Restructuring for the social enterprise Part 2: Embracing the social enterprise operating model

Are traditional and archaic hierarchical Business Operating Models about to be replaced by the Social Enterprise Operating Model ?

Watching the Social Network and Social Enterprise convergence emerge has raised interesting questions, not only in terms of the new technology as an enabler but how the enterprise makeup is going to look and operate in the future. Having been involved in many transformation programmes it always amazed me to see the same top-down hierarchical business operating models applied when redesigning the process architecture: Silo – Division – Department – Activity – Capability, they all amounted to the same rigid structure no matter how it was labelled. To a certain extent a lot of the large consultancies have sold these models for years so a business entity would hear much the same thing around their industry when looking to adopt change. Which now poses an interesting question in relation to benchmarking an enterprise: How can you benchmark when potentially it’s the wrong model in the first place ?

Now in light of the new BPM revolution we need to carefully peel back architectures of old and reveal the hidden network of resources that operate ‘underground’ who are actually supporting the business in ways never seen or understood before because they fall outside of the strict roles imposed in a hierarchy.

Networking is recognised as a major influence on an employee’s ability to work well in an organisation and be successful. In fact, the most successful people in the world possess the capability to influence and shape the opinions of others, which today places greater emphasis on the types of networking a person does.

Internal enterprise networks have a major impact on organisational effectiveness, but more importantly these types of networks provide major business advantages for the participants.

There are major advantages when comparing a hierarchy against a networked enterprise community, for example:

Formal and hierarchical divisional entities consist of areas such as Operations, Performance Management, Human Resources, Sales, Manufacturing, …They are defined by organisational boundaries so are rigid and hard to change. Within them exist work domains such as virtual or project led teams who are organised, task oriented, they cross organisational boundaries but tend to have a ‘closed membership’.

A networked community however is shaped informally, has common interests, is self motivated, is more innovative due to lack of constraints, has a network of experts and knowledge communities, exists outside organisational boundaries and works on an ‘open membership’.

The most effective enterprise networks contain high-functioning people who are extremely skilled, knowledgeable, powerful, and who have strong personal networks. The informal network without the hierarchy and bureaucracy encourages the most interaction and achieves the most positive results.

Networking has always been an essential social skill founded on the interdependence of people. We all rely on the support and cooperation of others to achieve our goals. Networking within the enterprise involves bonding, sharing expertise and investing time and effort into others. It’s a natural operating model which has remained untapped for years because we always seek comfort in building walls between resources in order to correctly label them.

There’s another advantage in understanding the social enterprise network dynamic. What is the impact of a key networked resource leaving the organisation. Right now it’s build on their place in a traditional hierarchy and how many people sit below and above them in the chain. Under a community operating model that span of influence could be exponential yet completely hidden. Would you really let this person go if you understood how much the larger community relied on them ? I seriously doubt you would.

You think your business looks like an organisation chart when in fact it’s more like a Twitter map.

The social convergence across industry verticals matter for a number of reasons:

> Timely identification of Subject Matter Experts and stakeholders. Avoid duplication of efforts by finding individuals in an enterprise with experience in the topic or relevant parties to involve. Like a tag cloud in a blog, topics of interest are associated with the real SMEs for rapid location of knowledge.

> For re-organisations to understand how the business networks interact and translate them into the formal organizational charts

> To identify the impact of a key person leaving, both internally and externally

> For new employees to more quickly integrate into a company by seeking expertise, build relationships and their own networks

> To understand customer interactions and how better serve them

> To identify the key influencers within a group

 

Key differentiators for a Social software system should be:

> That the tool allows for individuals to set up profiles with a high degree of automation and control, meaning that the effort required by each individual is minimised

> That any centrally held information that can be associated with an individual can be added to the profile – for example location, grade or title

> That the profile can be amended to allow specific information to be added by individuals

> That themes/ tag clouds can be easily searched, allowing easy identification of experts in a particular topic, as well as who is currently working on what

> That a network visualisation tool exists so that when an expert has been identified, it is also possible to see any common contacts, which could be used to facilitate an introduction

There are companies ahead of the game of the  industry they employ the mining of email information to create these networks and are considered intrusive as well as under threat from Data Protection and Privacy issues. Where the influence is advantageous is that the technology enabler is completely transparent in how it’s deployed, and the network becomes visible to all.

As I’ve stated in previous posts this is game changing in a lot of ways. Not only for the BPMS industry but how organisations will view themselves in years to come. The practitioner community has come catching up because a large majority is still focused on what BPM meant 20 years ago, not what the enterprise means now and next year. This also includes the Consultancy practices globally.

Time to throw away your old operating model and embrace your enterprise community.

Advertisements

4 responses to “Restructuring for the social enterprise Part 2: Embracing the social enterprise operating model

  1. Pingback: Restructuring for the social enterprise Part 1: Lessons from the games industry | the future of the enterprise·

  2. Pingback: Restructuring for the social enterprise Part 1: Lessons from the games industry « BPM redux·

  3. Pingback: Tearing down the ivory tower: Can Big Data succeed where BPM has failed ? | BPM redux·

  4. Pingback: Tearing down the ivory tower: Can big data success where BPM has failed? | Successful Workplace·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s