Four Groups

Archive for the ‘Technology’ Category

The rapid growth in the number of accelerator programs in the start-up world  brings the role of mentoring to the fore as a valuable tool for helping emerging entrepreneurs. With high profile programs such as Y Combinator, Techstars in the US and Springboard, Seedcamp, Startup Bootcamp, Oxygen and Mola amongst others in Europe. Following a similar model, start-ups are given office space cash and access to industry experts, in exchange for a small slice of equity. At the end of the three month program they then present to investors in the hope of securing further seed funding for their products.

Apart from hard cash, one of the key elements of the accelerator program offered to nascent companies is a mentoring. Mentors are usually sourced from a wide talent pool that includes individuals with practical experience in areas directly relevant to start-ups. This can include individuals experienced in; VC investment, PR, business development, finance and more experienced entrepreneurs. What is the value of this to young companies? At first glance, the top line benefits would appear to be the opportunity to tap into the mentor’s experience and gain feedback and insight into the problems they are grappling with. Secondly, gaining access to the mentor’s contacts book could also help open doors at a crucial stage. Both of these benefits would appear to be an invaluable opportunity for young companies.

However, I would argue that this access, whilst nice to have, will only have a limited impact on the long-term development and performance of young enterprises. In actual fact,  mentoring can be much more powerful and have a far more profound impact, however there is a caveat. Rather than dealing with the practical and specific day to day issues, the greatest upside potential in this situation is for the mentor to help the start-ups deal with and manage the huge amount of uncertainty they are dealing with. In other words rather than seeking specific answers to questions, the mentor can provide a far more valuable service by helping the start-ups figure out what are the right questions to ask.

Concentrating on asking the right questions, an ability to question ones own assumptions and dealing with inherent uncertainty is arguably far more valuable in the long-run than getting short term answers to questions and practical issues. The problem with seeking answers rather than questions is that despite their best intentions, mentors may not be able to provide optimal guidance based on their own experience. What may have worked for them in the past may not be the correct course of action for the entrepreneurs they are mentoring. This is especially true in the world of tech start-ups that accelerator programs inhabit.

The caveat to this approach is that this type of mentoring  requires a very specific relationship dynamic between mentor and mentee. Where a conducive dynamic does not exist, no amount of effort on the part or either mentor or start-up is going to result in a productive outcome. Where strong relationships underpin the mentoring process, it becomes less about the transfer of explicit knowledge and insight but instead far more subtle and potentially rewarding.

I would argue that it is far less important for mentors to have experience in an area that is perceived to be compatible or beneficial to a start-up than it is to have a relationship with strong learning and collaborative potential. This approach forces both parties to look beyond what is obvious and encourages a more considered approach based not on seeking answers to questions but figuring out what are the right questions to be asking, in this case it does not matter if the mentor has the answers or not. By taking the time to understand the way relationship dynamics will affect this process, it becomes possible to develop a program that offers far greater long-term potential to young entrepreneurs.

Being able to predict things, in business and elsewhere is critical. We don’t always get it right, but understanding the variables and relationships between ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ goes a long way to creating a positive outcome.

In terms of Enterprise 2 and related Social Business software, this point is key and is the subject of a post (and a good few comments) by Keith Swenson, entitled Social Has No Future (Yet). Here’s the opening paragraph.

This provocative title simply means: In general, social software systems record what is happening now and in the past, but for the most part completely lack any representation of the future. Enterprise Social Software, or Social Business Software, will succeed only if it has some representation of goals or other future activities.

While Keith goes on to talk about other aspects of social software, this initial point is the critical one in my mind. Without the ability to make predictions, the range of problems that can be solved is dramatically reduced.

Ross Dawson has a view of both next year and the next decade. Amongst the trends, relationships are becoming more and more significant (if they weren’t already!) and given the increased use of social media tools, this is only likely to increase.

The two relational extracts from the post;

GLOBAL TALENT. Talent is everywhere. As organizations shift to networks, transcending workplaces, success will be driven by how well they can attract the most talented, those who can choose where, how, and why they work. Real-time translation software will enable true multi-cultural teams. Wealth will flow to the talented, wherever they are.

ORGANIZATIONS TO NETWORKS. By the end of this decade close to half the workforce will be working independently, often across national boundaries. Companies will function on social networks and gaming platforms, professionals will work for many clients, and many of today’s companies will be supplanted by networks of experts.

Susan Scrupski writes about some research she’s been doing with GE and J&J, the upshot of which is that as the generational collide increases, the value placed on networks and relationships by younger employees seems to rise.

In Susan’s words;

We’re conducting a large research project right now on “Redefining Employee Computing” with 24 member corporations, many of them global– half are in the Fortune 100 (of those, 6 are in the top 50 and 3 are in the top 10). I can assure you that the generational “collide” is a high priority board room and management issue. It’s so strategic, many corporations are preemptively prepping to accommodate the new workforce and rethink their old school management processes.

Here’s a video of Greg Simpson, CTO at GE talking about some of these themes.

Sig has a great post on the slowly emerging theme that “Business” is nothing but “Social Networks”. Given the recent rise of numerous social software platforms and the maturity of Business Process Management, it is refreshing to read that people are starting to see that relationships and connections are of increasing importance.

Another good example of this is the work around Human Interaction Management by Keith Harrison-Broninski.

From Sig’s post;

Social networks, the kind we now know so well, in the cloud networks, works the same way. Facebook started out having universities as the “Social Object”, now extended to all kind of groups, fan-of or I-like affiliations with very easy to use interfaces all making it happen. Linkedin has business connections as the “Social Object”, or purpose if you want. I would not go to Linkedin to find a cyclist keen to join a Sunday ride, for that I have other social forums.

Hence the equation, the core measure of how strong and effective a social networking offer can be:

Social network strength/growth = (“Social Object” importance) * (ease of interaction)

Now if only there was a way to model and predict these interactions?

Bertrand Duperrin has a great piece on Enterprise 2 and its attempts to move from evangelism to commercial returns in 2011. This is perhaps the most compelling part of the post;

Accept to say that an enterprise is, first, here to create value and that this value will have to be shown and measured. Keep in mind these wise words from Chris Yeh: “If you can’t sell more, buy less, or fire somebody, you’re not getting real ROI.”

Its very hard to argue with the rationale put forward by Bertrand but based on my own thoughts on Transformation, I thought it would be fun to compare Enterprise 2 (as I see it) to this definition.

1. Can you explain it quickly? Potentially, yes, but I’d argue that you’re relying on familiarity with existing software tools (twitter, wikis, blogs etc.). That said, the tide is turning here and I think this is good to go.
2. It is repeatable and scalable? Again, in the main yes. Whether its GE’s Support Central, or Hello at Booz Allen.
3. Does it change people’s day jobs? Clearly using a new piece of kit is a simple yes.
4. Does it have a demonstrable ROI? This is the tricky part. There are positive and negative thoughts at the moment, but my sense is that it is here to stay.
5. Does it have external validity? This is harder to tell and the best demonstration of this comes after an ROI. There is no shortage of conferences though and the 2.0 Adoption Council is a good standard bearer.

Either way, my sense is that a combination of executive teams, IT and/or other parts of the business will take credit for Enterprise 2. You can rest assured HR won’t get a scrap of credit for this one.

A classic (it was published in 2005!) from Stowe  Boyd on Social Software. Much of it has come to pass, but its nice to look back and see the connections. I particularly enjoyed his conclusion, the full effects of which are still a long way off…

Perhaps just as interesting as the way that social software is transforming group interaction, across different time zones or in the same room. Social software is destined to have a huge impact on how businesses get at their markets. So the essential elements of social software will be incorporated into more conventional software solutions, changing the way collaboration and communication is managed within and across businesses, and ultimately transforming how companies sell and interact with customers.

Justin Kirby was very kind to do a writeup of our contribution to a NESTA funded research project he was involved in.

These ideas aren’t dissimilar to what I wrote about re: Jackie Orme and I’ve added a short extract below.

Many large organisations claim to have excellent and world-class capabilities in:

• Business processes
• Collaborative software (video conferencing, blogs, wikis etc.)
• Developmental support (workshops, training, coaching, learning etc.)

What appears to be missing from the client perspective is a methodology, system or tool (e.g. Kaplan Norton ‘Balanced Score Card’, Six Sigma, etc.) to help optimise collaboration, working relationships and productivity, particularly if a new
project is starting or a new initiative is under way.

So while the three areas mentioned earlier are very well understood by the majority of large organisations, a means or method to ‘scale’ collaboration and help enhance productivity in a systematic fashion is potentially a missing piece of the jigsaw.

By providing a systematic methodology and framework for decision making, research participant Bruce Lewin of 4 Groups has suggested that their 4G technology helps optimise the often ‘hard to manage’ or intangible elements of collaboration, namely working relationships, shared values and creative tensions that are part and parcel of any collaborative activity.

Welcome to the first update for 2010. In the spirit of new beginnings, in this issue we will look at how the debate around organisational performance is widening. We’ll also look at how after 18 months of economic chaos, the fundamentals of organisational behaviour and what everyone has taken for granted about motivation and engagement could have played a key role in recent events. We’ll also touch on the following themes;

• Mergers, Acquisitions and Human Capital
• Motivation and Engagement
• Myths surrounding Top Talent
• New Ways to Engage via Social Network Analysis
• Limits of Understanding around Managerial Behaviour
• Passion and Purpose
• Innovation Constraints
• Managing Tacit Knowledge

Articles are included from the likes of Deliotte, Gary Hamel, Henry Minzberg, HR Magazine, Karen Stephenson, McKinsey and Strategy + Business.

Tag Cloud

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve just read the great piece from Jon Husband at the FASTForward blog and its made me think a great deal about Enterprise 2.0 (E2) stuff and how this compares to other new technologies and methods that we’ve seen play out in the last 20/30 years.

My thinking is as follows;

• E2 can be framed both as a technology and as a cultural shift
• Its takeup is clearly very different from hard technologies e.g. email, personal computers, blackberries, databases etc.
• Adoption is also very different from technological/methodological hybrids e.g. CRM, BRP(?), ERP and JIT amongst others
• Likewise, the debate about top down and bottom up drivers of adoption is new(ish)
• E2 seeks a different culture from command and control in which to thrive

Thus;

• Given the potentially disruptive nature of E2
• Its perceived low cost of technology
• The apparent need to be integrated into processes (see Howlett for example!)
• Its material ‘distributed’ impact on culture and values (what can’t be E2′ed?)

It will either;

Take hold on a case by case basis, varying from organisation to organisation and function to function, eventually fulfilling its potential and bringing about a subtle change in culture, the credit for which will vary dramatically and some will claim it was their idea from day!

or

Fail to take hold as the organisation seeks to control and police (in the nicest possible way of course!) the various elements of E2

Therefore;

• E2 is a bit of a slippery eel, who knows where it will go next
• E2 doesn’t lend itself to linear outcomes and cost/benefit analysis (hard but not impossible!)
• Claiming credit and gaining influence for E2 is anyone’s guess

As Jon writes himself;

I am not aware of significant work in the general area of changes to mainstream HR practices as a result of embarking on the path towards Enterprise 2.0.  I will be delighted to learn from any of you of examples and / or issues I may have missed or glossed over.

My guess is that we’ll be waiting quite a while…

Rather than bandwagoning around E2, I think that setting out to claim a element of an organisation that can be improved and has thus far been overlooked will reap richer rewards.

Many thanks to Anne Marie for the brainstorm