Innovation: Decentralized & Internally Networked

How do you structure an organization to optimize innovation?  What are the most effective innovation pathways and processes?  Who is responsible for innovation?

Does any of that matter???

I recently participated in a conference on driving corporate innovation, and all of those business considerations - and a few more - were presented and discussed and analyzed.  I think they miss the point.

Innovative organizations today no longer try to structure and schedule innovation.  Instead, they respect the emergence of the individual within the organization, and they create a culture and environment that supports individual actions.  According to Gartner, the "Managed Anarchy Model" yields significantly more great ideas over time than does the Conventional Model; natural selection rather than management selection.

Individual behavior and corporate culture are facing increasing dissonance.  Gen Y has become famous for not following the established corporate rules, for being tethered to technology, for lack of loyalty to corporate employers.  But Gen Yers are also actively involved in social issues; they want to follow their instincts and passions and creatively change the world.  Aren't those great innovation characteristics?  Corporations need to tap into that individual drive.

With the prevalence of social technologies outside the corporate walls, individuals have learned to find like-minded people outside the usual channels.  They share ideas, pull information and insight from diverse groups, and create new partnerships as needed.

Individuals want to bring these characteristics into the workplace.  They want to self-select ideas and communities for collaboration within corporate walls.  Internal social platforms enable them to do so.  They help organizations become social businesses, from the inside out. 


Internal social technologies allow companies to decentralize innovation.  Social technologies facilitate innovation.  They drill holes in the silos.  They enable fresh conversations and exchanges of ideas.  And they are fluid.
 
IBM is at the forefront of using internal social technologies to drive innovation.  Conversations and ideas are sparked by over 17,000 internal blogs, 1 million daily page views of internal wikis and internal information storing websites, employee profiles on IBM Connections, and 15,000,000 downloads of employee-generated videos/podcasts.

50 IBM innovation jams have occurred over the past 10 years.  Back in 2006, IBM brought folks together in a jam to discuss more than 50 research projects in the company.  Projects voted into the top 10 became incubator businesses funded with $100M.

IBM Smarter Planet sprang from grass-roots, community discussions.

Smaller organizations with more limited technologies can benefit as well.  I worked with a medium-sized retail establishment that wanted to add social media to its marketing.  We started, however, by implementing a simple, free internal social platform and creating a cross-functional, cross-department core social media team.  Over the past 6 months, the cross-talk and new perspectives have dramatically accelerated innovation - from tactical improvements to the creation of an organization-wide "green" effort.

Internal social technology helps define innovation as a cultural norm and drive innovation into everyone's job. Employees behaving like individuals are the primary source of  innovation.  Let's not box them in.

Has internal social technology changed innovation for you?

Related posts of interest:
The Objective of Social Media is Lifestyle
Social Media and Innovation in IBM
IBM's Social Business Transformation

ROI of Internal Social Networks? Zero if the Network isn't Used

Just about a year ago, I discussed the factors driving ROI of internal social media networks.  But most companies are NOT realizing the benefits they expected.  The reason is fairly simple.   

Employees aren't showing up.

The InformationWeek 2012 study of enterprise social networking revealed that 87% of participants had an internal social network.  Only 13% rated the usage success as excellent.  The likelihood that a company viewed its success as average to poor?  A chilling 62%.

What makes an internal social network successful?  There are many details, approaches, and stories to success.  Primarily, though, a company has to embrace the change that the network will both enable and cause.  A social network functions most effectively within a social business; it does not attract adoption within the old, bureaucratic, staunchly hierarchical business models.  What's critical to success and what standard thinking doesn't work?  Here are my top 5:

1.  Flexibility, not strategic goals - Having a strategy and an objective for implementing an internal social network is important, but flexibility is more important.  By their very nature, social networks evolve and adapt and find their own reasons-to-be.  Organizations too focused on achieving a specific goal, on determining ahead of time how the network will be used, tend to flounder.  The social network becomes just another system that employees need to use; it becomes a burden rather than a benefit.  Deloitte Australia, a winner of the Forrester Groundswell Award, began using Yammer because they thought it looked "cool."  Three years later, Pete Williams, CEO Deloitte Digital, says "we're finding new value in the tool everyday."
2. Leadership, not grassroots -  Social media is the tool of the 99%, and successful internal social networks flatten hierarchy.  Social networks do not flourish under a command and control management model, but they do require leadership.  The active involvement of senior executives is critical to the effectiveness and usage of the system.  Unisys CEO Ed Coleman was an early adopter in the company, using the social network to communicate with employees, to listen, and to engage.  His executive team quickly followed, and employees began to use the network and then began to develop new uses for it.  Internal social networks, like external social networks, emphasize respect and collaboration across all levels.  Leadership needs to be willing to engage with employees without fear.  Deloitte Australia CEO Giam Swiegers talks about a first year analyst who challenged his point of view, and the debate was visible to all employees.  Swiegers liked knowing what employees were thinking and appreciated having the opportunity to discuss the issues; the ability to engage with leadership drives loyalty in employees.
3. Organic Evolution, not controlled growth - Staying up-to-date with the latest in social media is a challenge; new applications and uses appear frequently, because users keep trying out their ideas - and some stick.  It's the same with internal networks.  Should an executive team have some idea of how a network might be used before implementation?  Of course.  But then let it evolve.  "People are trying to rationalize, police, and control the tool," says Chris Laping, CIO of Red Robin restaurant chain, but "the power of information technology is sharing information.  What we naturally do with systems is lock them down, which prevents us from sharing information."  As more employees join a network, uses and needs also change.  Smaller groups form around projects or interests; new connections drive new ideas.  Users need to be able to adapt the network to meet their needs.
4. Communities of Interest, not just work - Employees with friends at work are happier and more productive (lots of data on this issue that I will spare you at the moment), and work issues are often intertwined with personal considerations.  Many companies strictly limit internal social networks to looking up data, working with project teams, or posting official pronouncements.  Yet communities of interest create friendships, help develop new policies and introduce new perspectives, and often both align with and drive corporate objectives.  Deloitte Australia employees have created a variety of communities of interest, from a "Mums Group" to "Audit Specialists."  At IBM, the gap between employee-produced content and corporate-produced content is large and still growing.  Leaders need to be actively engaged with the network, but users need to have a strong hand in shaping it.
5. Operational Virtue - Less controversial than the 4 points above, but also important; an internal social network must operate well in 3 ways.
• Ease of Use - If the system is not largely intuitive, if employees need a separate sign-on, or if the network does not integrate with e-mail and other critical enterprise platforms, employees will stay away.  The internal social network must be user friendly and agile, not cumbersome.
• Productivity - Social networks should improve the daily work of employees.  Project teams might work more efficiently and with greater speed; employees might be able to locate information more easily; work flows might be streamlined.  Not only should a social network create greater engagement and community, it should enable employees to be more productive.
• Measurement - While the uses of a social network will morph over time, it is always important to measure the real business results.  A McKinsey survey found that social business reduces time to market by 20% and increases the number of innovations by 20% on average.  Several companies that I have worked with have measured decreases in the amount of time spent finding information and, as a result, more efficient workflows.  Measurement is critical.  It just needs to evolve with the usage.   

What have been your keys to success?  What have been your pitfalls?

Related and of interest:
The ROI of Internal Social Media Networks
Behavioral Change Before ROI
IBM's Journey to Social Business
Deloitte Australia: A Yammer Customer Case Study
Increase Your Company's Productivity with Social Media

PR? Or Did Komen Forget Social Businesses are Built on Culture and Community?

The Huff Post headline read "Bad PR Move, Susan G. Komen."  The Washington Post called it a "PR fiasco."  But was it really a PR crisis?  Where was the internal community that should have been a cohesive unit?  Where was the engagement of the broader external community they have cultivated?

Doug Poretz asked a good question:

How could an organization with such a stellar reputation and such deep grassroots support, become so dramatically stupid and incompetent so suddenly? (http://bit.ly/yK5d8l)

The answer, of course, is that nothing happened suddenly.  The public melt-down reflects a culture that lacks internal cohesion and fails to engage communally with its external supporters.

Social business is about people and community - and it starts inside an organization.  Komen executives from within the corporate ranks as well as among the local affiliates not only resigned in protest over the announcement that Komen was halting funding to Planned Parenthood, but they did so with public statements of surprise and outrage.  They did not support the organization they represented.  The internal cohesion and coordination of a social business was lacking.


The Komen Foundation is built on grass-roots advocates, on ardent supporters who spread the word, on passion.  It is built on community.  But the Planned Parenthood decision exposed an organization that seems to operate internally in an unsocial, me-versus-you, hierarchical manner.  Individuals, not community, seem to dominate.

When internal community is weak, the external segment of the community founders as well.  Komen supporters still believed in breast cancer awareness and research, but could they believe in the Komen Foundation?

In contrast, Planned Parenthood engaged their community.  And social networks worked.  According to the Washington Post, the response was swift and strong.  More than 2,000 people shared Planned Parenthood's Facebook post; over 32,000 new fans joined the Planned Parenthood Facebook page in 4 days; Twitter users sent over 1.3 million tweets referencing Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood reached out to their community and asked for their involvement, and the community responded.  Many voices created a loud statement; people signed petitions; they donated money.  Activity was coordinated and connected; social at its best.

Particularly in non-profit social businesses, success depends on the engagement of a passionate, coordinated community.  Lose the organizational passion, lose the community, and the social impact of your message is fleeting.

How have you grown and maintained your community internally as well as externally?