that intuition might suggest otherwise but then there's the data...Our best-practice teams used such meetings precisely for these purposes and excelled.

Monday, 11 February 2008

The social general

My article," The social general," on the Army's new field manual and the general responsible for it in today's The Standard, as per my prior post, "Let Soldiers Blog, Post to YouTube."

Saturday, 09 February 2008

Running better virtual meetings

I don't think I'd be exaggerating to say that about a dozen times a week I see another list of how to be a better virtual team. Mainly these lists--in my opinion only--are off the top of someone's head, a mishmash of good ideas and sort of unthoughtful ones. Every now and then a very good one comes around and I try to remember to post it.

Today, thanks to New Zealand's collaboration treasure, Michael Sampson, I was alerted to this list from HRZone, a site for the UK human resource community, on which are a set of good pointers on how to run a good virtual meeting (or conference call) with my commentary:

  • Constantly re-engage by calling on each person once every 10 minutes
  • Set boundaries by which the authors mean "highlight expectations and desired outputs but also to set guidelines for interaction." Yes, yes.
  • Stay in touch, meaning between meetings as well as during them. Critical.
  • "Don't 'wing it': Sometimes it is assumed that because a meeting isn't being held at a physical location it requires less preparation. The opposite is true. Have a back-up plan if technology fails."  I've quoted this one in full because it is absolutely true.
  • Set the pace, which is directed at the leader. You know when you've got the right rhythm going in a face-to-face meeting. Same is true in virtual meetings - only more so.

NB: HRZone credits Right Management as the source for this list but I can't find it on their site.

Saturday, 26 January 2008

How dumb are we? Nova says pretty dumb

Nova Spivack, one of the smarter people I've met, has a thoughtful post calling for an end to artificial intelligence and recommending that we replace it with "Artificial Stupidity: The Next Big Thing." Why? Because:

We are terrible organizers. We are lazy, messy, inconsistent, and we make all kinds of errors by accident. We are terrible at tagging and linking as well, it turns out. We are terrible at coordinating or tracking multiple things at once because we are easily overloaded and we can really only do one thing well at a time. These kinds of tasks are just not what our brains are good at. That's what computers are for - or should be for at least.

Humans are really good at higher level cognition: complex thinking, decisionmaking, learning, teaching, inventing, expressing, exploring, planning, reasoning, sensemaking, and problem solving -- but we are just terrible at managing email, or making sense of the Web. Let's play to our strengths and use computers to compensate for our weaknesses.

I agree. Just take a look at my desk. And table. and the desk next to that. Enough said. I'm pretty dubm.

Sunday, 18 November 2007

Dorothy, it's knowledgement management

The Leavenworth (Kansas and, yes, I wore my red shoes) Times carried Conference focuses on knowledge management last Friday, an article on the event where we spoke in early November:

Speakers included the husband and wife team of Jessica Lipnack and Jeff Stamps, co-founders of a company called NetAge.

Part of their presentation focused on virtual teams, which Lipnack said are small groups of people working independently across boundaries.

Stamps and Lipnack provided tips for operating what they called “far-flung teams” or groups with people working at different locations.

Thanks to writer John Richmeier for including us in the piece. You can see our full presentation to the conference by clicking here: The Transformational Power of Networks, Teamnets and Virtual Teams.

Sunday, 11 November 2007

Teams of practice

We've been hanging out at the collaboration bar for a bit of time now, which means that we've seen a few different customers take stools, saying *theirs* is the only drink to order. They down a few and poof! they're gone.

Some have stuck. For at least a decade and a half, communities of practice have held their seat. Ever since Etienne Wenger (hello, old friend) coined the phrase in his and Jean Lave's 1991 book, Situated Learning, savvy organizations have been promoting their use. Among the first was Bob Buckman, then CEO of Buckman Labs, the specialty chemical company, who turned his entire organization into one gigantic global community of practice years before most reading here even had email accounts. We documented Bob's story in Virtual Teams--and, perhaps more importantly, he documented it himself in Building the Knowledge-Driven Organization.

Not long after people in the collaboration community (which will have to be a subject of another post someday) started to use the term "communities of practice" came its partner-in-crime, knowledge management, whose history Karl-Erik Sveiby, the Swedish writer and consultant, has been tracking for years.

Comes then a whole sector of the tech industry focused on making it easier for people to "manage" their knowledge, a concept that bears reflecting upon elsewhere (is knowledge manageable as, say, people are? - I'll let that one go for now). Also comes then all manner of upstart efforts within organizations to swap learning as fast as possible, often without their employers' imprimaturs.

Among these were two majors in the US Army, Nate Allen and Tony Burgess, who, without sanction or budget or business plan, started Companycommand.com. There soldiers could exchange, well, war stories. A good summary of their experience is documented in the Government Executive article, "Managing Technology Linked in the Fight," which was laid out in detail in the 2005 book, CompanyCommand: Unleashing the Power of the Army Professional, which the two majors along with two others co-authored with Professor Nancy Dixon.

All of which is a windy introduction to the fact that the US Army has a long, rich history in communities of practice with now probably tens of thousands of online forums where soldiers of every rank can exchange information in a timely way.

So it was that the Army held its 3rd Annual Knowledge Management Conference last week, where we, along with Dr. Dixon and others, gave talks, ours titled The Transformational Power of Networks, Teamnets and Virtual Teams. Lots of discussion about communities of practice, knowledge sharing, semantic webs, and all the other topics that IT professionals, learning experts, and the top brass, whether those with stars on their shoulders or big paychecks, worry about.

OK. What's next? Jeff and I came away thinking about this: perhaps the era of the community of practice needs to morph a bit. Aren't we now in the time when teams, not just amorphous communities or lone-ranger individuals, need to share practices? And isn't the technology up to the task, what with virtual (or, if you prefer, global) teams exploding everywhere and wikis for teams going up on the web faster than their IT departments can track them? Teams, we think, are the way to work (without diminishing the genius and creativity of the individual), the hope for solving the seemingly intractable problems that sometimes make it hard to get up in the morning.

Thus, we invite a new customer to the collaboration bar: Teams of Practice, the title of this post.

Sunday, 04 November 2007

Building trust in virtual teams--a survey from Jordan

Frequent readers know that one of our purposes here is to help students conduct research on virtual teams, collaboration, and networks (and maybe something else if it seems relevant or appealing). One such inquiry came from Ernest Kutuk at the University of Zagreb in Croatia, studying trust in virtual teams. Thus, let me say again: students, feel free to email me with your projects and if they fit these broad criteria, you're in.

Just a few hours ago, we received our first such request from a student at the Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST), on the same topic as the Croatian request.

Mohamad Alsharo is studying for his master's degree in computer science, majoring in project management. As part of this work, he's doing a survey on trust in virtual teams, thus his contacting us. Here's Mohamad's note. I encourage everyone to fill out the survey. And, Mohamad, be sure to report back on your results so I can post those too:

My master's thesis is something new in Jordan. No one here has ever worked on virtual teams so this may open a new scope for our students. In my thesis, I'm trying to come up with a model for building trust among virtual teams members. I've been working on this topic for almost 18 months now and have put my results into a survey that I am distributing to both virtual teams researchers and practitioners to see if they agree or disagree my conclusion.

For this reason I have divided my survey into three parts. The first is for Researchers, the second is for Team Leaders, and the third is for Team Members. I hope you can help me in my research and I'm ready for any questions or suggestions from you.

My survey links are:
Researchers: http://www.my3q.com/home2/185/msharo83/Academic.phtml
Team Leaders: http://www.my3q.com/home2/185/msharo83/leaders.phtml
Team Members: http://www.my3q.com/home2/185/msharo83/members.phtml

Thank you again and I'm looking forward to hearing from you,

Mohamad Alsharo

Tuesday, 30 October 2007

The Strange Beauty of Virtual Teams

A bit of self-referential reporting here: Milestone Group has published its quarterly journal, wherein lies our "invited article," The Strange Beauty of Virtual Teams. Click and enjoy.

For any writers interested in how something like this comes about, here's the backstory. Shortly after joining Facebook in September of this year, I received a "friend" request from Mark Zawacki, founder and managing partner of Milestone Group. Turned out that Mark had read The TeamNet Factor, our 1993 book, as a result of his having worked at Index Systems, a consulting company where we'd done some work. Once he found me on Facebook, he asked if we'd like to contribute to his journal. Took a look and quickly agreed. This issue, for example, has an interview with our friend Nova Spivack of Radar Networks; an opinion piece by Eric Benhamou, now a venture capitalist and chairman of 3Com, where he was CEO; and an editorial by Milestone's Bill Burk with the intriguing title of Why Nine Men Can't Make a Baby in a Month.

Thanks, Mark, and to Jim Conley, blogger at On Brookline, who edits the journal.

Monday, 29 October 2007

You: Price tag, $300

My fellow bloggers will appreciate this problem: much to blog about, little time to blog. So it is that a compelling presentation by Stew Sutton of The Aerospace Corporation at the Knowledge Leadership Forum week before last has not gotten its due. As I've said before, one of the unnoticed benefits of being a speaker is hearing other speakers (viz. Robin Gerber), as I did at the Brookings Leadership Lab in September. Rarely does one (meaning this one) have the time but because the Knowledge Leadership Forum took place within quick driving distance, it was possible to hang out.

Stew was the person who really introduced me to Second Life, the online virtual world where people create digital versions of themselves (or of the beings they wish they were). I wrote a bit about IBM's guidelines for Second Life a few months back. In truth, I first learned about Second Life only 18 months ago from that serial tracker of new things digital, John Seely Brown, who calls himself Chief of Confusion. Like a couple of million other people, I logged in after talking to Stew. If you're there, you're unlikely to find me teleporting around but should you be curious, search for Pesha Linden. I chose the name Pesha for reasons known to my family and a few close friends; the name Linden was available on a list and I went right for it: my last name, original spelling Lipniak, means "linden tree" (or white wood, depending on whom you ask) in Ukrainian.

Of course, now that I have time to write this post, I can't find my notes from Stew's great presentation. He showed us all the cool things that his company, possibly the very first company to use Second Life, to support collaboration. Freed from the physics of our little planet, things fly and float and pulse and disappear in the Aerospace collaboratorium (they don't call it that but it deserves such a grand term). Astrophysicists can stand in the spray of rockets; they can invent new ways for rockets to spray. Very, very cool and apologies to Stew for the poor reportage (my early editors would be upset with me).

Here's the one fact I remember: you can have an avatar, meaning a digital version of yourself, made these days for $300. I mean something that looks like you. $300. Three bills for the virtual you.

Thursday, 04 October 2007

"Managing without walls"

There are many terms for virtual, distributed, far-flung, non-collocated, remote (get the idea?) teams. And lots of clever phrases for same: "working together apart" (sub-title of Enterprise Networking by our old colleagues Ray Grenier and George Metes); The Distance Manager (by other colleagues, Kimball Fisher and Mareen Fisher); and, a phrase I took my issue with directly to the author, "the boundaryless organization," popularized by Jack Welch.

What's my beef with that phrase? Organizations need boundaries for fiscal, governance, and practical reasons. Without them, everything is just one big mush.

But (and to the point of this post) today I found a new one that I like: Managing without walls, which came across in an article by Shyamal Majumdar in India's Business Standard online. Think about it: when we take down walls, whether physical, organizational, psychological, or emotional, we let in a lot more light. A very good way to manage, indeed.

Tuesday, 02 October 2007

The whole organization in a stadium

Is this scene familiar? You're new to an organization--as employee, partner, supplier, board member, chief executive, whatever, you're new. And you want to understand how things work. So the person you're talking to whips out an org chart, talks about the boxes, then picks up a pen and starts crossing boxes out, drawing  dotted lines, adding other boxes that are actually off the chart.

We wondered what would happen if you could "see" the whole organization at once: who works for whom, who reports "dotted-line," who belongs to what team, how the workflow itself progresses.
Stadiumgreek
So we've written The Stadium Parable, wherein you, mythical CEO, invite your whole organization to a stadium to conduct an exercise whereby everyone draws all the lines of work connections (to see in web pages, click here). Possible? We think so.

Friday, 28 September 2007

"(We) will reduce number of layers from ... 11 to about 7"

The new CEO at BP is shaking things up, or perhaps better said, taking things out. CNNMoney.com quotes Tony Hayward in BP Shares sinks as CE0 warns on results:  "'There is massive duplication and lack of clarity of who does what,'" the [Financial Times] quoted Hayward as saying. "'We will reduce the number of organization units. (We) will reduce the number of layers from the workers up to the CEO from 11 to about seven.'"

Is that the right number, Mr. Hayward?  How do you know what the right number is? Using OrgScope, we found 11 levels at one of the energy giant's competitors--and its shares are not sinking.

How do you determine the right number of levels in an organization the size of BP, with in the neighborhood of 100K employees and perhaps 10x that number more in contractors? What number allows the chief executive and senior leaders to "spot weaknesses and areas for improvement," as one energy executive said to us.

The deeper question here is not about a target number of levels but about whether the structure optimizes strategy.

Facebookers learn F2F 101

I suppose this was inevitable. The Sept 17, 2007, New Yorker has  a piece with the canny title, "Icebreaker Dept: Social Studies," by Michael Schulman, about a New York University dean having to explain face-to-face (F2F) to incoming students who only know how to have friends on Facebook.

The peril in getting to know classmates on the computer is that incoming undergraduates may forget how to do so in real life. That was the thinking behind “Facebook in the Flesh,” a seminar held during N.Y.U.’s freshman orientation. “Meeting new people face-to-face can be . . . intimidating,” a brochure read. “This fun, interactive workshop will get everyone talking as we build social networks in person.” The session took place at the Kimmel Center—it was scheduled at the same time as “Dude, Where’s My Class?”—and drew about thirty-five students, who spent the initial minutes sitting side by side in uncomfortable silence. Eventually, two girls struck up a conversation and realized, to their delight, that they were both from Long Island. (“Suffolk County?” “Me, too!”)

“Here’s what in-person networking is,” David Schachter, an assistant dean, began. “It’s face-to-face. It’s brief. It works best when there’s virtually nothing at stake except a few minutes of someone else’s time. And it’s social. It happens in the same space.”

Schachter went on to describe the benefits of live interaction...

Thursday, 27 September 2007

"New light bulbs in plain English"

Common Craft Show, encore, this time a short online video on why to buy compact flourescent light bulbs. It would be hard to buy the old kind again after seeing New Light Bulbs in Plain English, their latest spoonful of common sense. Producer Lee LeFever explains:

Switching the types of light bulbs we use at home is a small but impactful way for nearly everyone to save money and help reduce pollution. We made this video because compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs make sense and we want people to make the switch.

This video is an obvious departure of our web-centric ways. We're still web-at-heart, but the Show may veer into foreign territory from time-to-time.

And they list their sources:

See other "in Plain English" posts below:
Google Docs
Social Bookmarking
Web 2.0

More on trust in virtual teams

Web Worker Daily's Anne Zelenka points through to another good post on building trust in virtual teams, this article by Kelly Pate Dwyer on BNET.

I'm in on the four attributes Dwyer cites for remote managers: passion, availability, patience and reliability, and in on four of her "five ways to build trust." The last, the need to show up face-to-face, is not borne out by the research that underlies "Can Absence Make a Team Grow Stronger?", the Harvard Business Review article we did with Profs Ann Majchrzak and Arvind Molhatra. That said, here's Dwyer's good list:

  1. Be available. Don’t let employee calls go to voicemail. When you absolutely can’t be reached, reply ASAP.
  2. Beware of using sarcasm and teasing in distance interactions, like email and conference calls, where signals can easily get crossed.
  3. Handle sensitive issues with discretion. One team member might tell Belmont that another is having a bad day. He’ll immediately call the person having the bad day, without exposing the colleague who told him.
  4. Communicate in a variety of ways (email, phone, in person, etc) and often.
  5. Visit employees on their turf. It shows respect for their time and interest in their life outside the job.

Monday, 24 September 2007

Virtual team training at ICIC

Spent last Thursday at the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City here in Boston. ICIC is the brainchild of Michael Porter, the Harvard Business School professor who wrote the books on competition and who wrote the prescription for releasing the "wealth of the inner city," one of his phrases: See  "The Competitive Advantage of the Inner City,"  Harvard Business Review.

ICIC's mission from its website:

To promote economic prosperity in America’s inner cities through private sector engagement that leads to jobs, income and wealth creation for local residents. ICIC brings together business and civic leaders to drive innovation and action, transform thinking and accelerate inner city business growth and investment. 

Thus, ICIC works across boundaries--with clients, experts, donors, competitors, kids--and to assist, we provided our Virtual Team Training--evaluation, exercises and examples, with a virtual-team model and a little vision for the future.

ICIC, welcome to the world of virtual teams.

Thursday, 20 September 2007

Jeff Stamps at MTLC Tech Trends Forum today

NetAge's own Jeff Stamps, our Chief Scientist and inventor of our technology, was the lead-off speaker at the Mass Technology Leadership Council's Tech Trends Forum that took place today in Waltham, Mass. The focus of the session was "Making the Workplace Thrive with Collaboration." Jeff put the emphasis on the people side of collaboration, often overlooked in favor of a focus on pure technology. Slides from his presentation are here.

"Enterprise and team collaboration requires new principles, behaviors, and tools," Jeff said, illustrating how organizations can capture and embed their knowledge by consistent use of online spaces."

According to one of the organizers of the event, Jeff was quite a hit:

Jeff -- great job at the Mass Tech Leadership Council's Tech Trends Forum on the Enterprise Web and Collaboration.  Your presentation was excellent and your handling of a variety of questions in the dialogue with participants just reeked (this is a compliment :-) )with experience, knowledge and insight regarding the subjects and issues discussed.     Many thanks

Thursday, 06 September 2007

Are you email immune?

Web Worker Daily has another good one today by Anne Zelenka on the dilemma of email. Short responses, long? Delayed, immediate? Email is still in elementary school compared with, say, how to behave on the phone. Pieces like Rising Email Immunity Leads to Conflict over Email Etiquette are good assists to growing up (Keen readers remember Email is for old people here.)

Email immunity is unevenly distributed — some people have become almost entirely immune while others still treat it as a privileged and prioritized channel. Plus, entire generations are less susceptible to email communications: many twentysomethings and teenagers prefer instant messaging and texting.

Facebook, instant messaging, Twitter, and other alternative tools trump email and make some people more immune to email than others. Early adopters of social tools are likely to be relatively more immune to email.

This uneven distribution of email immunity leads to conflict over how to handle email. People with little immunity to email react with indignation to suggestions that you might worry less about responding to email or leave your inbox full or prioritize brevity over niceties. At the same time, those with more immunity question lengthy email discussions, complex email processing schemes, and overly elaborate email etiquette guidelines.

Wednesday, 05 September 2007

Virtual Teams and our other books online

With the September 11 anniversary approaching, I'm thinking about those terrible days and how distraught we were over how to respond. Everyone wanted to do something, but what? In addition to the horrific loss of life and eternal sadness that the attacks brought, thousands of enterprises instantly were put out of work. No one could go into the office because the offices were gone. One thing we knew for certain was that we here at NetAge had reams of useful information for people who suddenly needed to work at a distance. But how to quickly distribute what we knew without making things more difficult for those trying to cope?

Jeff Stamps, my co-author and the Big Thinker here at NetAge, had a great idea: Post our books to the web, available free for download to anyone. Which is what we did six years ago. Click this link.

Vt25covers_date_2

Continue reading "Virtual Teams and our other books online" »

Monday, 03 September 2007

Happy birthday to Web Worker Daily

I don't know the folks who pump out the useful stuff for Web Worker Daily, but I sure like them. Started a year ago today, this informative blog is dedicated to Pajama Nation, those toilers on the homefront for the workfront.

Take a look. In the month or so that I've been reading, I've found much to think about and have linked two posts here, one on "the social graph problem" and the other on the advantage of using multiple monitors.

From today's one-year-anniversary post:

On Labor Day 2006, Om Malik and the GigaOM team started this blog/community as a resource for (and a salute to) those of us who were living a sockless lifestyle:

"What are the best tools and what is the right gear to stay in touch with your team? How do you motivate your distributed teams when you are all dispersed all over the planet? The answers for these questions are hard to come by, and it was precisely for these reasons, we are introducing a new group weblog/community, Web Worker Daily."

Thursday, 30 August 2007

"The new social etiquette"

The lake is silk this morning, a fishing boat picking up a bit of speed and heading toward Moultonboro, otherwise not a riffle on the Smile of the Great Spirit. Which makes this post even more ridiculous, sitting at the picnic table, waiting for the wood chips to soak before firing up the smoker that my hubby and kids fabricated yesterday out of a garbage can, steel rods, and a hotplate.

Though many people in the US are on vacation (holiday to our Euro friends) this week in anticipation of the official end of summer next Monday (Labor Day), I feel compelled to mention an ad that fell out of WIRED last night. At least, here in heaven, I wasn't reading it. Keen readers may recall my previous post questioning how I came to be a recipient of WIRED.

Helio, a new service of Earthlink and SK Telecomm, is offering us "The Mobile User's Guide to The New Social Etiquette." Here you can get your mobile device along with a heaping serving of how to behave online. It is bold and dismissive: "Voice Call--If you don't know what it is, then please just give this book away." Yes, it's a whole booklet of admonitions. And it harkens back to yet another post here, "Email is for old people," by letting us know that Helio Ocean (tm) "is bringing email back." Did it go somewhere?

I predict: The Messieurs Stewart and Colbert will have a feast with this advertising bonanza.

And...having read the whole thing AND gone to their site, I remain clueless as to what Helio is.

OH! All you guys reading this! Beware! Never send an emoticon to another guy. "Unless [you] like the other guy. A lot." AND "No emoticons unless you've met the other person face to face [sic] or at least sent a picture." Really? I'm sooo 20th-century.

Friday, 24 August 2007

The social graph problem

Here's one most people reading aren't worried about - yet: The social graph problem. What happens when you join social networking sites, whether for work or for "social?" For each new service - Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, ZoomInfo, and on and on (one estimate is that there are 5000 social applications/sites floating around as of now), you have to build a new network of "friends." What if you had just one and it belonged to you?

Web Worker Daily, my new best friend, reported on this a few days ago. Raises lots of questions. Different networks for different purposes? Of course. Do we need a site that manages your networks on all your other sites (as they say, this quickly becomes ratttthhhher meta)? Will any of this last anyway, in which case, why bother?

Patti Anklam ferreted out the Welsh word for this: cynefin, the place of my many belongings.

Many different networks, together a person doth make.

Wednesday, 22 August 2007

"Tiny to-do lists" at Web Worker

Good thinking again at Web Worker by Leo Babuata, this time on the dreaded to-do list: make them tiny. Here. Anyone remember the "Few Big Rules" from the '90s? These two ideas should get together. 

Saturday, 18 August 2007

Round-up on collaboration and virtual teams

Michael Sampson, the New Zealand based collaboration expert, is tireless. Today, another catalog of posts on the people side of collaboration and virtual teams. If you're new to this area, it's worth clicking through to all the links Michael lists as this post is chockful of good thinking. If you're an old-timer, you might find yourself going directly to Dilbert on Telecommuting.

To be honest, I haven't communed with Dilbert for a very long time but this set of cartoons is positively prescient. How many people (other than us and a handful of our friends) truly were telecommuting in 1995? That said, Dilbert's notion of skipping the act of dressing while working from home flies in the face of the advice from the WIRED issue that I mentioned a few days ago. WIRED says the Full Monty is hardly the way to go. Get dressed as if you're going to work, WIRED recommends. Yeah, right.

Thursday, 16 August 2007

How many monitors do you use?

Web Worker Daily has