Hello, What stands out to me most is the product managers one question.
>> PM: does it DO anything? >>
I think inside the firewall with social networking that is the #1 question, where is the value added, what does it do, what can it do for me or my org?
I've seen people with over 100 connections in their social network but where is the value added? In the worst case scenario a boss/manager might even wonder how much time a person has been putting into building that network instead of doing their job.
Don't get me wrong I think there is a huge place for Web 2.0 practices inside the firewall but getting any traction with it is going to be near impossible until you can answer that question and show the value added.
Regards, Carl
Jake
· 2 years ago
Or is it that people have too much process-related, hoop-jumping to do that the threshold for other stuff is very high, even if there is a value-add?
The value-add for Connect is what you do within the network, like click-to-call or direct IM or broadcast your experience and have it indexed, beyond just a phone number and org chart. As we add features, the value rises, but that's not really the point.
Why does everything have to be so selfish? What happened to just trying something new for giggles or just to do something new? Are we that jaded? And if so, how can we expect to do anything innovative?
And again, where's the trust? Why would I worry about how many contacts I have when I'm consistently producing kickass deliverables on time? Are we that small-minded? If that's the case, I'm working 8 hour days and punching a time clock again.
If you think there's a place for 2.0 inside the firewall, where is it?
Jake
gretchen alarcon
· 2 years ago
I agree this is a question of time allocation and incentives. While the incentives part is hard (as you mention above), the time allocation part helps. In a previous start-up, we declared No Meeting Wednesdays. It was amazing the amount of productivity and ideation that happened when the development team had a whole day open. Yes, they worked on deliverables, but without having the day chopped into meetings, they also had time to explore, which is key to innovation.
Jake
· 2 years ago
Gretchen, I've heard that before, i.e. no meeting days, and that's another great way to ensure stuff gets done.
As usual, the hard part is taking that step and sticking to it.
Jake
Anne Zelenka
· 2 years ago
Seems like a bigco like Oracle might suffer from the innovator's dilemma. It is very good at doing incremental improvement on enterprise apps and meeting the needs of current customers. Doing radical innovation isn't necessarily going to meet the needs of those customers who just want this new feature or that performance improvement.
So maybe you *can* be too busy to innovate -- and successful big companies like Oracle are so busy meeting the needs of current customers that they are just that.
Where's the place for Web 2.0 and social networking behind the firewall then? I still suspect it's in solving the really hard problems you come across when working on complex systems like enterprise apps. I'm not sure it's so much about innovation -- though that might be a side benefit -- as just about problem-solving and being more effective in getting regular work done.
As far as innovation in a big company goes, maybe the best place for it is it some sort of skunkworks type organization rather than sprinkled throughout every team. At least when I was at Oracle, we had so much to do that we knew about that innovation was not the top concern. We just needed to get features designed, coded, and tested then out the door. We needed to execute, not innovate.
An aside: interesting point Carl made about if you have too many contacts your manager might start to question whether you're being productive. Andrew McAfee wrote about the same issue in April.
It backs up a lot of your points. I'd also recommend Bob Sutton's 11.5 Weird Ideas That Work for further vindification.
Managing for innovation is very different to managing for project results / service levels.
Matt
Jake
· 2 years ago
Anne I remember this piece by Mr. E 2.0, and I am narrowly defining my comments to my experience with technology companies. However, as a whole, technologies companies demand more time and flexibility, therefore I think they are more lax about supposed time-wasters. Carl and I both work for Oracle, so my point applies equally to our experiences, i.e. if your manager thinks you have too many contacts on Connect, maybe you need to change groups because there's no trust there.
Matt: This is good stuff. Thanks.
The overall problem as I see is that we don't allow for structured creative time, which seems to be the only model that can work. I think if a policy of 1 hour per day was to be spent on creative projects or whatever (sleeping, I don't care) the benefits would be huge. Morale would improve, even if innovation and creativity didn't. People want to be trusted to do what's right, and what's wrong with indulging a little when you make people spend so much time on process and planning?
Anyway, glad to have your thoughts. Jake
davidhaimes
· 2 years ago
I have two thoughts:
Firstly ---- Enterprise 2.0 is tough. People have way too much to do anyway and want immediate benefits and a killer app before they are willing to spend time. ----
Maybe more importantly it needs to have benefits and a killer app before people are prepared to pay us money for it and move our stock in the right direction.
However, I agree with Jake about clocking in keeping our head down and clocking out. I'm still here after these years because there are plenty of people who take a step back now and again and think: Why are we doing this? Is there a better way? Do customers really want this product/feature? Wouldn't it be cool to have the Oracle org structure in facebook? Isn't that cool? I wonder how I could put that to work in my daily life? Product/feature? new startup company? Is it time to go to the pub yet?
If we don't think eventually somebody who does will figure out a way to automate the work we do and we will have all the time we need to think (and go to the pub).
Jake
· 2 years ago
David brings up a good point. Because it's so hard to get anything done (see here) it's pretty easy to throw up your hands and walk. Just do your job, stay under the radar and punch that clock. It's easier to do this now than it was in the past when RIFs were a yearly thing.
I sez that's just not good enough anymore. People are smart, not dumb, creative, not automatons. Find the outlet and do something cool. Otherwise, it's just work, and you're just crapping away a big percentage of your waking life.
All Comments
What stands out to me most is the product managers one question.
>>
PM: does it DO anything?
>>
I think inside the firewall with social networking that is the #1 question, where is the value added, what does it do, what can it do for me or my org?
I've seen people with over 100 connections in their social network but where is the value added? In the worst case scenario a boss/manager might even wonder how much time a person has been putting into building that network instead of doing their job.
Don't get me wrong I think there is a huge place for Web 2.0 practices inside the firewall but getting any traction with it is going to be near impossible until you can answer that question and show the value added.
Regards,
Carl
The value-add for Connect is what you do within the network, like click-to-call or direct IM or broadcast your experience and have it indexed, beyond just a phone number and org chart. As we add features, the value rises, but that's not really the point.
Why does everything have to be so selfish? What happened to just trying something new for giggles or just to do something new? Are we that jaded? And if so, how can we expect to do anything innovative?
And again, where's the trust? Why would I worry about how many contacts I have when I'm consistently producing kickass deliverables on time? Are we that small-minded? If that's the case, I'm working 8 hour days and punching a time clock again.
If you think there's a place for 2.0 inside the firewall, where is it?
Jake
I've heard that before, i.e. no meeting days, and that's another great way to ensure stuff gets done.
As usual, the hard part is taking that step and sticking to it.
Jake
So maybe you *can* be too busy to innovate -- and successful big companies like Oracle are so busy meeting the needs of current customers that they are just that.
Where's the place for Web 2.0 and social networking behind the firewall then? I still suspect it's in solving the really hard problems you come across when working on complex systems like enterprise apps. I'm not sure it's so much about innovation -- though that might be a side benefit -- as just about problem-solving and being more effective in getting regular work done.
As far as innovation in a big company goes, maybe the best place for it is it some sort of skunkworks type organization rather than sprinkled throughout every team. At least when I was at Oracle, we had so much to do that we knew about that innovation was not the top concern. We just needed to get features designed, coded, and tested then out the door. We needed to execute, not innovate.
An aside: interesting point Carl made about if you have too many contacts your manager might start to question whether you're being productive. Andrew McAfee wrote about the same issue in April.
Check out this research by Teresa Amabile: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/89/creativi...
It backs up a lot of your points. I'd also recommend Bob Sutton's 11.5 Weird Ideas That Work for further vindification.
Managing for innovation is very different to managing for project results / service levels.
Matt
I remember this piece by Mr. E 2.0, and I am narrowly defining my comments to my experience with technology companies. However, as a whole, technologies companies demand more time and flexibility, therefore I think they are more lax about supposed time-wasters. Carl and I both work for Oracle, so my point applies equally to our experiences, i.e. if your manager thinks you have too many contacts on Connect, maybe you need to change groups because there's no trust there.
Matt: This is good stuff. Thanks.
The overall problem as I see is that we don't allow for structured creative time, which seems to be the only model that can work. I think if a policy of 1 hour per day was to be spent on creative projects or whatever (sleeping, I don't care) the benefits would be huge. Morale would improve, even if innovation and creativity didn't. People want to be trusted to do what's right, and what's wrong with indulging a little when you make people spend so much time on process and planning?
Anyway, glad to have your thoughts.
Jake
Firstly
----
Enterprise 2.0 is tough. People have way too much to do anyway and want immediate benefits and a killer app before they are willing to spend time.
----
Maybe more importantly it needs to have benefits and a killer app before people are prepared to pay us money for it and move our stock in the right direction.
However, I agree with Jake about clocking in keeping our head down and clocking out. I'm still here after these years because there are plenty of people who take a step back now and again and think:
Why are we doing this?
Is there a better way?
Do customers really want this product/feature?
Wouldn't it be cool to have the Oracle org structure in facebook?
Isn't that cool?
I wonder how I could put that to work in my daily life?
Product/feature? new startup company?
Is it time to go to the pub yet?
If we don't think eventually somebody who does will figure out a way to automate the work we do and we will have all the time we need to think (and go to the pub).
I sez that's just not good enough anymore. People are smart, not dumb, creative, not automatons. Find the outlet and do something cool. Otherwise, it's just work, and you're just crapping away a big percentage of your waking life.
Good one.
Jake