Short Report from FASTForward’07
FASTForward was an interesting conference. It was put on by a vendor of search technology, and the primary focus is on providing value for that vendor’s customers. I have to say, I have been to similar conferences in the past (and never as a customer, always as some sort of awkward outsider) and FAST did it well. Their customers, many of whom are being exposed to these “Enterprise 2.0″ ideas for the first time, seemed to be buzzing and curious.
FAST had a tough time keeping the discussion on just search, but rather than shut down other discussions, they simply offered their own take on how search fit in. I was impressed with them, especially as they are going through some internal turmoil (rumor mill).
Interesting Bits:
* Adam Carson, who needs to blog more often, is working for (the biggest?) investment banking operation in the world, and he is the point man on finding a direction for them to dive in to Enterprise 2.0. Adam has his shit together and doesn’t do all that corpspeak bs we get tired of from many of the people trying to do this stuff in big orgs. Adam is taking a 2.0 approach to Enterprise 2.0, which just makes good sense but seems to elude most people. Watch for him as he kicks ass shortly.
* Euan Semple and I had never met, but I have been reading his stuff for years. Getting to hang out with him was great and would have made the entire trip worthwhile.
* My estimate right now: 98% of people are talking, 2% of people max. are doing.
* Ray Lane says “that someone at Harvard calls it Enterprise 2.0, I call it the “Inter-Personal Enterprise”. +1 for Ray for a great rendition of his often given Enterprise focused talk.
* Analysts are banging their heads against the wall trying to understand how to layer social tools into existing organizations.
* Everyone wants to talk about the largest scenarios, and when many ideas are brought up a “that would never work at a place like GE” response is thrown out. Shifting the conversation to much smaller case studies is far more interesting and provides a much clearer idea of possibility.
* The most interesting people are the ones who are curious as hell, but not trying to pretend they get it. What the hell is going on here? What can I do to dig deeper? Is this a complete change or an incremental upgrade of organizations?
* (obvious) Free Beer was plentiful. That keeps people very happy.
Less interesting Bits:
* The place seemed to be crawling with big 5 consultant types. The scary change since 6 months ago: they have gone from saying “this seems cool, tell me more” to saying things like “we have done an Enterprise 2.0 survey of over 16,000 companies with 300 datapoints and we have determined that in order to redefine the paradigm outcome we must reintegrate the 1.0 strategy with a 2.0 multiplier and provide another research study to … blah … blah.. blah”
* Intellectual discussions on this stuff can not only be boring as hell, but probably detrimental. Hearing some of the stuff people were saying in one of the “Enterprise 2.0 Roundtable”’s was scary.
* Intellectual discussions on “adoption” are even more boring. Talk about a misnomer.
* “Business Intelligence” still leaves me with a blank expression. When I asked E WTF it was, he offered that it was more of an oxymoron than anything. I think I will just let it slide by.
* People tried to convince me on several occassions that this new era is just Knowledge Management repackaged. I feel like I am missing something drastic here. The change now goes deeper, has immediate impact and is focused on PEOPLE, not KNOWLEDGE. Rebuttal needs work.
Reprinted: Radar 2.0
The story of Radar in World War II is an interesting one. It was developed by the British, and then subsequently perfected by them. It was, essentially at the time, the perfect technology. It worked well, training of operators was relatively easy, and for the American Army and Navy: it was cheap. Britain had, in a desperate move to gain favor and production capability, transferred their entire folio of radar research and design information.
Radar was cheap, fast, and you could mash it in to existing process and workflow. Everything seemed rosy.
Those who worked on Radar each day, like Private Eliot at Pearl Harbor, came to trust their radar completely. They saw each and every aircraft coming and going within their range and often coordinated large influxes of aircraft. The problem, however, was that nobody else got to seem much of Radar in action. It was a few miles from Pearl Harbor itself and communicated by radio.
People couldn’t understand it, and they couldn’t trust it much either.
The 7th of December 1941, the Pearl Harbor Radar operator saw something new on his screen. It was filling up with dots. Little dots blinking on the radar screen.
This was the moment of crisis. 1 hour before the attacks would begin. Certainly enough time to move some ships and prepare some sort of defense.
When word came through that something was coming, nobody got very excited, until finally someone remembered that a group was flying from the mainland that day. The command was sent back that it was just friendly planes and not to worry, “you probably have your bearings off” or something like that.
Sure enough, Radar was right. It was a massive group of Japanese fighters coming to launch a full scale attack.
Radar 2.0
Being in the business of building, buying or selling technology that is better, faster, cheaper is a much scarier place to be than we realize sometimes. We sit behind our radar screens and we become believers. We see that these technologies are reliable, easy and world changing, but we often get stuck because we can’t communicate that same excitement, or faith, to those around us.
Can we avoid being Radar? or are we doomed to be ignored at the strategic and operational level?
The problem was not adoption
There has been a lot of talk about “adoption” during this conference and on this blog, but the interesting thing about Radar was that it was adopted completely on the level it needed to be. The Army and Navy accepted it, deployed it and the right people volunteered to be trained for it (they were mostly young, early adopters). Radar was then spliced in to the process and workflow of the day.
Ownership
The problem was in fact that nobody had a sense of ownership for Radar. It was a British invention, given to the Americans and subsequently installed in a relatively short period of time. People agreed that it probably worked, probably seemed like a good idea, and they even integrated it into their everyday work. They listened to the Radar station during training exercises, and even saw that it was pretty accurate. Everyone also heard great success stories of it’s use in Europe to coordinate air defense and protect bombers.
The problem instead was that when faced with a moment of crisis, or more accurately perhaps: a moment of confusion, people defaulted away from Radar and back to themselves and the things that were familiar to them.
Allowing Ownership
There may have been a few ways to build a sense of ownership of Radar amongst the Army and Navy. As a Monday Morning (or post-half century) quarterback it is easy to think we might have done a better job, but the truth probably is that it really takes a moment of crisis to create that sense of ownership and trust that a new tool needs to be effective.
After Pearl Harbor, the Army and Navy embraced Radar with a sort of vengeance. It was never questioned again.
Different Moments of Crisis
Moments of Crisis can be different for everyone with Enterprise social tools. It could be someone who has lost faith in their job and they are desperately looking for a space to be themselves, it could be a manager who is tired of not making progress, it could be a CEO who realizes that he/she is not capable of doing this him/her-self. It could be a company with almost no growth, or an organization that is chronically under capitalized and needs to cut costs dramatically in order to survive.
It could be anything.
A Personal thing
Social tools, new models for work and business, independent and creative work are all very personal things. As we bring these new toolkits and capabilities to organizations, we have to respect the fact that we are asking people to have faith more than anything.
We can’t sell this to them, we can’t “build adoption” or “create viral uptake”. No, I’m sorry, we can only offer them, and ourselves, a little bit of something and be there as a sort of steward of The New. A sort of Jesuit Priest for a new freedom.
So let’s stop spinning our wheels. Let’s stop worrying about being successful on a large scale and let’s start thinking about having an impact on people.
I call it the New Human Enterprise, Ray Lane calls it the Personal Enterprise, most people are calling it Enterprise 2.0, but no matter what we call it, we are really talking about Faith and Salvation in a corporate world, to get there we need to start filling bellies with healthy food and offering individuals a new way of living.
Radar 2.0?
The story of Radar in World War II is an interesting one. It was developed by the British, and then subsequently perfected by them. It was, essentially at the time, the perfect technology. It worked well, training of operators was relatively easy, and for the American Army and Navy: it was cheap. Britain had, in a desperate move to gain favor and production capability, transferred their entire folio of radar research and design information.
Radar was cheap, fast, and you could mash it in to existing process and workflow. Everything seemed rosy.
Read the post on the FASTForward Blog »
Public Radio: NPR: Finally doing something. But what?
A new show is being developed, and the reader community is being asked What’s in a Name.
The folks at NPR are doing a fantastic job with the Rough Cuts blog and opening themselves up to change.
They have given up a process to the public.
What about giving up your entire strategy to your listeners?
“We want to find a way to influence and inform young americans, can you help us figure out how we can do that?”
What if the answer you got back was that a radio show was a bad idea? Then the comfort zone about this whole idea might close in a little.
I can see your argument, there is an R in NPR for a reason, and we still call it “Public Radio”. I understand that there are thousands of people in the system who’s entire job is to create Radio,. and online companion material for Radio.
But what about the top? What about the executive work, the introspection, the questioning, the idea that Radio too shall pass. Strategy, Seeing the Future, asking different questions.
There is no long-term leadership in the public radio system. There are Workers, Influencers and Gurus. Who are the leaders? Who can galvanize the entire world of public radio and lead it into the future?
Nobody. Not a single person.
I’m not saying it is impossible, it’s just reality: that person simply does not exist.
Give up yourself, stop being busy. Take a risk for once and just get on with it.
Remember that first kiss when you were a kid. All you had to do was lean in and close your eyes. It was hard as hell, but sure enough, it was the beginning of a new way of thinking.
Just lean in and close your eyes.
Public Radio: Rob’s Writings
My partner Rob has done the best writing so far on Public Radio in the United States.
I think his writing may get taken lightly some times by key public radio people, but Rob is in fact an insider of the entire system and hears a lot of what is going on. His writing is much more informed and balanced than you might first expect.
Here is just a bit of his recent writing
- The Grail of Public Media?
- Todd Mundt - The Iowa Story - A Story for all Public Radio?
- Fox - Shows a way for Public radio
- What if Public radio was really Public?
- Mark Ramsey’s Wake Up Call for Public Radio
- Public radio - The Power of Local in a Global Era
- Activity vs Accomplishment
- NPRNess
- Public Radio - The Voice of the Listener
- The Future of Public Radio
Please visit Rob’s blog for a whole lot more.
From Inside to Outside: Public Radio in America
Public Radio in the United States is a sort of fearful mistress to those who spend their lives trying to contribute to her. She is a large woman, plain enough to be your neighbor, she even makes a fantastic coffee cake that you devour during events at the community hall (funerals, conception announcements [they have these in PublicRadioVille], the occasional birth [that hasn't been aborted]) and she sometimes even gives you a neighborly hug.
You knew she had some social anxiety, but you would never have guessed she was a changeophobe. She hasn’t moved the recliner in her living room for 30 years. She still has one of those massive satellite dishes in her backyard, I think it needs a mechanic to keep it going.
Enough with the playful analogy. How should public radio look as an organization if it is going to continue to be relevant?
One of the wonderful things I saw while travelling the country working as a consultant for NPR was the diversity. Sure there was great diversity in the gender/sexuality/race sense, but that is not what I am talking about.
I saw a great diversity of definition and perception. Different ideas about why public radio is successful, different ideas as to what the listener wants, different perceptions of the management of public radio.
Diversity of Reality of sorts. Poor stations, rich stations, passionate people, painfully boring people, incredibly engaged people, lifers, radicals. Wise Gurus, crown princes, senseis and spoiled children.
Does Public Radio need to change?
Can public radio be relevant at all?
In the next few days and probably weeks I will start to dump what I managed to learn while I was doing my work at NPR, both about National Public Radio and the entire Public Radio system in the United States.
ScotchCamp
This past Thursday Mark Kuzniki and I held a slightly ridiculous experiment: ScotchCamp.
I don’t know a lot about Scotch. I really enjoy most Glenmorangie scotches, and usually have a bottle on hand at home, but my knowledge ends there. We had no intention of any specific learning going on, we really just wanted an excuse to get some interesting people together over a lubricating drink or two, or three, or four.
I have to say that ScotchCamp was an incredible sucess. Well over a dozen people showed up. Some drank scotch, some did not, but everyone really had a chance to spend some time talking to people they hadn’t met. I have seen Rohan at least 12 times in the last year, but I never had a chance to find out more about his work and what sort of work he is aspiring to do. It was great to spend some time in a relaxed non-tech-charged atmosphere just hanging out.
Alan Hietala, Slava Sakhnenko, and Jonas Brandon were all guys I had never met before but had a chance to get to know better than I know most in the Toronto Torcamp community. Patrick Dinnen and I talked a lot about what sort of changes we’d like to see in the world of work, and Michele, Kelley and Catharine from the Beal Institute brought some of the most passionate Scotch opinions to ScotchCamp and as usual, seemed to keep the conversation at an engaging level. Peter Mosley provided a fantastic background joie de vivre.
For the next ScotchCamp we may actually do some sort of tasting, if we can find the right venue.
If you can’t get enough camping, I hope you signed up for TransitCamp this Sunday, and DemoCamp takes place on Monday, and is going to be well attended.
CorporateSpeak 101 - LiveSquare.com
This has to be the most corpspeak laden presentation I have watched yet on Demo.com.
Buying bottled water is wrong, says Suzuki
“I don’t believe for a minute that French water is better than Canadian water. I think that we’ve got to drink the water that comes out of our taps, and if we don’t trust it, we ought to be raising hell about that.”
What’s at the edges? More than you bargained for
(cross-posted to the FASTForward Blog)
A lot of organizations get caught up on all of the bad stuff they think they will encounter when adopting social platforms within their organization.
“What about the white spam” I am asked, I am informed that white-spam is the stuff people send around the office such as “I am having a baby” or “Company picnic this Saturday”.“Do you even like the people you work with?” I ask him, in my head.
You see, there really are two types of people in the enterprise world. Those who feel like they have to maximize the current systems and processes, and there are those who believe that you must surpass existing systems to create new value.
Alexander Manu calls this The Imagination Challenge, the idea that creativity and innovation do not drive new value, they simply recreate most value. Imagination lets us make that creative leap to see new futures that can be wildly more lucrative than simply maximizing current assets.
So what if you are like my friend, who is stuck in a thought pattern that tells him that email will be the only form of communication inside corporations for the next 200 years? What if, in spite of what you think, you are not an imaginative thinker, in fact, you aren’t even an innovative or creative thinker.
The best thing I can do is to tell you about how social media tools CAN maximize current assets within an organization. The only leap is that the asset we are talking about isn’t software, but people.
What is out there at the edges?
Efficiencies
Wild and crazy efficiencies beyond your most daring dreams. People at the edges of your organization make far more efficient use of resources than people at the center of your organization.
Social tools in the enterprise let those people at the edges push those efficiencies back into the network. One Firestoker client was able to discover and distribute ~130 new efficiencies in the span of a year.
Innovation
“The act of introducing something new” – Within your current enterprise environment you probably think you have some sort of Innovation Process, or even just a pattern of how new ideas are assimilated, but the truth is that much of what you create at the center of your organization is not something new, but simple the maximization, (or at worse: retooling) of something that already exists.
People at the edges of your organization do not have access to the same massive existing resources that those at the center do, they have to take in new, previously unknown, inputs in order to create new value.
Values
The wonderful thing about the edges of your organization is that the people are real. Real people doing hard work and doing the best they can. With that comes a certain understanding of their own core values. In my work in 2006 with public radio in the US, we noticed that while the large corporate entities talked about “core values” a lot, they were the most granular and definable at the station level.
Disruption
Strong and healthy systems are not afraid of disruption, they typically welcome it. Much like the human body which, if it is exposed to enough germs and viruses in it’s lifetime, it will be a much stronger organism as it ages.
Many of the structures and processes we have in place in modern organizations are reporting mechanisms built to filter unnecessary information and to wash undesirable information from reaching unprepared ears, but modern social software tools give us far more bandwidth that allows us to both hear more disruptive thinking and information, and also deal with that information in a way that was not previously possible.
