Enterprise 2.0, french touch : the white paper

This collaboratively and collectively written book about Enterprise 2.0is the English version of the original French, published online at theend of last year. This translation was made possible by a partnershipwith the company LinguaSpirit, who carried out the work for us. Wewould like to thank them for it.LinguaSpirit is a translation agency with a particular focus on webcommunication, working to make translation adaptable andaccessible. Our team is made up of professional translators from avariety of backgrounds with wide-ranging language and technicalskills. We offer our services to NGOs and charities on a voluntarybasis via FreeSpirit and provide free translations to blogs of all kinds.Translation is our profession, but breaking down language barriers isour calling.

Social Innovation: The Power of Communities to InnovateThe enterprise lies at the heart of fast-paced social change. Consumerbehavior, lifestyles and uses are undergoing paradigm shifts. As productofferings are constantly rolled out, novel approaches are emerging to fosterloyalty and shape new services. Never before has so much information beenavailable to so many people at any one time. Not a day goes by without thelaunch of another innovative device that quickly becomes an ubiquitous part ofour everyday lives.In the enterprise, employee expectations are evolving as a new "wired"generation of Internet-savvy people enters the market. New business modelsare emerging to hone firms competitive edge, which in turn are spurring newneeds and uses.To stay agile and stay ahead of the curve, companies must open up and adjustto all this change. The answer lies in devising new ways of imagining, creatingand innovating collectively by connecting knowledge, skills and talent.Employers must also learn how to uncover, recognize and leverage talent moredynamically, harnessing both individual and collective contributions. Much morethan simply implementing specific tools, todays enterprise focuses more on

openness and a shared sense of purpose. Sharing and dynamically leveragingknowledge in this way implicitly puts employees at the heart of the process.In Enterprise 2.0 companies, employees are discovering new ways of learning,interacting and understanding. At the same time, it is up to the enterprise toprovide an environment conducive to exchanging and connecting ideas, as wellas organizing its wealth of intellectual property.The key to connecting teams, processes, information, data and virtualexperiences lies in empowering organizations and their various job families toexpand their horizons, allowing them to interact and collaborate acrossorganizational boundaries in order to spur innovation.As part of the quest for innovation, companies must also look beyond theconfines of their organizations to include their entire customer, partner and userecosystem, fusing the imagination of users and consumers with the insight oftheir design teams.Enabling everyone - from employees to customers, suppliers, users andconsumers in general - to play an active part in innovation processes is theunderlying principle behind the Dassault Systèmes (DS) Social Innovationstrategy. This approach was given renewed impetus two years ago following theworldwide deployment of the DS SwYm community platform across the Groupsentire organization.Several companies have already embraced 2.0 Transformation, which is wherethe future lies for enterprises of all sizes and in all business sectors. Enterprise2.0 is today recognized as a catalyst for sustainable innovation. Pascal Daloz is Executive Vice President, Strategy & Marketing, at Dassault Systèmes. Prior to this, he was Research & Development Director in charge of Business Development for the Group. Pascal has extensive experience in strategy with investment banking and consulting firms, including five years at Credit Suisse First Boston, where he served as a senior technology analyst, and five years at Arthur D. Little. He is a graduate of the École des Mines de Paris engineering school in Paris.

When we think of about "Enterprise 2.0" since 2006, the year that AndrewMcAfee coined the term, we see that there has been considerable experiencefeedback in France in 2010. The term is certainly employed more on the Webthan it is by companies, but whatever the term, the results cannot be ignored—there are a large and growing number of these types of projects. It seemedbeneficial to address the subject through a variety of lenses, supported byconsultants, operational staff, and editors.All too often the idea of Enterprise 2.0 is reduced to a set of tools that areapplied through a collaborative platform or an enterprise social network (ESN)and with a uniquely internal focus. That is to say, the implementation ofcollaborative processes surrounding these tools and the affect they can have onorganization and governance. I wanted to address each aspect of Enterprise

2.0 that make it an all-encompassing enterprise I believe to be made up of 3elements.The first and most common element is the creation of a business network, oftena community, in order for employees to work collaboratively. It is not a pilotproject or an extra layer added onto other processes, but rather the backbone ofan organization around which are organized all of the businesses processes.The second element, has to do with managing external stakeholders, such aspartners or clients in community management way. Unlike managing a socialmedia presence, this means the complete administration of a ―personal‖environment (not a Facebook page), where one is free to establish their ownrules and manage the community. It’s from this community that you’ll generallyfind your ambassadors. Once again, a collaborative working approach withstakeholders is needed in order to benefit everyone involved, perhaps resultingin co-creation.The third element has to do with engaging the business in social media.Business is not self sufficient, "no one is an island"; it is connected to the rest ofthe world, especially by social media. This engagement begins with monitoring,in preparation to interact—whether it be to find an idea, to increase yourexposure, to find clients, to respond to criticisms etc. You need to create valuefor your business, not only through the use of a conversation manager, but witheach and every colleague in the business.In closing Id like to thank two people who helped me with the practical details ofthis project: Frédéric Domon for the layout and the graphics and Tarik Lebtahifor his help in obtaining such a prestigious preface author. Of course Id also liketo thank all those who contributed to make this project possible.Happy reading

pg. 3 Preface by Pascal Dalozpg. 10 Training by Claire Leblondpg. 15 Positioning in IT by Cécil Dijouxpg. 21 Collaborative Platforms by Arnaud Raynolepg. 26 ROI by Bertrand Duperrinpg. 31 Change Management by Frédéric Charlespg. 39 Labour Relations by Vincent Berthelotpg. 44 Governance and Management by Anthony Poncierpg. 49 Monitoring by Aref Jdey

pg. 53 Knowledge Management by Christophe Deschampspg. 57 Storytelling by Camille Alloingpg. 61 Social Learning by Frédéric Domonpg. 67 Integrated and Responsible Participative Innovation by Muriel Garciapg. 72 Internal Communities and CSR by Fabrice Poiraud-Lambertpg.79 BtoB by Alain Garnierpg. 83 Personal Branding by Fadhila Brahimipg. 89 Generation Y by Julien Pougetpg. 93 Employer Brand by Franck La Pintapg. 98 Social CRM by Mark Tamispg. 105 Social Media by Emilie Ogez

SKEMA Business School is the result of the merger between CERAM Sophiaand ESC-Lille. SKEMA’s strategy prioritizes training future managers, pioneersof the knowledge economy who are "able to understand and adapt to theirenvironment and create sustainable performance."The role of the school’s faculty is therefore to "train 2.0 managers" whocooperate and share in order to create value together. The task is not limited tousing tools, but also involves mastering the practices that make the participatingstudents evangelists within the workplace, able to fulfil the expectations ofbusinesses whilst being aware of impacts on the environment.

The Geemiks (a team of community organisers and research assistants atSKEMA), have up to this point focused on connecting individuals withinformation (publications, databases, learning platforms, information portals,thematic environments, resources training…), but from now on they will turntheir attention to a second level of connections: connecting individuals toeach other (students-teachers-speakers-colleagues-businesses). This involvesmaking introductions, promoting connections between people in networks andcreating spaces and tools to facilitate sharing, exchange and involvement.The aim is for each individual to develop their own ecosystem, which is notonly informational but also social, building on the professionalization ofinternet customs and practices.This second phase is taking shape today with the development of a concept (LaFusée) designed to provide all the conditions necessary for the discovery andaffirmation of talent—giving the people at SKEMA the opportunity to make themost of their skills, passions and values.The development of this idea involves, on the one hand, creating a space whichencourages sharing while taking into account peoples work place, conditionsand hours; and on the other hand, offering new training formats that incorporatea process of distinguishing individuals as a benefit to the group.The space is located at the Lille campus and is unique in that it is multi-purposeand flexible. There is room for all the different stages of a project, frombrainstorming to final decision-making. Individual needs are also catered to,with a layout and an atmosphere encouraging relaxation, reading, the exchangeof ideas etc.The space is the result of a long period of reflection and is complemented by avirtual space that aims to use the web to break down physical barriers. SKEMAhas sites in many countries and it is therefore necessary to give remote teamsthe chance to participate.

Although the Paris campus does not yet have this physical space, the conceptis still being put into practice. Because there is not enough space at the twoParis campuses, we are trying to make use of other spaces elsewhere in thecity. This option often has advantages because it allows us to think outside the"academic" box, encouraging innovation.With regard to learning models, we are setting up training-discoverymodules, which allow a different way of learning. These modules have severaldifferent forms, adapted to various needs and preferences.Amongst these modules there will be:  Digital workshops: 45 minutes designed to discuss professional applications of the internet. We offer topics such as managing digital identity, use and validation of digital resources, monitoring techniques and a presentation on the law and the internet. These workshops do not have a defined programme. The aim is for the programme to adapt to demands made by students in order to better meet their needs and make them active in their education.  Cafés découvertes: share a coffee with some interesting people (artists, travellers, entrepreneurs…) in a friendly environment. As with the other modules, the content should eventually be determined by the students.  Babel café: learn a language in a friendly atmosphere by discussing current affairs with people from different backgrounds.  Training to develop creative potential, personality and talent; learn to overcome fears; understand how to form a team with reference to complementary skills; experience and develop creativity in order to innovate. This time-consuming training is offered by Isabelle NORMAND to a small number of students. However, this approach is also reflected in projects that we are setting up with students, such as the Creatinove

project. This will be a year of discussions on MOBILITY, with approximately 30 students working on the many dimensions of the word, creating content from meetings and readings, to eventually organize and stage an event in March 2011.  The establishment of a shared monitoring system to learn how to share knowledge on target topics and co-operate in the creation of a common knowledge base.  The exchange and implementation of modules on managing digital identity. These will raise awareness and help students understand internet mechanisms and logic and to develop intelligent habits. Today we are immersed in the internet from a younger and younger age and do not always have a detached view of our activities.Lastly, making the student an actor and also an author presupposes that theywill be allowed to share their vision and knowledge and use skills within thegroup that they do not usually use in an academic or even a professionalenvironment.To do this we encourage students to lead workshops, organise cafésdécouvertes, write tutorials, share their experiences in a blog entry, tocontribute to a wiki school of established themes, to collaborate on projects withteams in different places etc. The introductory training module becomes theirown module, which they lead and develop.At the end of the day, doing is the best way to learn.The modules are designed with our ―school audience‖ in mind. This not onlyincludes students, but teachers, researchers, partner businesses andprofessional networks. The ultimate goal is to participate in the creation of aknowledge and know-how network, involving both the school and external

participants, and is led not only by employees, teachers and the media library,but also by the students themselves.What can Web 2.0 bring to all this? Basically, by facilitating the development ofthese practices by building on tools often used simply for fun, participation in thecommunity is encouraged.The next step: bringing together know-how! Claire LEBLOND is a "Geemik" and a Facilitator for the "entrepreneurial" community at the SKEMA Business School— where students, researchers, professors, businesses and people with business projects from the TONIC business incubator all come together. Part of Claires role as a Facilitator is to promote a dynamic of sharing within the community. She usually works from one of SKEMAs two Paris campuses (at La Villette and LaDéfense) and also teaches courses in strategic monitoring and Business Intelligence at ITEEM.Claire is co-author of three blogs: "geemik", on our profession; "S’informer pour se former", aresult of monitoring entrepreneurial trends and news; and "YouOnTheWeb" (on professionalWeb uses).

Social networks are at the doors of the business world. The question we needto ask is how can these collaborative platforms be integrated into ITmanagement strategy?Over the last few years, companies have invested massively in analyticalsystems that enable them to streamline and optimize Enterprise ResourcesPlanning—ERP, Customer Relationship Management—CRM, Supply ChainManagement—SCM and Product Lifecycle Management—PLM.In his enlightening book on PLM (1), Michael Grieves proposes a map thatillustrates PLMs position in relation to other analytical systems within business.

The goal of this article is to extend the map in order to show how EnterpriseSocial Networks—ESN can be integrated into this strategy as well as how theycomplement existing systems.Business Systems 1.0 Figure #1: Enterprise Business Systems 1.0In Grieves chart, the Y-axis identifies the different functions and activities of thecompany, and the X-axis, the different areas of expertise.The simple diagram shows where the systems intersect as well as the essentialneed for integration.For educational purposes here, the diagram has been modified to illustrate abasic problem in business that does not appear in the one above: managingnon-captured tacit knowledge. The column widths (PLM, CRM, SCM) and theERP line have been reduced to emphasize the fact that the systems do notcover the entire scope of the activities.

The fluid nature of ESNsAs Andrew McAfee noted (2), these systems are designed to structure andcontrol the activities of knowledge workers; they have clear limitations and astrict framework of responsibilities.On the other hand, Enterprise Social Networks are completely different. If ERP,SCM, CRM or PLM are complicated products with limited responsibilities, ESNsare systems that are "easily accessible, open, emerging, and in principle,without structure" (A. McAfee).Via the internet, these tools have shown their amazing ability for a wide breadthof collaborative projects and their easy to use nature makes them easy toadopt. They capitalise on the network effect to bring out new uses and theirapplication can evolve according to need.In other terms, rather than forcing the user to adapt, ESNs adapt to the uses ofthe knowledge worker. This gives ESNs an element of fluidity that enables themto infiltrate and fill in the areas left unaddressed by other systems.ESNs have no predetermined form, they adapt to the form of the environment inwhich they operate: the type of activity and the area of business expertise or, atthe very least, the corresponding knowledge captured in the informationsystems.Knowledge CaptureESNs are particularly useful for information capture.First off, it much is easier for knowledge workers to capture informal units ofinformation into collaborative platforms (wikis, blogs, forums etc...) than as

formal entries into legacy enterprise systems whose reputation of complexityand lack of user friendliness intimidate users.Beside, these collaborative platforms also offer a single entry point forresearching information, no matter the type of document (blog, MS Office,announcement etc.). This contributes to significantly reducing the time spent onresearching information.Knowledge and Innovation CommunitiesThe second ESN core feature that contributes to this fluid nature is the idea ofcommunities. The collaborative tools naturally contribute to the creation and theactivity of transverse communities that, within the context of the company, arestructured around certain areas of expertise, trade knowledge and know-how.These communities put the abilities of different experts from various fields(technical, architectural, product marketing, commercial, consultative) side byside in one particular area. This allows for the construction (and the capture!) ofmulti-dimensional expertise for specialized problems.As a result, by encouraging conversations between a variety of experts indifferent branches of the organization, ESNs allow for the clash of viewpoints ondifferent ideas, which we know from Mark Granovetter (3) or Ronald Burt (4) isa great way to initiate innovation.Integrating ProcessFinally, the fluidity of these open platforms allows them an easy technicalintegration with other systems and by doing so, better integration of businessprocesses (*Business Process Management—BPM).On the internet, online services (API) like Flickr, Twitter or Facebook areenjoying considerable success, in large part because of their simplicity. For

BPM (5) purpose, social networks provide an alternative light and fluid strategyto heavy and complicated Service Oriented Architecture (SOA).Software vendors have quickly addressed the opportunity. SAP offersStreamWork, which integrates into its ERP ; Saleforces proposes Chatter anEnterprise Social platforms which integrates with their CRM while with3DSwYm, Dassault Systems proposes an integrative community platform for itsPLM V6 Platform.Business Systems 2.0 Figure #2: Enterprise Business Systems 2.0The position of an ESN in a companys IT structure: a driver that facilitatesknowledge capture and sharing, the creation of transverse communities and aneasier integration of work processes.

(1) Michael Grieves: Product Lifecycle Management, Driving the NextGeneration of Lean Thinking(2) Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Company ToughestChallenges - Harvard Business School Press(3) Mark Granovetter: The Strength of Weak Links(4) Ronald Burt: The Social Origin of Good Ideas(5) Forrester: Social Technologies Will Drive the Next Wave of BPM Cecil Dijoux has been working with Information Systems for more than 20 years. His work has taken him to large business groups, to start-ups, and abroad. He is currently in charge of the Development and Architecture Platform teams at Lectra for Lectra Fashion PLM, a Product Lifecycle Management solution for the fashion industry. Cecil has been blogging about culture, various organizations and social media for 3 years at #hypertextual.

Communication is OperationWhile some people see conversation and discussion as a futile exercise, in theera enterprise 2.0 engaging in communication will give an advantage toorganizations that learn to master it.Email is in fact todays primary manner of collaborationIts a fact: the primary means of communication within companies is emailmessaging. Information is exchanged, meetings are organized and documentsare sent. In the best cases, email is used to send notifications and contextualizedocuments that are accessible using a link. Its not wrong to have tried tostructure the approach by planning or equipping with groupware. Exchangetakes precedence over sharing. Primary needs rely more on exchange and

interaction than on disseminating or sharing resources. In any case, the extraeffort needed is prohibitive.Is it an inability to move towards collective austerity? or a pragmaticneed?When planning structuring projects, micro projects pop up, and these arespread out: their rollout is minimally planned and the people involved and theobjectives change. The sprawl of the project mode lead to a weakening ofmethodology: the requirement of collective work for communal practicesresulted in the smallest common denominator winning out. The idea ofcollaboration has changed due to increased communication possibilities, or hasat least become more broad.Or the limits of a document-centric approach?Is it the failure of structured collaborative processes? Or of traditional sharingplatforms, i.e. "Groupware"? In any case, it is an endpoint for their claim touniversality in the field.Lets look at some of their limitations:  document-centric platforms: difficult to share closely related information, even in the work version that allows for contextualisation that we just outlined for example. Sometimes we use a forum, but the segmented construction imposes disassociation between documents and discussion. So much so, that we use these spaces to create a complementary document reference system out of the platform of exchange that is still email messaging, creating extra complications in the transmission of resources for sharing within the project.  platforms requiring pre-defined organization: diagrammed structure, member list, options for space etc. This indicates that organization and structure needs to be anticipated at the beginning of a project.

 a space to be administrated: imposed so that all colleagues can have access. This option is generally avoided due to (justified) fear of the proliferation of interactive spaces or of centralized management of spaces that lack reactivity and are harmful to micro-collaborations.Collaborative management solutions remain adapted to project professionals,and may even be reserved for them. Our vision of collaboration has torecognize this and no longer systematically associate it with a need fordocument sharing.Introduction of organizational modes in a networkEnterprise 2.0, as a scope, generates new requirements for collaboration. Thisis linked in part to new easier methods of exchange and connection betweenindividuals.The new collaborative contextsEach project—or collaboration rather—leads us to work with new people.Motivation and level of involvement varies from one person to another.Less and less centred on process, the issues of collaboration are movingtoward the capability to identify good partners, unite them, involve and evenmobilize them.Practices that bring the social capital of each person to the fore are reinforced inproportion to the collaborative spaces that extend outside the borders of thecompany.Soft collaboration*In this context, new softer forms of collaboration that are focused onconversation and discussion are emerging, facilitating the understanding ofothers and based on organization within a network. It is up to each person to

initiate conversation and discussion with others in order to coordinate an actioninto which documents can eventually be inserted. By coming together, thediscussion within a community can be organized and, if necessary, theinformation even structured. Information management; the entry point of whichis the participants, the timeline and the keywords associated with the group.The presentation of the information is centred on the individual. Finally, itsabout an organized version of existing email practices today. Diagram: Social collaboration - Sharing all information that relates to an activity within a conversationA complementary addition for existing collaborative formsIt doesnt completely replace the existing tools—email or document sharing. Itcompletes and works well with them, in a way that refocuses usage on thestrong points of each one. This soft collaboration is upstream of the productionprocess. Ideas and coproduction can be organized around conversations andtheir production is poured into a reference document project. It also has to dowith less formal collaborations. It also allows for a refocusing of email use.

A paradoxical break in useThough this collaborative form is complementary to shared spaces and close toexisting email use, it also represents a break in use that is sometimes difficult todeal with. Until now, I explained this mainly to try and position a new toolalongside email and existing sharing tools without providing any realexplanation; the situation marked by the low adoption of 2.0 concepts and evenmore so by the lack of their implementation in business strategies. In otherwords, tooling steps often lack direction.I think that the issue surrounding the development of uses is better understoodin large organizations today. I also dont doubt that next, creators will proposegateways with traditional sharing spaces and email.*Term used to qualify the fact that these new collaborations begin mildly andimplicitly. They require no preparation and can start before any commitment to ateam or a project. Arnaud Rayrole is the founder and Director of Lecko. For 10 years now Lecko has been consulting and assisting organizations to modify and achieve their Web projects and to develop new target uses. Arnaud has led several benchmark studies in his field, including on business social networks. These can be downloaded for free from the USEO community.

The question of ROI is the most debated and controversial subject in enterprise2.0 due to the apparent contradiction of two basic premises.The first is that all investments are justified, whether in money, time or attention.The second is that the power of a 2.0 project lies in making an organizationmore adaptable, flexible and gives it the ability to react to unforeseencircumstances and solve problems that, in addition to regular tasks, are thenorm for todays employees. As the system is designed to better respond to theunexpected - which is fast becoming the norm - it is impossible to anticipate theresulting benefits, precisely because of the unpredictable nature of the eventswe are dealing with.

It has long been said that there is no need to prove ROI and that the value of aproject is intrinsic. General Electric acknowledged, after the fact, that theirintranet 2.0 was "the heartbeat of the company." Easy enough to recognize inhindsight, but difficult to grasp inside the majority of organizations becausethere is no need to justify or address the issue. Does this mean that these typesof projects can only see the light of day inside organizations that are "believers"or already convinced? Not at all. ROI needs only be studied and applied wheresuitable. Just because we cant plug the benefits into a model doesnt mean thatwe cant anticipate or measure them according to financial or other relevantcriteria in order to discuss their value.Enterprise 2.0 is never an end in itself. Its a tool for businesses, for theirstrategy and operating methods. It stands to reason therefore that if nothing haschanged after its implementation, the project probably shouldnt go ahead. Thisalso leads us to view the problem in another light: if the project is only a means,the project objectives must also be evaluated. Innovation? Reinforcing thesense of belonging? Collaboration? Coordination. These are all measured interms of ideas, of development cycles, of numbers of meetings, of the timeneeded to solve a problem, of the length of a sales cycle if targeting acommercial environment, of market conditions etc. The list of these micro-indicators, adapted to the working point of the company or of an individualemployee, is long. It is simply a matter of isolating the ones that make sense ina particular situation, then it will be easy to measure any changes over time.After the question of measure, there is the issue of forecasting. It must beunderstood that within the framework of an enterprise 2.0 project it isnt the tool,but the work practices and the operating methods it enables that renders value.From that moment on, any rationale to establish and formulate quantitativeindividual behaviour is biased and, if at all reassuring, guarantees neither theaccuracy of the forecast nor the improvement of the indicators mentionedabove. This doesnt necessarily mean that the value of the project will ultimatelydepend on the goodwill of certain individuals in a best-case scenario and onchance in the worst. The confidence of obtaining expected benefits increases

by developing new daily work practices; and more so on their adoption ratherthan on the tool itself.Many rules, implicit or explicit, that are followed on a day-to-day basis, aresubject to the restrictions of work tools that dont allow for certain methods ofinteraction or collaboration. When talking about tools that lift the restrictions inquestion, one has to consider rethinking the way we work. It is the only way ofactually guaranteeing that increased collaboration and more flexibility inorganization enable the achievement of the targeted objectives. It isnt aboutdemanding more sharing and collaboration from employees, but demandingthat they really think through the scenarios for employing the tools adapted tothe objectives, needs and limitations of each person, the small daily routinesthat little by little transform their work. Only on these terms can we start off onthe right foot.Enterprise 2.0 tools have no ROI; it is found in the new operating modes,procedures and processes the tools will support. Everything that is enterprise2.0 comes from what is called the companys intangible capital. This includesemployee skills that are developed, the ideas and solutions they bring to thetable, ties between employees that enable stronger collaboration, flexibility andinformation generation etc. Historically, companies struggle to capitalize on thispotential in which they make significant investments to create more value. Thereason is simple: until now, the tools available to employees hardly enabledthem to be identified, mobilized and therefore utilized. This is changing with"social software", but only if the processes used to create value through workrelearn how to take advantage of this capital that they couldnt count on before.Until now, the only goal of many "enterprise 2.0" strategies was for users toaccept and use new tools. Following some success, they didnt necessarilymanage to systematically create value. There is no use identifying an expertwhom no one has the right to consult or who doesnt have the right to makethemselves available. There is no use in developing ideas boxes to make anorganization more innovative if the people in charge of innovation dont even

consult them. And there is no use in promoting the exchange and sharing ofbest practices if employees arent allowed to use the new solutions in their dailywork.Alternatively, take for example a company like CISCO, where decision-makingand concept processes for new business models are constructed based on anetwork function and the ability to identify and mobilize a variety of expertise.The result is concrete numbers throughout the development of companyplans—on what benefit they brought to the company and on the capability of theorganization to take advantage of market opportunities. As Norton and Kaplanoutline in their work "Strategy Maps", intangible assets only bring value whenthey are used as an integral part of a business process.From now on, the question of enterprise 2.0 isnt about demonstrating automaticROI, but the transformation of human and social potential, made up ofknowledge, ideas, individual or collective problem-solving ability and a tangiblevalue at the operational level that will ultimately improve value creation. Wedont need to find or reveal the potential of value; we know and can identify it.Rather, it is the capacity for value to become more than just potential that is inquestion.All of which leads us to look at the question of the ROI of enterprise 2.0 from adifferent angle, starting with a good set of premises and asking the rightquestions:  The "tools" of enterprise 2.0 have no intrinsic value. Rather than looking for the ROI of the tool, look at the ROI of the project(s) that the tool is facilitating.  The question is no longer asking how a certain tool will create value but how an organization will use the tool to create more value. An "enterprise 2.0" tool doesnt create any value in the organizational status quo.

 Rather than asking "what is the benefit of €1 invested in an enterprise 2.0 project", its better to establish clear strategic and operational objectives, elaborate them in practical terms and then identify the tools that make them possible. The ROI of the project is to achieve more ambitious objectives using new operating methods. To reduce the uncertainty that surrounds the realization of potential, the relationship between the enterprise 2.0 project and the company must be thought out in order for the projects contribution to the functioning of the company to be made as automatic and systematic as possible, even if other uses can no doubt be developed outside of this scope. Finally, the costs of inaction need to be taken into account: leaving fertile potential fallow while investing in its development, maintaining bottlenecks on collaboration, and depriving oneself of the potential for employee innovation in an economy whose cycles are growing increasingly shorter all has a price. Rather than thinking of ROI, think about added value and new methods of value creation. As a consultant at Nextmodernity, Bertrand Duperrin assists companies in establishing new collaborative processes and new methods for value creation. A recognized expert in issues concerning business social networks and their place in the process of value creation, Bertand is the author of a blog on the subject and participates in a number of conferences in France and abroad.

Change at the heart of the Business Social NetworkA business social network (BSN) connects employees within a company andthereby facilitates collective intelligence—the capacity to share informationand collectively produce knowledge and know-how. A BSN complementsdocument-centred activities, such as document or knowledge management. Itrelies on the ties between employees, and not on a search engine, to filter andmake sense of information, sometimes is quasi-real time.For a company to arrive at this level of operation, the dominant factor isdefinitely the human one. Implementing a BSN requires leading majorchanges. On the other hand, the network is a great lever for change and for

decompartmentalizing the company—especially for companies that need toadapt to markets that are going through major changes. This two-sided dynamicis fuelled by change; properly managing this over the medium-term is definitelya factor in a companys performance.This article focuses on the internal aspect of a company and doesnt touch onchange when it concerns the rollout of an external BSN with clients.What is change management?When talking about change management, we mean the capacity to implementand lead a support program that includes several aspects:  ongoing and varied communication,  developing skills (training, coaching, ...),  developing organisation and operations,  adapting management methods.Change management happens through the use of the system of the future, andin the case of BSN, on it being deeply rooted in company operations; thesingular goal being that a "critical mass" of users take advantage of all theBSN has to offer. Two failures to be avoided are under-use and misuse.Under-use, because putting a BSN in place is an investment. Even if return oninvestment is seldom the primary objective for its implementation, under-usereduces any potential gains accordingly. And in a more empirical way, to benefitfrom "Metcalfe’s Law", which states that the value of a telecommunicationsnetwork is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of thesystem: so if there are two times as many users, there is four times thevalue for each member. The ever-present risk of rejection can lead to under-use.

Misuse is a traditional failing of recently implemented systems. It remainssomething to watch for in the case of BSN but isnt always necessarilysomething negative and is therefore more difficult to value. If new, initiallyunanticipated, uses emerge, they can benefit the company through the use ofthe BSN and by the results they generate.How can we address these two risks?Lets start by identifying the changesThe first step in this type of program is identifying resulting changes; thethings that will impact the implementation of the network. The primary resultingchanges identified are:  not knowing beforehand who will read what is written to them; a big difference compared to email, which remains the companys principal means of communication.  the creation of an internal digital identity that includes a trace, open to everyone, of all someones comments. Also open to all are simple things like someones photo (unbelievable but true!)  a reconsideration of established hierarchies—seeing as everyone can comment on any subject. Who is that and on what authority do they speak to that subject?  changes in behaviour such as "the principle of sharing" and "the right to err"; uncertain answers like "I dont know but ask so-and-so..."  increasing the speed of getting information out and around the company—observed several months after implementation,  etc.It is also identifying opportunities for change that can be introduced byimplementing a BSN:

 decompartmentalizing services,  the possibility of addressing diverse and broad themes such as innovation, ethics and security, without needing to create a specific organisation in order to do so,  the return into operations, with a greater visibility, of employees and networks that are sometimes "buried" in the company: archivists, knowledge managers, analysts etc.  etc.The work of identifying these opportunities is difficult to execute in a"theoretical" manner prior to implementing the BSN. Experience feedback fromcompanies that are more advanced in their implementation should therefore becounted on as much and as early as possible, and then extrapolated to onesown business.Be smart from this point on when making comparisons within a certain businesssector and count more on the "cultural and social proximity" of a companybefore drawing any comparisons. That way, two entities from the same sector—one hyper-centralized with a national brand and employees who have been withthe company for 20 years, and the other hyper-decentralized with a localelement and a major recent recruiting push—wont have much in common whenit comes to the resulting changes and opportunities for change for implementinga BSN.The program for change managementBased on this analysis, were going to work on the 4 aspects of the supportprogram presented above: communication, skill development, organization andthe development of professions.Communication plan

 Primary communication is essential. Its the name of the platform! and its logo if possible. It cant be neglected—its very hard to bring back. SwYm - See What You mean (Dassault Systems), Join (GDF SUEZ with the "in" de Linkedin), Engage (Alcatel-Lucent), LIO Plaza (Lyonnaise des Eaux) were the first ones to sign on (internally, understandably) and spur the question of whether or not to join a BSN. Get rid of the domain names associated with the business. Tomorrows BSN will no doubt be about collaborating with your partners under the framework of an extended enterprise 2.0 on the Web. For the "big bang" or "viral method" migration strategy, prepare communication that is adapted to the launch. In the first case, a countdown prior to the launch and a tease inside the company. In the second case, a kit (email, information pamphlet, tokens...) for the first participants to go out and recruit people themselves. Teach them how! The goal of early communication is to explain why the change is happening and why it isnt possible to remain static: too much knowledge loss within the company, email is becoming unmanageable, compartmentalization is obstructing innovation etc. Next, show why the change is attractive, what it will bring to the company and to each individual; this can be targeted and job-specific. Finally, demonstrate that no one will be left behind and that there will be an effort made to help bring everyone on board. In any project there are 10% who oppose it, 10% who are fans of it, and 80% undecided. Obviously, the priority is to convert those who are undecided into fans before trying to change the minds of those against it. At first, the latter will cite over-exaggerated risks (confidentiality, legal, social etc.) that dont reflect the reality of implementation. At that stage, the risks are only potential, so monitoring the level of actual risk is important in order to progressively adapt to increasing risks. But under no circumstances should you plan a security device from the beginning

that is out of touch with uses and is definitely a deterrent to new membership.  Because growth is progressive (leaving time for the change management program to adapt), publishing planning boards or other items for internal communication—usage figures, ideas, examples, interviews etc.—will maintain interest and convince personnel while respecting the rhythm at which they sign on to the new changes.Skill development plan  An absolutely essential aspect to respond to the resulting changes, particularly those affecting behaviour: sharing ideas, documents, photos etc. A BSN Terms of Use is the first step, though rarely pedagogical.  Coaching the community leaders before the users is essential and should be a priority. Because the platforms are very user-friendly, the approach is often intuitive. What is not intuitive however, are the concepts and the leadership techniques. Theres a "Community Manager" inside every employee! Start by drawing out the ones who will recruit, successfully set up the initial communities and ensure the platforms expansion for you. Identify these future leaders prior to the launch. Using the rule of 2% leaders, 8% contributors and 90% users, the number of people needed for a community of 100, 500 or 1000 people is easy to determine. Anticipate the fact that only 70% of them will be drawn to a well-established community.  Experience has shown that at first there is often confusion between a BSN and a company community portal. Training leaders can help avoid this situation, pass by down-the-line communication and engage the members in conversation. The positioning of a BSN within an intranet requires a lot of company maturity from the beginning. It seems more simple to do something separate so that users understand that they are

taking part in something new before bringing it forward as an essential piece of the intranet.  Skill development is also recognizing and placing value in good habits and know-how. It is a bit Pavlovian, but think about Foursquare, a growing social network that uses geolocation to indicate places the user has visited. What would it be without rewards and challenges for user actions; its Badges and the "ability" to become the mayor of a location?Development of Professions The main subject here is the change in management. It might be a bit early for feedback within the company to go into detail about specific actions, but the business of managing an enterprise 2.0 is changing (read through the chapter on Governance & Management). One impact will probably be less technical operational support (the employee can get it themselves through the BSN), but more personal coaching and development. Integrating "generation Y" into businesses would be very helpful for management to adapt—or not.  The job of a "community manager", to lead external communities where clients (loyalty), communication, marketing and sales promotion all intersect. This job cant carried out by a "snipper" who is isolated and outside of the company, it needs an active internal component for the different jobs to increase efficiency and coordinate actions within external communities (Facebook, LinkedIn etc.).Organisation  At the organizational level, the priority is to implement something that enables you to manage the BSN. Even if launched by a functional department such as Communications or IT, its essential that the platform becomes the company platform. A BSN governance committee has to guide the evolution and make decisions on rules as necessary. Should

YouTube video links be allowed?; did two different Department communities that were too "similar" reduce BSN readability; do the Terms of use need to change? etc. These are the first subjects for the committee to tackle. It can also have a relationship with an existing committee, like the Intranet committee, which is often already quite broad.  Steps for organisational change might be required to make the most out of contributions and optimize company efficiency. At this stage, the BSN has been successfully integrated into the process as a work tool for some employees—generally leading actors in the company network (Quality, Security, Monitoring, Innovation etc.). A real and encouraging sign of the impact of the BSN!Change management shouldnt be underestimated, even if there isnt anenormous commitment of resources. It shouldnt become an end in itself, butremain a catalyst: a chemical component that speeds up a reaction withoutaltering the finished products. So grab your burette and start measuring. Frédéric Charles is the Manager of the department for Strategy and Governance at the Information Systems Directorate of Lyonnais Des Eaux - Suez Environnement. He joined the subsidiary in 2007 during the creation of the department for strategy and governance and created a collaborative IS division that includes all the collaborative services offered to Lyonnaise des Eauxs 7000 users (messaging, intranet, document management, social network etc.). The division provides a comprehensive and social platform ("2.0") to manage collective knowledge. Frédéric is the creator of the blog Greensi.

Generation Y, Enterprise 2.0, online reputation and personal branding are allkey words. But they are above all customs and practices which have started toimpact the way that trade unions currently make demands. To understand thechallenges that trade unions are facing we must take a quick look at thedevelopments which have led to a situation in which fewer than 7% of Frenchemployees belong to a trade union.Labour relations have a long history in France, two centuries of trade unionsand their relationships with employer organisations and the ruling politicalbodies. The trade unions were forged in struggle and during exchanges whichhad more in common with conflict than dialogue, with bosses ill-inclined to

share or have their decision-making powers questioned. Trade unions had theirtrente glorieuses before a worrying decline: a decline related to changes inbusiness and the economy; to relationships that place the individual at the heartand weaken the collective; to globalisation, which has many effects, but theprincipal result of which is to distance the decisions applied on a local level fromthose really responsible for them.This decline, which has led to de-unionisation, goes hand in hand with lowturnout—not only in elections for industrial tribunals, but also in the general andpresidential elections.In this context, Enterprise 2.0 offers a new perspective on possibledevelopments in labour relations in business because it links at once thenotions of autonomy and collective, transparency and openness.There are a few questions that immediately spring to mind:  What is the role of the trade union between a connected employee and a collaborative business?  What will be the new forms of action, relationship and dialogue?  Likewise, what role will mediation, guaranteed by the trade unions, play during a conflict between the collective and management?As we know, Enterprise 2.0 has been the victim of a rather rose-tinted, touchy-feely vision of business, in which everyone collaborates, communicates, worksand innovates for a better collective performance. Let’s forget role-playing

games, Iribarne’s logic of honour and Crozier’s actors theory1, and go back tothe fantasy of business without paralysing hierarchy, that allows autonomousindividuals to better fulfil their duties. So Enterprise 2.0 isn’t interested in labourrelations: it assumes that the question has become useless, becausetransparency and openness allow us to resolve the slightest problem almost inreal time.We reflect very little on the role of intermediaries, and therefore managers asstaff representatives in this version of the concept, as well as the NorthAmerican cultural assumptions introduced by the Enterprise 2.0 concept. A flatbusiness wants to become more communicative and simple, but destroysmechanisms in place since the start of the capitalist business model in trying todo so, without gaining any clue as to how to achieve the transition. The actualrepresentation of unions is already caught between the dissatisfaction ofemployees, dating back more than 15 years now, and the increasing power ofthe internet, which allows employees to side-step union spokespersons to maketheir voice heard. The hard truth is that this representation is only furtherweakened by the arrival of 2.0.Imagine that a trade union is telling you about employee dissatisfaction about acertain project, a reorganisation or another collective problem by telling you theviews of the rank and file. You, as a good 2.0 HR manager, show them theresults of your own internal social monitoring: a positive online survey; nonegative comments after your last blog entry on the subject or in the blogs ofother employees; and the topic didn’t come up during the last video chat thatyou organised... At the end of the day, who is more representative? In the eyesof the law, it will be the trade union, if it won more than 10% at the lastprofessional election. But what authority will it have to make suggestions, to1 http://qualiconsult.pagesperso-orange.fr/crozier.htm2 Distinction proposed by Michael Idinopoulos between activities in the flow and above the flow.

represent employees during the negotiations? Rejoicing in this fact, as manyjournalists and some politicians are doing, would be a grave error. They explainat great length that trade unions are out of date, in the way of change, tooexpensive and harmful to the competitiveness of businesses. The most short-sighted among them are even demanding that the right to strike be removed…Let’s not forget that the reduction in trade union leadership in a dispute oftenleads to radicalisation and the emergence of ephemeral coalitions with keyactors who have no training in negotiation, quickly becoming an obstacle to amanaged resolution of the crisis.We can retain a positive view of labour relations in a 2.0 business when werealise that there is a certain balance between the different forces and that theunions are not (as they too often are) a hiding place for employees withoutskills, leadership qualities or drive, who want to protect themselves. As a resultit is in the interests of management to develop methods for their employees toexpress themselves within the company, so that they are not driven to externalsites when they cannot make their voices heard internally. It must then adapt itssocial monitoring of these new tools. This will allow it to understand areas oftension as well as satisfaction amongst employees and pick up on the subtlesignals which make it possible to measure the quality of social dialogue. HRdepartments will have to define to rules of the game to encourage this dialoguewithin the company, training managers in close social dialogue and improvingon the use of these new tools, amongst other things. They can also produce ausers charter for social media and carry out community management ofdifferent spaces in cooperation with the communications department. For theirpart, unions should ensure a better mastery of the different communicationspaces put at their disposal by the company, whilst not depending on themcompletely, continuing to develop quality external communication and web toolsas part of their union marketing. It is essential that they manage to people inmanagement positions and work on the online reputation of the new ones so as

to inspire the confidence of employees and encourage them to come and seekadvice and support.It is vital that all these actors understand that a presence in the different spacesof the Web, 2.0 is at the same time a usage test and an avant-garde standing,giving them legitimacy in the eyes of new employees who work more and moreonline and are used to such practices. HR professionals, like union officials,need to use their professionalism and competence to position themselves asthe first port of call for an employee faced with a problem or a question, and notlet Google, Twitter or Facebook take their place. Enterprise 2.0 has to be therecognized social link, and should be constructed revitalise the work and todevelop long-term performance, putting the individual at the heart of business, afocus on the person, and not only as a way of making money.HR and unions may find common ground on which to develop a calmer socialclimate within the company and greater consideration of the need to listen toemployees, to allow them to express themselves and participate in the smoothrunning of the business whilst ensuring its economic development. Vincent Berthelot is a specialist in internal and external social web- use strategies, specifically in HR, skills, mobility, management and labour relations. Using his background in HR and Intercultural Communication, Vincent was the first to launch an HR intranet at a large French group. He shares his views via his personal blog, Conseilwebsocial, consults and advises in the business world and participates in various conferences.

Governance in enterprise 2.0When meeting with business managers on a collaborative project, the notionthat collaborative = anarchic or self-managed comes up often (even if this fearsubsides). The role of senior management in not disappearing; it will validatethe operational collaborative processes and collaborative components: internalparticipants, clients, partners etc. Even if there is a larger element of autonomy:it also means freedom and means of doing, and senior management is alwaysthere to establish business strategy and objectives.To develop collaborative working practices in a business, senior managementneeds to be more than a sponsor—it has to set an example, in attitude and inthe use of collaborative principles. This materializes in greater agility (reduceddecision-making times in line with operations and/or related to feedback),decompartmentalization, and transparency in line with a freer flow of

information. We can speak of an integrative organisation. The main differencewith a classic organization(al model) is therefore increased listening on the partof managers and the empowerment of their colleagues. Senior managementtherefore has to concentrate more on direction and results than on themicromanaging teams.The result is a reduction in the pyramid, to the benefit of a more horizontalorganization (based on the identity of those involved and multi-communities). AsJohn Chambers, the CEO of Cisco has pointed out, it is illusory to think that onecan manage 66,000 employees; which is why the rigid, bureaucratic side of anorganization that is tied to the pyramid structure of classic organizations(delegative according to Henry Mintzberg) needs to be reduced.So the transfer of this plan and how it is received can be accomplished directly,via the blog of the CEO, or more broadly through a collaborative platform thatprovides the employees with the opportunity to react and engage in dialogue.If governance evolves when establishing an enterprise 2.0 or a collaborativeorganization, it stands that the management methods must also evolve.Management 2.0 in your companyWhen speaking about collaborative work within a company, the term communitymanager quickly comes up. If the creation of communities is one of the mainresults of collaborative work, it doesn’t mean that traditional managementceases to exist: the "manager 2.0" model isn’t exclusively that of a communitymanager. For a long time (and still often the case), the manager was the onewith the information and they transmitted it to their teams based on the model ofinformation = power. So what can we expect from the "next generation"manager?First, they need to instil confidence in their teams. This means the freedom toexpress themselves and to share, which will lead to participatory management

and even collective decision-making by the groups, and therefore ultimatelymore engagement. But the role of manager can obviously not be conceived withonly power and hierarchy in mind; so the role will therefore be more the one of afacilitator or a coordinator. In any group dynamic, there is the potential fortensions and issues to be resolved; the person who is able to stay above thefray can help move things forward. If management participates, we can alsoassume that the level of daily delegation is substantial. The manager is actuallythere to help their teams grow and achieve results, and therefore to leademployees in the direction that the business wants to go, giving them theautonomy they need to grow individually and collectively. This means givingsupport, advice or offering help when needed. The time and attention given todoing this enables the manager to improve their team and take time to thinkabout the direction of activities and above all, prioritize them in order orimportance (important, urgent etc.)But more than delegation, the manager develops the willingness of their teamsto work collaboratively and provides them with the means to do so (knowledgeand capability). They will be a promoter. The manager will be the oneconnecting with their n+1 or n+2 in order to promote the work of their colleaguesand to emphasize the personal and collective achievements of their teams.Even within a network system, we are much closer to "internal personalbranding" that will capitalize on employee reputation within the company.This brings us to some key ideas: respect rather than dominance confidence rather than discipline transparency rather than secrecy the collective rather than the individual

 to value rather than to appropriate All of this is nothing new, much like collaborative work practices or communities (web 2.0 didn’t invented that). But many mangers are worried about their status in a collaborative company. If their role evolves, their actions will also have to evolve; being a manager doesnt mean displaying leadership. Nevertheless, managers within the structure of a collaborative company will no doubt have to display leadership. This means changing perspectives from a managerial skills standpoint. Managers will need to respond to two specific challenges: coordinating without centralizing; and doing so outside of a hierarchy. Both of these challenges present problems for managing a project and having a project manage you. To tackle these, and to allow everyone to develop their potential, you need to inspire the following: a sense of freedom, by accepting to let got of—and "lose"—control; a sense of community, by reinforcing the sense of belonging; a sense of direction, so colleagues can completely invest in their work. By assuming this leadership posture, the manager will become an enabler that inspires their colleagues; freeing their energy; knowing when to make a decision or to reach a consensus when needed. This might mean going along with their colleagues in order to demonstrate an open mind, and enabling them to grow by allowing them to make mistakes (meaning delegation), without which confidence and risk-taking isnt possible. A favourable environment for individual success is created. This often scares managers. They are worried about what their superiors and their colleagues might think. Delegation doesnt result in decreased authority, doesnt take away recognition from, or of, superiors and colleagues. On the contrary—recognition and support provides motivation. The goal of a manager is to organize a team and to help them develop. A manager is judged in the way

they manage a team, not on their ability to do so. In the words of Peter Drucker:"So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for peopleto work. In the new world of management I see frontline employees being incontrol of their own workload and calling upon the coach for advice when theyneed it."As a conclusionSome managers wont know how—or want—to take on this dramatic change in"culture". The role isnt necessarily for them, because it is sometimes too farremoved from their own history and culture. Management therefore needs to beinvolved and exposed to different points of view. The more managers areinvolved early on, the less they will feel like "the fifth wheel" and will be open tochange. Managers need to play a role in this change in culture and berecognized for its contribution to the collaborative company. They will also bethe main liaison in implementing communities or collaborative work processeswithin the company. As I said before, enterprise 2.0 is integrated and doesntpush managers aside. For those who arent able to adapt, the company owes itto them to give them other roles; providing their expertise for example. Anthony Poncier has a PhD in Contemporary History and a Masters degree in Strategic Management and Competitive Intelligence. He has taught International Relations at Paris X Nanterre and NICT at IUFM Paris. Anthony is Director/Consultant of management and enterprise 2.0 (management 2.0, collaborative projects, SCRM, social media strategy, etc.) at LECKO. He regularly participates at conferences in France and abroad, delivers university seminars at HEC and SKEMA, is a business consultant, regularly publishes articles for online magazines and maintains a blog.

Monitoring for enterprise 2.0Attempting to define enterprise 2.0 would be a useless effort to force it into aframework, effectively going against its intrinsic characteristics. Its more usefulto speak about what makes an enterprise 2.0 what it is: agility, the function ofand a reliance on a skill network, using so-called social software applications attheir fair value. A 2.0 business is fertile ground for exchanging skills betweenpeers and knowledge between employees and professionals. At this level,information becomes the keystone for individual and collective performance—itcirculates, is enriched and transformed into knowledge.

As such, monitoring in the broad sense, research, oversight and studies, will befocused on adapting to the characteristics of an enterprise 2.0. Withoutnecessarily speaking of monitoring 2.0, the activity should include three keyparameters in order to be able to bring real added value to the company:  An approach for governance and management  Intelligent implementation of internal skills  Technological support focused on the companys professionsFirst off, its important to think about the activity of monitoring in its entirety,across all aspects and functions of the company. An efficient and effectivemonitoring mechanism requires an approach for governance and managementof the resources used and the activities put into practice according tocollaboratively created processes. This type of governance will enable theevaluation of monitoring actions on three levels: operational, tactical andstrategic. Management via key quantitative indicators also allows for theapplication of corrective actions.Moreover, an approach to governance enables the coordination of allmonitoring activities in a 2.0 business and ensures a certain interoperability ofindividual and collective monitoring systems. This interoperability is all the morenecessary in a 2.0 business; its impossible that monitoring be entrusted to asingle central body, or delegated without a minimum of participation andcoordination of all employees. As it happens, it is a second criterion formonitoring in enterprise 2.0.Given the agility and the flexibility of a 2.0 business, the most appropriate modelfor carrying out monitoring activities would be a deft, delicate mix ofcentralization and decentralization; intelligently implementing internal skills,professions and support in an overall monitoring dynamic. This means thatinformation-documentarian professional profiles like archivists and monitors willbe oriented towards specific aspects such as qualifying sources, methodologicaltransfers, internal coaching, managing software tools etc.

As for the professionals—engineers, researchers, product heads, marketingstaff etc.—and their growing demands for autonomy in regards to research andoversight, they will be appealed to on the grounds of professional, evenstrategic, analysis. Based on their positions and their activities, theseknowledge workers often request specialized, tailor-made monitoring in additionto their desire for autonomy when using and working with collected information.Its essential to come up with suitable collaboration methods to satisfy this groupwhile subscribing to performance logic and professional processes.This happens principally by establishing practical and knowledge-sharingcommunities that bring together specialists and experts that could, for example,be led by information professionals. Collaboration can also occur through theimplementation of analysis committees, by organizing a variety of professionalsto deliver communal value added production: outlook, activity reports etc.Now collaboration becomes indispensible, above all in a context where a singleemployee cant provide all the working methods and techniques, the analysisand the production. Its more reasonable then to trust in this collectiveintelligence to provide and create added value that is adapted to all of theprofessions involved. With the desire to optimize performance and efficiency,this collaboration is impossible without basic technological support, in line withthe global Information System of the company.Technological support occurs through the implementation of collaborativeapplications for content production (like wikis) or collective publishing tools (likeGoogle Docs), but also occurs via Business Social Networks (BSN). A BSN canbring real added value, especially if it is used within the framework of specificprofessional projects: launching a new product, designing a layout, defining abenchmark etc. Through content sharing, physical and digital, and viaannotation and comments, a BSN allows employees to give direction to sharedinformation, tackle the different visions of the marketer, the engineer, thecommunications specialist and the product head. With a single interface toaccess Internet and hardcopy information, traceability and an activity history in

addition to co-production of content and direction, a BSN contributes to thecreation of economies of scale and is synonymous with gaining time andefficiency, improving margins of error and therefore performance.As a conclusion, monitoring for an enterprise 2.0 is in essence collaborative. Itbenefits from social software infrastructure and, in particular, does so whileunderstanding governance and management so as to ensure consistency and adynamic that directly ties into the companys business. Aref JDEY is a consultant-researcher specializing in oversight systems and information management. Aref has an authoritative blog, Demain la veille, on monitoring and issues that come up as it relates to Web 2.0, social networks and enterprise 2.0.

Knowledge management is not a new subject. About 15 years ago Nonaka andTakeuchi published an article explaining how tacit knowledge could be captured,shared and recorded, mainly through the use of nascent intranet technology. From thenon, knowledge management projects continued to multiply until it became apparentthey weren’t living up to expectations, leading ultimately to disappointment and wastedmoney. What happened? Under pressure from publishers to sell software, we hadforgotten a fundamental truth, as stated by Peter Drucker: ―Knowledge is between twoears and only between two ears.‖ The apple of knowledge is just an ordinary apple untilyou eat it. It is necessary therefore to find it, pick it and eat it to get the energy neededfor action. In other words, you need to actively look (monitoring, filtering usefulinformation) and then learn (analysis/synthesis, learning, ―rehashing‖) before beingable to benefit (implementation, know-how, integration into a new theory). By acting onwhat was information, that is to say, knowledge-in-waiting, it becomes working know-how, i.e. knowledge.

What’s up, doc?The arrival five years ago of a new generation of Internet-derived tools has completelytransformed the landscape of knowledge management. The fact that they came fromthe web is not insignificant. It means that very often they were created by individualdevelopers (to begin with, at least) in order to meet their own needs: improvedinformation sharing in a group project (Ward Cunningham’s wikis) or managingfavourites (Joshua Schacter’s Muxway/Delicious). These tools were designed to meetindividual needs—a very different situation from the first generation of knowledgemanagement tools, which were focused on the sacrosanct document and placed thegroup (project team, department) ahead of the individual. Enterprise social networks(ESN) and the tools associated with them (wikis, blogs, microblogging) are focused,once again, on the individual; every action they execute in the system is automaticallyassociated with their profile either visibly (group notification that So-and-So has sharedsuch-and-such document) or invisibly (recording and combining clicks in an Amazon-style collaborative filtering system). The primary aim of these tools is to meet both thepersonal needs of the individual—finding useful information or the right person in-house—and their collaborative needs: working in project mode, creating a practicecommunity etc. We always forget that collaborating for the sake of collaborating is notthe goal, at least not in the business world. Groups, networks, communities and teamsare, initially, no more or less than the sum of their individual members. With time, if allgoes well and the environment is favourable, this sum may become a multiplication oftalents. However, this is rare, strongly linked to the chemistry of the individualsinvolved, and rather unpredictable. This is not to say that we should not try to createthe conditions to encourage it. If the features of the tool used are designed to serve theneeds of the group before those of the individual, the individual will not be inclined touse it (the ―that thing is useless‖ syndrome).With ESNs, the individual is central because they initiate the conversation. By sharing alink to an important article, the individual generates reactions, discussion, argumentsand objections... added value in other words.In doing so, these systems that enable information to circulate hold potentially valuableelements. Snippets of information stored here and there have the potential, oncegrouped together by an internal search engine, for example, to provide useful decision-making tools. This is the reason why, in our opinion, the next elements to incorporate

into ESNs are natural language processing applications (text mining via graphicalinterfaces for example) which will allow the user to use this internal databasequantitatively.Returning to the comparison with the first generation tools, we must note theemergence of simple but indispensable ergonomic developments. One of the majorproblems was the fact that an employee had to duplicate information: I send the file tomy project group and then I file it in the company’s KM system. This ensured that theindividual spent most of their time working via email and hardly any time sharingknowledge by making contributions to the organisation2. Simple features now allowthem to carry out these two acts at the same time.Chronicle of a death foretoldLet’s be clear about this, enterprise 2.0 and the ESN have signed the death warrant forKM as we know it. Soon no one will be ―doing‖ knowledge management. We will goabout our business and let the system gather information, restructure it, classify it,index it and notify anyone who has set up an alert etc.But is this enough? Not all the information that an organisation needs can be turnedinto a conversation. Technical data, job descriptions, standards and other ―serious‖documents are hard to accommodate within conversations. There is therefore a bodyof documents that a ESN isnt able to handle. But is this new? For a long time in factthis information has been managed by professional applications, according to recordsmanagement and archiving procedures that are much better adapted. Moreover, it isnot knowledge that is more active than it was before, simply potential knowledge. Thisleads us to the conclusion that our systems have never managed (and will nevermanage) knowledge, and the question of knowledge management breaks down here.Both types of document are needed by organisations, however. Technical and formaldocuments must be managed because they ensure the quality of the output of the―production machine‖ that is the company. Conversations must also be managed2 Distinction proposed by Michael Idinopoulos between activities in the flow and above the flow.

because they ensure the smooth running of another machine equally vital to theorganisation’s survival, the ―innovation machine‖. This machine, because it is made upof people who think, look for and share information, doesn’t fit into a method ofinformation management which is standardised, normalised and codified. Trying toapply methods that have emerged from production management to the sphere ofinnovation and ideas renders them sterile. This is where 2.0 technology plays its role;by making the hierarchy more flexible and more adaptable to the complexities of reallife, thereby allowing the emergence of a 2.0 business, or more simply, of a businesswhich has succeeded in adapting to its environment. Christophe Deschamps is an independent consultant and training expert in information management and strategic monitoring. He is a professor at ICOMTEC and has blogged about Competitive Intelligence at Outils Froids since 2003. In 2009 Christophe published Le nouveau management de linformation - La gestion des connaissances au coeur de lentreprise 2.0 (The New Information Management - Knowledge management at the heart of enterprise 2.0) from FYP Editions.

Relating knowledge, the place of storytelling in Enterprise 2.0The objective of a so-called enterprise 2.0 can be oversimplified to facilitatingcollaborative relations between various actors in the organization. This is doneto enable discursive interactions (through "interactive applications") and tacitknowledge sharing, generally formalized as "experience feedback" (through"integrative applications3"; a DMS for instance). This is knowledgemanagement.According to Wikipedia, knowledge management can be defined as "a range ofstrategies and practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent,distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences." The goal ofsystems, managerial or technical, associated with enterprise 2.0 can be tofacilitate the circulation of employee knowledge in a company. One question toask is: how can this knowledge be formalized through a perspective of sharingthat is accessible to as many people as possible rather than for the reuse of"documents" (organized by defined, universal rules)?3 Charlot J-M., Lancini A., Faire de la recherche en système dinformation, Vuibert, 2002, Paris

"Storytelling" (as we will define it) is an interesting way to formalize thecirculation of knowledge within business networks (intranet, BSN etc.). Whatsmore is that these networks make it easier for various employees to interact andcommunicate.Storytelling: a narrative approach to knowledge sharingBasically, storytelling is a narrative communication approach: present themessage in the form of a story (tale, legend etc.) so the listeners can findreference points (analogies) that enable them to understand the meaning andespecially adopt the intended message more easily. Speaking more"conceptually", storytelling can be seen as a "strong cognitive hypothesis for theway in which we organize our experiences and therefore bring out meaning inour interactions.4" In other words: a way of formalizing our experiences, notaccording to their potential use (or reuse), but through the lens of interactionsand exchanges that enabled knowledge generation etc.More pragmatically, to paraphrase Edgard Morin, there is no given objectivereality; all of the knowledge that we develop is tied to the various interactionsthat weve had with others. For example, the process of creating a certainproduct is not innate; it is a result of the exchanges that take place betweenvarious project contributors. The interest is therefore to find and identify theinteractions (discussions within a BSN, exchanges on an internal blog, sharinginformation and points of view on a wiki) in order to then transmit them to otheremployees as a narrative. And therein lies the question of operating in an"enterprise 2.0": encourage and enable digital exchanges so they can beformalized, memorized and communicated to the people they affect the most(company newcomers for example). The goal of storytelling in enterprise 2.0 isto emphasize interactions and conversations as a way of supporting the transferof knowledge and tacit knowledge.What are the tangible uses within an organisation?4 Soulier. E (sous la dir), Le storytelling : concepts, outils et applications, Hermès Science, 2006, Paris

When talking about businesses operating on a collaborative 2.0 model, thereisnt a lot of feedback for storytelling strategies that have been implemented (atthe technical and managerial levels) for knowledge management purposes.Nevertheless, in a 2006 article from a French management review on theknowledge management system as a support for storytelling in business ("Lesystème de gestion des connaissances pour soutenir le storytelling danslentreprise.", Revue Française de Gestion), E. Soulier, a French researcherworking on the problem proposes several paths to develop a knowledgemanagement system based on storytelling. Here are some of those paths,together with some other thoughts and facts on the ground: Encourage narration during feedback by using video (video conferences, podcasting etc.): have an employee transmit their knowledge on a given issue using a video interview. "Staging" the experience feedback by encouraging an employee to propose a logical implementation explained in a narrative form facilitates the use of the "storytelling approach" for the transmission of their experience and knowledge. Propose, during individual feedback sessions or once a project has been completed, interviews (filmed or not) wherein each employee talks about their vision of the project. The goal is to bring out similar "stories", analogies that are used by everyone that can then be made available (using appropriate tools like a blog). Get moving again on the interactions and exchanges generated using internal 2.0 tools to try and "capture" the knowledge that comes up throughout the conversations. The use of tags can be useful (and reemphasize their role with certain tools) when they are inserted into a predetermined narrative. If the organisation has a BSN, allow employees to clearly define their own "digital identity". History is written by people, so every employee can be seen as having a fixed role in a project (for example). Their "personality"

characteristics—their skills, needs etc.—are promoted when they register on the network. Organising a project doesnt go through "who can do what?", but "which personality/digital identity will advance the story?" Present a project as an event within internal 2.0 tools.To sum up, dont present a "catalogue" of information about a project, but agroup of narratives that happen between the information. Right now, the use ofstorytelling within enterprise 2.0 is more of a theoretical vision than a practicalone. In order to be applied effectively, storytelling needs strong conversationand digital exchanges between employees: an honest conversational approachwhen working on company projects. The main idea is to render an operationalact subjective and to use the often informal conversations that take place usingthe organisation’s 2.0 tools to do so.Nevertheless, this approach (in a hypothesis wherein there is fertile terrain for itto grow) seems the best suited to the transmission of knowledge, tometaphorically reformulating the actions and knowledge of every person. Afterall, who hasnt listened to the head of a large company begin a "corporate"speech with an anecdote about the how and the why of their success?More than formalising practical knowledge, the narrative approach enables thetransmission of values unique to each organisation, values that are necessaryfor good collaborative practices in the company. Camille Alloing is a R&D researcher and author of CaddE- Réputation, a blog dedicated to online reputation-management tools and methodologies.

Learning is social by natureWithout going all the way back to the theories of Vygotsky or Albert Bandura,the simplest way to explain social learning is perhaps to look at the work ofRichard J. Legers (Harvard Graduate School of Education), who has shown thatone of the most important factors for success in higher education is a student’sability to form and/or participate in small study groups. In comparison to thosewho had worked alone, those students who had studied in a group, even onlyonce a week, were more involved and better prepared. The students from thesegroups were able to ask questions to resolve uncertainties and improve theirown understanding of the subject by hearing the answers to other students’questions. The most powerful element was the ability to play the role of teacherto other students, as it has been shown that the best way to learn is to teach.

The philosophy of social learning is in contrast to the traditional Cartesian viewof education. In the Cartesian model, knowledge is a kind of substance andlearning is a way for teachers to transfer this substance to their students.Instead of basing itself on the Cartesian principle "I think, therefore I am", thesocial conception of learning holds that "We participate, therefore we are".It is in society that we learn. Observation, discussion and collaboration are alsoopportunities to learn. The social aspect of learning is fundamental. Sociallearning is therefore not a novelty that has appeared alongside Web 2.0.Learning is not an eventWhen we talk about learning, we immediately think about formal learning; inother words, about training and education. However, this kind of organizedlearning only represents about 20% of everything we learn in our lives (see theworks of Cofer).Solving problems, design, creativity, research, experimentation and innovationare full-fledged learning experiences. Sharing experiences, observations,discussion, helping one another and cooperation are also kinds of learning.80% of our learning is therefore unexpected, unplanned and informal.From this point of view, the emphasis is less on the content and more on theactivities and the human interactions that take place around the content.Indeed, real learning can be found in all the nuances of our way ofcollaborating, sharing and working. Learning is not something that takes placeoutside of work. Learning and work are in fact part of a single stream; it’s acontinuous process, a skill, an ability to act.Enterprise 2.0 = Learning 2.0In our businesses, we know that informal learning takes place all the time, mostof the time however, the answers and the experts most capable of solving a

problem are not connected with the person who is attempting to tackle it. Sociallearning networks can remedy this situation by giving everyone access to amuch larger group of people who can help them.2.0 technologies are enabling technologies that connect us with each other,facilitating communication and collaboration. But they are not only technologies;and social learning, by allowing us to capitalise on the ever-increasing streamsof knowledge that have made the walls of our organisations porous, fills theempty barrels of 2.0.4Cs for Enterprise 2.0Because social learning necessitates design, training, support, leadership,oversight and highlighting successes both big and small, we have developed aninnovative and pragmatic approach in order to support our clients throughouttheir projects, both internally (tools and collaborative learning) and externally(social media). This approach facilitates acquiring and diffusing knowledgewithin social networks via an iterative and fractal process that can besummarised in four steps: Comprehension, Conversation, Collaboration andCapitalization.

Our 4C method is based on two indirect consequences of 2.0, which are vital forthe success of any Enterprise 2.0 project: visibility and transparency.Making work visible and transparentOne unexpected and rarely-acknowledged consequence of the first generationof IT tools (email, word processing) which make up our day-to-day workenvironment is to render the work process less visible, precisely at the momentwhen we need it to be as visible as possible.The end products of our work are highly refined abstractions. For example, thisarticle tells you nothing about the initial idea or its evolution. Likewise, it doesn’tgive you any information about the exchanges I may have had with my peers(via social networks or face-to-face), or about my own experiences that haveshaped my thinking.In business, the gains in personal productivity produced by these IT tools areoften made at the detriment of organisational learning.In the 1.0 world, I worked in an events management company. I was in chargeof organizing a professional trade show, and for a beginner like myself, thesales targets seemed unreachable. The only way to meet them was to bringtogether all the stakeholders of the project whilst meeting their needs (explicit orotherwise). I couldn’t rely on the planning boards from previous years’ shows, oron the sales databases, and even less on the dry minutes of old meetings tohelp me understand.I was lucky enough to have a managing director who gave me access to hisoffice for several months. I was able to access all his notes, emails and hisaddress book. I participated in all the formal and informal exchanges on thetopic. Within a few months I was able to sketch a reasonably accurate map of

the world of Florence that I had to navigate and proposed a strategy to makethis trade show an unmissable event. By allowing me to observe his work, thedirector gave me an invaluable learning opportunity.Transparency is the key to social learning and to Enterprise 2.0. Thistransparency encourages access to the people and information that we mayneed to make good decisions. It is the consequence of the open andmultidirectional communication made possible by social tools. It can’t beimposed or forced. Transparency in Enterprise 2.0 involves making our actionsand decisions visible to others. It’s about sharing information and knowing whohas provided it. We’re talking about accountability and recognition. By bringingpeople and their experiences and ideas together, social learning allows us toincrease our confidence in the shared information and in those who created it.Changing models: from "command & control" to"connect & animate"It is transparency that is proving the greatest challenge to the classic "commandand control" management model. Managers have to accept that information iscreated and spread more quickly over networks. They must also accept that thismovement will most often happen outside of their control.Lately, one of our clients told me that "the problem with your approach is that ifyou give everyone the right to speak, they might just take you up on it!" It’sprecisely this commitment to openness and transparency, which goes hand inhand with Enterprise 2.0, which must pressure management to innovate andadopt a "connect and animate" model.Your IT department and in-house lawyers will tell you that it’s risky. But theserisks can be managed. The value created by greater transparency in businessis much greater than the potential cost. On the contrary, the real risks areattached to a lack of transparency, to bad decision-making, to making the same

mistakes again or redoing the same work, to an inability to innovate or tounderstand and satisfy client needs.Until now competitive advantages have been built on information asymmetry. Inthe future, we will be mistaken if we think that exclusive access to information isan advantage. In todays complex environment, real competitive advantages arecreated by people who can find relevant information, transform it into practicalknowledge and use it to create value. The challenge is to find, attract and holdon to these people; the challenge is to create an environment in which theirtalent can be developed and used to its fullest; and transparency is essential insuch an environment. Frédéric Domon is co-founder of Socialearning, a consulting agency for organization and collaborative strategies. Socialearning assists businesses to understand the issues surrounding new methods of value creation and helps them develop collaborative work and training practices (enterprise 2.0, social learning) for innovative partnerships with their clients (social media and social business). Frédéric is also the creator of Entreprise Collaborative, a think tank on social learning and businesses inside networks. Due to his background in communications and marketing, Frédéric still has a passion for graphic design, as you can tell from the layout of this collection.

By definition, participative innovation is a structured managementapproach to stimulate and facilitate the introduction, implementation andcirculation of ideas to personnel. The notion of "participation" introduces amanagement axis, a mechanism for listening and for dialogue towardemployees, kindness and a positive stance: each employee can have ideas.Voicing the idea needs to be promoted. The notion of "innovation" introducesboldness, curiosity and risk-taking, implying that one has the right to err.

With strong practical experience in business, the partner members of theassociation INNOV’ACTEURS constructed a reference system tosuccessfully implement Participative Innovation, or PI. Visual representation of the reference system for Participative InnovationAt first, businesses need to define their values, their mission and their ambition.Then they need to build the processes that will enable them to achieve theirvision and to define the type of innovation to put in place, according to thesituation. The business could have spontaneous innovation: every person canput forward an idea and the manager needs to know how to receive and dealwith the idea; or encouraged innovation: using and leading methods for theresolution of problems or for creative purposes, or to have internal challengeson a given theme. Then the company figures out the synergy with institutional

innovation and supporting services. That is where we handle the regrouping ofall the areas of innovation in the company. Step six consists of increasing thescope even more by listening to clients and suppliers. Step seven is thenessential: managing participative innovation definitely requires a policy thatrecognizes and values the authors of the ideas. Take for example the industrialcompanies that save millions of Euros thanks to participative innovation: itscrazy to think that they dont provide some sort of financial compensation to theemployee who came up with the savings. Finally, the company should haveeffective communications. In order for participative innovation to really bear fruit,there has to be a "buzz" created right from the beginning that can be reactivatedwhen there is success. These eight points enable a structured process forparticipative innovation.Built a few years earlier, this PI reference system would be seen as aprecursor to its own content!By effectively suggesting openness to the outside and integratingstakeholders such as clients and suppliers, the system implicitly dealswith the use of new technologies and, in particular, collaborative tools likeWEB2.0.The system also leads to another vision of work in a company andreintegrates the individual at its heart; relevant here at the start of the 21stcentury! Another important thing to point out is the systems goal to alsoimprove social and economic performance.From this point of view, the evolution of participative innovation and itslongevity show both the acuteness of the participatory managementapproach and its remarkable modernity.Historically, participative innovation first appeared with the ideas box in the1980s. Not well organized and sporadic, it was a spontaneous approach thatfirst emerged in quality circles. During the 1990s and in the early 2000s, the

approach changed and idea management tools appeared. Deadlines andtraceability were formalised and problem-solving scenarios were used. At thetime, innovative participation was quantitative and vertical; it was mostly in theworld of Industry and determined largely by quality.Eventually, a "world of innovation" emerged: a community of internal andexternal stakeholders. Broadly speaking, innovation now means incrementalas much as it does disruptive technology and can be lead by R&D, marketing orby any employee when it comes to improving procedures. Until nowcollaboration was split up; today, it is the interaction of the whole system thatdecides whether or not a company can be labelled innovative. Thanks to newtechnologies, every business segment in a company is affected, andparticipative innovation is now concentrated on the qualitative. It relies oncreativity linked to strategy under a dynamic, open-bubble concept. Participativeinnovation is increasingly seen as an avenue for bringing the human elementinto the company and a way to provide a sense of direction for action. We areno longer searching only for innovation, but to build an overall mindset of theinnovative company.As such, quality circles from the 1980s help us today during the explosionof collaborative communities characterized by interactivity, co-construction, the right time and the right use.It is a considerable paradigm shift, since as a result it can only work (besidesas a technical tool) on the strategic basis of alliances, openness,cooperation among very diverse parties, accepting that time is speedingup and an unrestricted circulation of information.The engine for the system resides in the will to better integrate interdependenceand the numerous disciplines of the parties involved; and to build innovationtogether.

Its a new way to work and it corresponds to the expectations and theprofiles of the Y and Z generation workforce, who are skilled at operatingwithin a network and are familiar with information and communicationtechnologies.It is certainly a gamble on the ability of businesses to project themselvesactively into this new dynamic and to accept new management methods thatare unsettling to organisations with a pyramid structure and hyper-hierarchicaloperations. Muriel Garcia is President of INNOV’ACTEURS and manger of the Innovation, HR and Management-Communication division for the Quality Management Directorate of La Poste group (France). Following 10 years of experience in Line Departments (postal and financial services), Muriel turned towards operational activities in 1992: trainer in communication and management; management consultant for strategic pilot projects; marketing project head for Branding; HR manager for Engineering; and sustainable quality and development manager for the Banking branch of La Poste (La Banque Postale). Muriel has been at her present position with La Poste since 2006.

Entreprise 2.0: an agent of innovationThe Enterprise 2.0 concept is manifested in many ways within a business.Some manifestations are technological or impact on the architecture, designand ergonomics of computer programs, and so have a rather indirect effect onemployees. An example would be the generalised integration of RSS feeds as asolution for documentary and knowledge interoperability. This kind ofarchitectural vision means that information can always be present, everywhere,and especially where individual employees want it to be, which brings us back

to the eternal problem of every communication department: ―How do we makesure that our intranet is used?‖Other manifestations make collaborative work and communication easier. Someof them focus on collective intelligence and innovation, principally by the use ofsocial media, and especially Business Social Networks (BSNs) to meet internalcommunication needs. Only 25% of innovation comes from laboratories andR&D teams. BSNs make it possible to gather together each person’s ideas anddiscoveries in order to discuss them and identify innovative approaches.Business Social Networks (BSNs) as collective intelligence platformsThe BSN concept can have a limited impact in some businesses because manyassociate them with social networks like Facebook which are accessible to all.Facebook is still often a synonym for a site ―where we waste time and whichcan therefore only be a source of wasted time in a professional context‖.Although the operating principles of BSNs and Facebook are basically thesame, the uses to which the business can put them provide solutions to vitalneeds which were only partially met by traditional means: telephone, email,video-conferencing and so forth.The main aim of a BSN is to use practice or interest-based communities toconnect all of a company’s internal and external collaborators, includingpartners, suppliers, clients and, more generally, all the actors who surround it(its stakeholders).This contact is asynchronous and minimally intrusive (each person can connectwhen he wants, if he wants, where he wants, via the internet or using asmartphone or touchscreen tablet). It is a particularly useful solution to thefollowing problems:

 How do I make the most of the ideas and collective intelligence of all my collaborators to innovate faster than the competition, or simply solve a problem quickly? How can I share information without overwhelming my correspondents with piles of emails and replies? How can I get answers from and share good practices with a large group of users, whilst still allowing each person to contribute? How do I foster links between team members who are in different locations and are often isolated?Good practices for establishing a BSNAlthough in early 2010 many organisations were still wondering how useful andprofitable BSNs could be, this question has now been replaced by: ―BSNs canhelp us to be more effective. How do we go about putting one in place?‖• Some key factors for success:It is particularly beneficial to start a BSN with:  pre-existing communities, where the human network already exists,  which are large (to reach a broad spectrum of users), especially since, out of 100 potential users, on average only 20% will use the BSN regularly, 2% will write content, 5% will leave comments and the remainder will simply read it. Attempting to establish a BSN with a small sample group runs a high risk of failure if there are not enough users to make a contribution.  highly visible (especially to management): this helps to convince all managers, up to the highest level, of the utility of the solution, to encourage the top to support other initiatives, and to guarantee the solution’s funding...

 and which meet a real, concrete need in the short term, not just in the eyes of management, but of the users themselves. This will guarantee the longevity of the community.• A community devoted to competitive and strategic intelligence is very often created to do this, but communities which work well are often connected with mutual assistance, communication within widely spaced teams, technological watch and so forth.• Moreover:  The choice of community leaders (volunteers, trained and motivated) is very important, so that the communities thrive and develop. The activity of a community is directly linked to the number of contributions: if there are no contributions (new, or in the form of comments on existing contributions) then the community will remain silent and disappear if no one revives it, due to lack of time or commitment. The role of leader is therefore to return to issues which have been considered only in passing or not at all, to ask open questions which stimulate the desire to answer, and so on.  It is important that high-level backers and management set an example by using the BSN, and reassure employees that they may contribute freely, without fear of repression or censorship. Contrary to common belief, it is usually completely useless, and even highly counter-productive, to pre-moderate contributions, because the main problem will not be an avalanche of inappropriate contributions, but rather employees’ strong inclination towards self-censorship, a constraint stemming from the fear of being censured or rebuked.• Some practical considerations

 Although it is important that the first communities created be unequivocally successful, we must accept that some communities will never get off the ground. These failures are often learning opportunities on the specific conditions necessary to ensure the survival of an online community, and to make clear within the company the mistakes linked to certain ostensibly good ideas.  The life cycle of a BSN is long and often follows Gartner’s well- known hype cycle. The success of a BSN cannot reasonably be demonstrated in less than a year; it is more likely to take several years. Even if the beginnings are promising, a certain disillusion can set in after a few months, before an upsurge in use due to increased maturity about the best ways to use the BSN, and the issues raised by users.  Be careful not to use the BSN as a traditional intranet for communication. The temptation to do so may be strong for some people, even though it is in complete contradiction with the basic nature of a BSN, focused on people and not on content.Using BSNs to uncover expertise and skillsA BSN would be nothing more than an enhanced forum if all it contained werediscussions within communities. The most advanced BSNs therefore includetwo innovative ways to manage employee skills:• A declarative method, according to which users themselves publish their skills and expertise on enhanced user profiles, which are backed up by the votes of other users. This approach might worry human resources departments, because it goes against the traditional approach whereby HR records the skills and expertise necessary for the job that the employee

currently does. By sharing freely his skills and expertise, be they the result of past professional or personal experiences, each employee allows the whole business to find an unusual skill set when necessary, with a search range of up-to-date information which is greatly exceeds the capabilities of an HR department.• A contributive method, via the expertise gained and demonstrated in the publications of each employee. The same rule applies to communities as to blogs: the more you read and contribute, the more your skills grow and strengthen. An employee who, in the usual way of things, has a rather low profile can distinguish himself by the quality and value of his contributions. BSNs are invaluable therefore in uncovering internal skills and talents. In this way the future leaders of your internal AND external communities can be identified, on the basis of their demonstrated collaborative dynamism.Using BSNs to stimulate a new internal organisation for businessesWhilst many organisations have not yet taken the first steps towards a BSN,others are expressing their desire to follow the lead of the pioneers, aware thatthe establishment of communities is a potential source of strong competitiveadvantages: the innovations generator that is a dynamic BSN is an asset whichcannot be copied, because its establishment is long and complex andintrinsically linked to the culture of the business, its employees and itsmanagement.The potential of horizontal communication within BSNs has today led captainsof industry to view them as very important, and even to explain publicly that thehierarchy of large organisations will change in the months and years to come. Itwill be flattened out under the effect of these horizontal relations which arebeneficially uncontrollable and bypass certain traditional and clumsy managerial

methods, which can be a brake on development in a world which changes morequickly than the speed of adaptation and reaction of the chain of command.BSNs cannot be ignoredAfter static intranets, communication blogs and collaborative wikis, BSNs havedone what forums never managed to do: usher in a dynamic and horizontalspace for exchange which connects all employees, and, most significantly, isnot focused simply on questions and answers (content), but on the sharing ofintelligence with a strongly human element. Agents of change, BSNs can helpbusinesses adapt to a quickly changing context, and become an irreplaceablechange management tool.If your competitors are already trying BSNs out, how much of a head start areyou going to give them? Fabrice Poiraud-Lambert is manager/director of the collective division of the Information Systems Directorate at Lyonnaise des Eaux - Suez Environnement. He has over 15 years experience establishing a variety of integrated collaborative solutions for large groups. Fabrice currently heads up more than 30 internet communities and won 3 international awards in 2010 for his innovative collaborative projects (―Break out Technology Award IBM‖ and two prizes for innovation at the Suez Environnement group).

There is good reason for separating B2C and B2B activities: B2C is about theconsumer class; and B2B is about business activities that affect companiesinsomuch as they differ in rhythm and organization. Something similar can besaid for "2.0" and "E2.0". The 2.0 wave—and even more so social networks—welled up from the general public after the fashion of Facebook and the millionsof company FAN pages that were created. The issue is just as important forB2B—more qualitative than quantitative, as well see—but also crucial fortransforming business and relationships.Lets be clear, the organisation of a B2B business is no walk in the park!Whether a large group separated into various business units or a small ormedium-sized enterprise, B2B organization is difficult. Companies arent facedwith a neat segment of consumers and even less so with a concentrateddistribution network. Its just the situational variety and the complex relationshipsbetween interested parties (partners, sub contractors, clients, prospective

clients, trendsetters etc.) that characterize B2B activities. Its an ecosystem thatmixes with an internal organisation that is often also complex. That is whereE2.0 addresses the complexity of managing such a closely-knit, multipartynetwork that goes from R&D and production to sales, by way ofcommunications and marketing.The questions regarding a network are therefore ongoing: When to contactpeople; what to say; how to approach them in this new model; when is the rightmoment to tell them about a new or signature product; is the product flawed;getting their feedback etc. These are all crucial questions because we know thata network doesnt "survive on its own", it needs to be continuously developedand cultivated. We also know that there is neither the time nor the resources tobe actively and proactively present for all of these interactions—when there aremany of them or when information known internally isnt circulated at the righttime to the right sub-network.Thats where new types of relationships stemming from public social networksprovide a powerful alternative to the problem.What is it? The idea is to equip oneself with a private social network (in whicheach registered user is approved by the company that manages it) where someor all of the companys ecosystem is added. It can be a product-oriented socialnetwork, sales or communication. To each company their own agenda andbusiness themes; and each is added to sub-groups according to theircharacteristics and their expectations. One group per product that includes theentire value chain, another for communiqués and announcing events, anotherfor the R&D chain and sub-contractors etc. Then all the company has to do isconnect the value chain with the internal organisation to complete therelationship. It can also be understood through the philosophy behind itsimplementation: reusing existing strengths and connections so as to reducetheir number, not to create extra work.

The strength of the model is first of all in the creation of company interactions.This enables business relationships that are more focused and thereby moreeffective. Communication is then at once decreasing and increasing: themembers of the ecosystem can act, pass on information, seek out questionsand debates, provide business news, request pricing etc. A new channel isbeing implemented.The other benefit is the effect of the resulting reaction. Traditionally, bytelephone or email for example, an employee act is a single action. Through thenetwork, an action is felt n times, by as many stakeholders; more so however, ifone of the stakeholders responds or reacts, and the action has another impactof n, and so on. Its common enough for a message, announcing an event forexample, to have a strong impact with current or prospective clients andpartners, thereby reinforcing your message.Which leads to the main reason for B2B to go 2.0 in this form: the leadgeneration. By adding all the people that revolve around your business, you arecreating all the more opportunities for them to come back to you—for a productlaunch, for a new client or just for general information about your company. Youmight be wondering just what exactly is the difference between this and anewsletter? Well first of all, it consists of personal information, an establishedrelationship and targeted messages.And by creating an ecosystem you move to the centre of a profession and bringvalue; your role as an expert is strengthened and the community organizes itselfaround you. Its then easier to control the company, to offer leads to the rightpartners and to make the network a natural channel for offers. The marketinginvestment in a private social network not only relieves some of the pressure ofcommunications but is also a source of revenue!But this isnt to say that implementing this type of system is a cure-all! Thenetwork governance structure also has to be established—determining who isresponsible for what and establishing indicators for monitoring the operation

and the results. Its a project like any other, so think about timelines anddeadlines, costs, commitments, as well as change management. Understandthat the new method requires new business reflexes.We needed to wait for the arrival of mature models (business social networks)and SaaS (software as a service) before mid-market B2B actors and SMEscould benefit from them. On one hand, the tools are mature and operational andthe methodologies are in place, but above all, the costs are within the budget ofa B2B business unit.Be the first to build the community around your business, before yourcompetitors beat you to it: there wont be dozens of communities around thesame business. Like on the Web, those who act first reap the rewards. An established entrepreneur, at 26 Alain Garnier created ARISEM, a software publisher specializing in semantic information processing. Following the sale of ARISEM to THALES in 2004 he continued his entrepreneurial streak and cofounded EVALIMAGE, an internet evaluation and analysis service focused on brands and consumers. EVALIMAGE was also sold a few years later, this time to TheCRMCompany. An engineer and a man of letters, Garnier has written a book on uses and tools for unstructured information in businesses (L’information non structurée dans les entreprises : Usages & outils). Most recently, he is the founder and CEO of Jamespot.

Personal Branding for company benefitInsurance salesmen used to go door to door. Today, they develop a PersonalBrand online and build ties with clients through social networks—the employeespersonal and professional spheres interact. Employees are becomingambassadors for their companies via their personal profiles and are contributingto its personal, human, visibility. But how can you manage employee initiativesthat dont actually come from company management?Personal Branding: stand out to improve employabilityPersonal Branding is an approach for better understanding ones own talentsand strengths so as to promote them, thereby benefiting established

professional goals. Showcasing them results in regular and committedbehaviour in the daily assertion of values and convictions. Transposed to thesocial Web, Personal Branding adds visibility such as social media andmarketing tools (logos, avatars, charts, photo and video etc.)Stand out to be noticedAn individual becomes their own medium by openly putting what makes themdifferent on display so as to be involved in a complementary or substituteactivity, or just to stand out. From whom and why? Sometimes from newemployees, often by people who have the same values and passion, but aboveall to develop their own network and manage their image and notoriety.The "branded" person joins the 2.0 processVia Personal Branding and managing their digital identity, an employee joins aneconomy of participation, collaboration and recommendation. Finding ideas;stopping to think on them; getting inspirations down on paper and seeing themmaterialized; structuring and conceptualizing ones thoughts; building up andcirculating ones production; monitoring and evaluating the impact;recommending and promoting content and people; respectfully disagreeing andbuilding knowledge together; meeting and interviewing talent; exploring andlearning new boundaries; communicating and conversing over long distanceand online etc. Personal Branding is a perpetual process of change. ThePersonal Branding process develops the capacity to:  Seek direction in what were doing  Identify key skills to achieve excellence  Develop self-esteem, self-acknowledgement and self-confidence  Be oneself and in tune with ones values  Be self-sufficient, responsible and an intrapreneur  Project oneself in a vision of success over the medium and long-term

 Be in a permanent state of personal and professional developmentConsistency between Enterprise 2.0 and personal brandsAt a time when companies are faced with deep structural and cultural changes,how can they manage without employees who develop the skills expected fortomorrows businesses on their own?First, because companies and union organisations completely bought in toshared responsibility in employment by signing an agreement for ongoingvocational training in 2004. The commitment brought forward the idea thatemployees should take responsibility for their own employability. Second,because tomorrows Company is in a network that needs to continually renewits "talent" pool so as to remain effective and innovative. Third, becauseemployees develop their Personal Brand online by displaying their connectionto their employer while at the same time that employer is displaying theirbusiness and/or corporate brand on the Internet.Through their presence in the same spaces and by using the same tools, thecompany and the employee brands coexist in a world of coopetition.Consequences of the paradigms borne by the 2.0 culture.The parable of The Waterer WateredThe story of an employee who becomes better known than their employer... oreven "more competent" than their boss: a marketing manager readingMarketing magazine comes across an account by one of her co-workers abouttheir own abilities and their personal brand.Subduction of tectonic platesWhen the "talent promotion" doesnt correspond with "promotion policies".The author of 3 books on social media is turned down for a promotion to

become online communications manager because they dont have the properqualifications in order to be considered.The “game preserve” tacticMichel-Edouard Leclerc, Louis Le Duf, Steve job, Richard Branson... They allput their personal brand to work for their company brand. They boost companyvalues and vision by providing a human identity to the corporate brand. If thebusiness is fine with using the charisma of the company head to strengthen itsposition, why not use the talent sprouting up in the hallways?Things to watch and areas of improvementOld habits / new contextWanting better, being active outside of the company, self-training, becoming aleader, seeking validation... None of this in new and it includes all of Maslowshierarchies. What has changed though?  Context. Change has become a given;  Temporality. Business boundaries are becoming blurred: work and home are mixing. Everything moves so quickly!  Tools. Mobile phones and laptop and tablet computers are the primary tools of the administrative machine;  Work methods. Teleworking and teleconferences are slowly replacing the need to be physically present. Weve entered an era of nomadism and mobility;  Work organisation. Services and Directorates are becoming decompartmentalized to the benefit of transversal and network oriented work;  Communication. Information has given way to conversational & community communication;

 etc.Everyone is a "potential" ambassador for the company brandOn average in France, 1 person in 9 has an online social profile and doesntreally know what that means for themselves or their company. Nevertheless,some of them really excel in a specific field: from leading and developingcommunities to promoting expertise. On a higher level, they create and developtheir own personal brand. These all have an impact on the company. Becausetheir profiles include their employment status and their profession, it makessense that the "good" reputation of a personal brand has an effect on thecompany reputation. Conversely, when employees are angry about something,they express themselves in their personal space and creative negative press.As an example: to express their discontent employees at a Dominos Pizzavideo themselves talking negatively about the food theyre about to serve.Opportunities in managing talentIts in the interest of a 2.0 company to make its employees aware of theseissues—about the idea of risks as well as "good behaviour". But its also in thecompanys interest to showcase the skills developed by employees and toencourage them to take initiative:  Publish a chart of good practices and behaviour;  Train employees about managing their digital identity;  Teach co-workers about the legal risks connected to conflicts between the two images.A new challenge: managing famous employeesThe visibility of an employee contributes to the companys "human" image andtherefore to one of "closeness" with current and prospective clients. Theemployees various products (conferences, blog, books, community) provide asmuch value to their personal brand as to that of the company.

If they are known in a market niche that corresponds to the companys own, itstrengthens the business credibility within the field. As an ambassador, theybecome a contact point for the company and can more easily attract newclients. All the same, their position as a leader makes them a trendsetteroutside of the company as much as inside. They can play on their influence toquestion hierarchies, a project, a product etc. Their high visibility can also resultin their defence of a value or a vision that is contrary to the companys own. Itmakes sense to evaluate the opportunities and the risks for the company so asto decide whether or not to integrate this "new" position into company activities.Conditions for marriage: I You WeIts no longer the time for discovery or reflection, but for action: the issue isintegrating new challenges connected to managing the corporate image and theimage of personal brands into skill management. By integrating into the overallcommunication strategy and personnel management the idea of ambassadors,trendsetters and managing every business element’s digital identity, thecompany is on the road to e-Co-Responsibility! Fadhila Brahimi is the CEO of FB-Associés; a strategy coach for Internet presence; certified by the ICF; professional conference speaker; and radio personality on Widoobiz. Fadhilas background in HR includes the challenging environment of the Airline Industry (Air Lib) and the BPI group (Paris). She became passionate in 2004 about new uses and behaviours of the Social Web and in 2005 started the first blog on Personal Branding, quickly becoming a specialist on Internet visibility.

In this article I will attempt to demonstrate how the arrival of generation Y willinfluence the development of enterprise 2.0. Let’s get something straight rightaway: this is an exercise in style, as the arrival of generation Y into a companyisn’t the sole factor that will lead to the development of enterprise 2.0. Inaddition, companies play host to a mosaic of generations and it would seemdifficult to develop new organisational frameworks without some sort ofconsensus. That being said, it seems to me that this generationalcrossroads represents a major factor for change. The statistics for this, providedby INSEE (the French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies),speak volumes: a third of workers active in 2005 will have left the market by2020. In certain sectors like banking, insurance or energy, the rate of retirementwill be between 40% and 50%.But before explaining my argument, Id like to stop for a minute and consider theconcepts of enterprise 2.0 and Generation Y.

Concerning the notion of enterprise 2.0, the exercise is difficult because theconcept is shifting and there are as many definitions as there are authors. Onenew way to define this new form of company is to show how it is different fromthe traditional one. Broadly speaking, authors agree that the major changesinvolve the use of Web 2.0 tools (wikis, bookmarking, blogs, social networks,etc.) within a company and the development of practices such as collaborationand knowledge sharing.The generation Y concept is used to designate people who were born from theend of the 1970s onwards (in France it is most common to include people whowere born between 1978 and 1994). Sociologists group individuals intogenerations (Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y) on the basis of asimple principle: that individuals born within close periods are linked by commonground that goes beyond their individual characteristics. This common groundsstems from the context (political, economic, technological, etc.) in which thesegenerations grew up. Each generation is therefore shaped by the events,leaders, developments and important trends which occur during their youth.Generational sociology considers that this period, when individuals form their‖world view‖, marks them for the rest of their lives. The members of ageneration continue to be influenced by the context in which they grew up, bothat work and in their personal lives. If we consider the context in which themembers of Generation Y grew up, we must of course take note of thetremendous development of the internet and other information technology.Whether it is the duration of internet usage, the percentage of mobile users orthe social-networking penetration rate, all the research has pointed to the stronglink between members of Generation Y and ICT. The digital natives describedby Marc Prensky are a reality and are progressively entering into the world ofwork.If we accept the somewhat simplified proposition that the development ofenterprise 2.0 will take place alongside a change in tools and practices, it will beinteresting to see how the arrival of members of Generation Y into theworkplace contributes to this.

Changing tools?According to the authors, the first notable change within enterprise 2.0 is theusage of tools resulting from Web 2.0. One question immediately springs tomind: in what conditions might wikis, social networks, blogs, mashups, RSSfeeds and other collaborative tools supplant traditional tools?I believe that the move towards 2.0 tools is only possible if users judge that theyare credible and easy to use. From this point of view, the massive influx of―digital natives‖ into the workplace is obviously important. All the studies showthat young people of Generation Y already use these tools to an enormousextent in their everyday lives. Whether they are bloggers, social network usersor followers via RSS feeds, the adoption rate is nearly always superior to that ofthe older generations. This is explained by the fact that the majority of themnever experienced ―previous versions‖ of the web. For them, web 2.0 is simplythe web. They therefore have little or no adaptation to do as far as practices areconcerned.The conclusion is simple: the tools of web 2.0 are ―natural‖ for young peopletoday and they expect to find them when they first enter the workplace.Moreover, the existence of a quality technical environment is an importantmotivating factor for Generation Y members. It is therefore a safe bet that thisgeneration is pushing for the adoption of this technology. With the support ofGeneration X members, often pioneers or creators of the aforementionedtechnology, they will make it possible to reach a critical mass of workers whoare open to 2.0 technology.Changing practices?In a similar way to what occurred with E.R.P, the fantasy of performance withouteffort or fundamental changes also exists with enterprise 2.0. Even so, themajority of authors emphasise that the development of enterprise 2.0 cannot berestricted to the introduction of new tools. To succeed in a real 2.0

transformation, companies have to encourage new practices like knowledgesharing and collaboration.With regards to this too, I believe that the arrival of Generation Y into theworkplace is a bonus. They are willing to question the traditional approach inwhich a single person possesses knowledge to the exclusion of others. Thistraditional vision is found in companies where the manager benefits fromprivileged access to information compared to other employees. Thisinformational asymmetry is one of the classic foundations of the manager’slegitimacy. The new generations, on the other hand, value sharing andspreading knowledge. The traditional credo ―I know therefore I am‖, is opposedby young people with ―I share therefore I am‖, emphasising advancement for alland the prestige which results from this. Spontaneously, these new generationsthink, work and interact in a more collaborative mode. They no longer work ―for‖a boss or a company but ―with‖ them. Pessimists say that this is the end of theconcept of authority. The optimists, and I count myself among them, recognisean opportunity to develop the concept of collaboration in the workplace.In conclusion, both enterprise 2.0 and the members of Generation Y are theresult of the same contextual evolution. They are therefore perfectly compatibleand the renewal of the social body taking place in companies will without adoubt precipitate the advent of enterprise 2.0. Harmony will reign... at least untilthe members of Generation Z, born after 1994, enter the workplace in five yearsand push for new organisational models. A specialist in Management and Human Resources, Julien Pouget is a trainer-consultant and conference speaker, as well as an expert on change management and generational issues. In addition to being the author of a book on the integration and management of Generation Y (Intégrer et manager la Génération Y—éditions Vuibert, 2010), he is the founder of La Génération Y.com, a leading blog on the recruitment and management of youth.

E2.0 and the employer brands: the watercourse theoryA trip back in timeThe first real sign of the takeover of the recruitment market by digital tools goesback to the end of the 90s and the emergence of job boards. The businessmodel and their rates shook up a market that was primarily dominated by print.It needs to be noted that the market was characterized largely by the will tomaintain a comfortable and secure income for the various parties: agencies,media brokers and print media. In a few years, most of these stakeholders werepassively helping the inevitable revolution, pushed along by candidates who

immediately integrated the benefits of the web so as to optimize their jobsearches.The 2.0 revolution very quickly infiltrated employer communications. The arrivalof new, easy to use tools, transformed voracious Internet informationconsumers into producers, issuers, selectors of audio/visual-rich content. Therecruitment site, once the beginning and the end of the candidates experiencewith the brand, supreme in information research for employment applications,gave way to self-produced content. Internet users, especially those who hadhad an IRL experience with the employer brand (recruitment interview,internship...), became a source of privileged information for candidates,considered as more trustworthy because of their impartiality.The new candidate attitudesThe majority of companies today are crippled when confronted by candidateswho have thrown out the old rules for the recruiting process. The candidatescontact employees directly to learn about the reality in the company, they rejectthe formatted conversation of HR, dont believe in the "social contract" offered tothem anymore and Google their potential managers. They challenge companyHR departments, adopting instead a consumer approach to the job market,looking for a company that will increase their "market value" over the short term.Like all traditional communicators, the company and its spokespeople are in thebest of cases seen as circumspect, and in the worst with pure scepticism.Candidates reject the communication techniques repeated through a powerfulmedium in order to impose a standard message that is often rightly recognizedas biased and not at all a reality. Consequently, they will elect the brands thatwill consider their individuality and develop a peer-to-peer relationship based ondialogue—rediscover the virtues of an equal division between listening andspeaking. Im only interested in myself, so talk to me about me: nothing newafter all.

E 2.0: risk or opportunity for the employer brand?The eternal question unfortunately no longer has any raison d’être; webdemocracy has also made its way into employer communication. Companiesdont control their own brands anymore, leaving reputation paramount andmeaning that out of this web democracy comes a mosaic of information in whicheach internet user is both conscious of their power as a communicator and hasthe tools that give them a substantial audience. The megaphone has given wayto the agora. The only question worth asking marketing or communicationmanagers today is "are you ready to be completely dispossessed of your brandon social media sites?"One of the opportunities for the 2.0 employer brand, and not the least of which,is managing to reconcile recruitment goals with objectives for motivation andloyalty.Candidates want to trade-off with the company? Offer some employees theopportunity to become ambassadors for the employer brand and to leaddiscussion groups about their profession and new issues.Candidates want to enter into a dialogue with your brand? A great opportunityfor recruiters to learn more about the candidates and to hone their choices,much more so than with a CV.The value of how well suited the company’s business culture and thecandidates own values are is increasing, are self-management skills widelyrecognized? CVs and recruitment interviews cant help. But what about aworkshop on LinkedIn that brings together employees and candidates?The advantages of 2.0 for the employer brandThere are enormous possibilities for those who decide to focus on theopportunities while remaining vigilant and keeping a clear view when dealingwith risks. There is a unique opportunity to reinvent the relationship with

candidates. The act of applying for employment is a particularly involved buyingact, on a personal and a professional level. It not only involves the candidate,but also their partner, husband, wife, boyfriend or girlfriend and will determine alarge part of their life for the next 2 or 3 years. Curiously, this buying act ispreceded by a period of introductory talks that reduces it to its mostfundamental: the short period between when the ad is published, the applicationand the interview. 2.0 is an opportunity to develop a real relational sourcingstrategy, a lasting relationship between the candidate and the company; arelationship that begins even before the need to recruit or the active search.And because the transaction is not a short-term objective, the candidate and thecompany will be able to better evaluate how suitable they are for one another. Afailed recruiting exercise has a strong impact on both parties.Whatever the company and its business sector, it has employees who arealready active on social media, already official spokespeople and who would bewilling to become official ambassadors for the employer brand. Every companyis also capable of identifying the areas in which they consider themselveslegitimate and better than their main competitors, or can identify primaryobjectives. The issue is then bridging the subject and the expectations of thepeople being targeted. Obviously, putting a system of monitoring in place, aidedby free tools like Google and Twitter, will increase the chances to identify thesubjects that will benefit the dialogue.This new approach will instigate a re-evaluation of certain internalorganizational aspects: the process of approving information, the decision-making channels, the allocation of communications budgets, the division ofresponsibilities etc. The watercourse approach works well here, finding theeasiest path to follow and flowing around obstacles. In our case this meansidentifying the most accessible paths that will enable quick, though modest,victories. This will have the huge benefit of reassuring sceptics, help adaptorganisation and identify necessary resources. In short, demonstrate that it canwork.

I have limited myself to the external breadth of the employer brand on purposeso as to avoid the subject becoming too broad. Its obvious that there is just asmuch impact on the internal aspect; it was brought up earlier with brandambassadors. Lets just keep in mind that the candidate, once recruited into thecompany, only rarely undergoes a change that makes them abandon their 2.0reflexes to become a passive information consumer stripped of all criticalintelligence or spirit. Franck La Pinta is the Manager of Employer Marketing and HR 2.0 for the Human Resources Directorate at Société Générale (France). He has a mandate to develop the appeal of the Société Générale brand internally and externally, particularly through the use of digital and social media. He supervises digital HR activities and is responsible for crafting the HR 2.0 position of the Group, introduced in 2008. You can also find Franck on Delicious and Linkedin.

When looking at how we organize our businesses, we tend to think in termssuch which industry it is in, what the market size is, what market share we have,which products we commercialize, how sales and distribution channels areorganized, who our competitors are and so on. As such, there is nothing wrongwith that, but ultimately by focusing on our side of the equation, there is a risk tolosing sight of what is ultimately the most important part of business, namelycustomers!Customers are a funny lot. We try to put these square pegs in little round holesthat we create for them and then try to make each round hole as fit as best aswe can. We try to do segmentation such as ―Jeanne is a home-maker who livesin a house in a Paris suburb, her median discretionary income is €950 per

month‖ and so on and so forth, and then when push comes to shove we find outshe isnt, but that we have to make do with those generic characteristics whendesigning the products we want to sell to her and those like her. With a resultingfailure rate of new product launches of around 80%.Now what has thrown a spanner in the works is that Jeanne has found hervoice, and she has a mind of her own. She wants to be respected as anindividual and is supported by her peers! We can no longer just tell her tobelieve whatever we want her to believe, she has gotten wise on us and is ableto decode any message we try to plant in her head to push her to buy in theblink of an eye! Furthermore, now she has the means to reach out, find andconnect others that ARE like her, and share her thoughts and opinions on anysubject with anyone anywhere in the world in real time! Suddenly she has abigger reach than many established companies have, and she expects thatthose companies listen to and respect her.The above serves to illustrate succinctly and rather simplistically that the Worldwe were used to and management methodologies we have been using eversince Taylor are being turned on there head, so how to do we adapt areorganisations to better meet the needs and expectations of the SocialCustomer. And how we deal with the Social Customer is referred to as SocialCustomer Relationship Management.Paul Greenberg, renowned CRM Analyst who literally wrote the book on SocialCRM has the following definition to frame Social CRM:“Social CRM is the companys programmatic response to the customerscontrol of the conversation”Basically what Paul is saying is that it will be increasingly difficult to manageyour Brands image as it is now in the hands of your customers. It is theprogrammes to interact and learn from and with your customers that you canthen use to contribute to and shape those conversations.

Contrary to what some currently seem to think, A Social CRM programme doesnot equate to superficial gamification such as the ―Like‖ buttons for yourFacebook page (in any case more than 90% of people who ―Like‖ a Fan Pagenever return), nor is it the number of followers on Twitter.If you cannot identify your new Fan as a new or existing customer, how can youknow what they value when they manifest their interest for you and how you canhelp them achieve the various objectives they may have. And more importantly,what you can do to make them appreciate your company and services andreturn for your custom? As Peter F. Drucker said "The purpose of business isto create and keep a customer."Learning from interaction with your customer and participating as an equal intheir conversations is key to Social CRM, and requires a different approach tohow organisations are structured, with more open communication beyond thecompany firewall to allow for a deeper understanding of the environment inwhich the company operates, and better coordination between internaldepartments and even suppliers and channels to ensure that the customersexpectations are met or exceeded.This deeper understanding of the customer and their needs and expectationscoupled with better coordination AND collaboration - supported by an Enterprise2.0 initiative - with the entire ecosystem can in itself become a competitivedifferentiator as a company more closely aligned with its market and thus in abetter innovate in accordance with it will stand a better chance of winning thecustom prospective buyers and turn existing customers into committed ones.Knowing your customer and tracking their interactions with you – and othercustomers – can provide you with insight into whether they are committed toyour brand, and whether they are likely to ―churn‖, thus giving you a basis fordeciding whether it is worthwhile to ―invest‖ your resources and also how much.Another key insight is understanding that your customers not only value whatyou can provide them with in terms of pre-sale advice and post-sale service, but

also that they are looking to you and to other customers for ways of improvingthe value-in-use of the your product. This opens up a whole new way of thinkingabout how you can organise your company to provide additional value so as toprepare the next buying cycle for your clients by keeping your products top-of-mind.Now that you have a fairly good idea about what Social CRM aims for, I wouldlike to point to Brian Vellmures (@CRMStrategies) 5 Opportunities to capitalizeon now: 1. Use Social Analytics and Social Network Analysis to better understand your customers and prospects (aggregate Demographic, Psychographic, and Socialgraphic data) My take: Getting deeper insight into who your customers are will help you to better segment and target your interactions, extending your current understanding with the potential network effects of each of your customers in terms of potential Word of Mouth Marketing for example. Knowing more about the context of your customer will also help your Service Organisation provide assistance in line with expectations and avoid nasty negative Word of Mouth incidents. 2. Use Listening and Monitoring Tools to extend reach beyond where and how you’ve been able to listen and engage before (Add social as an additional interaction channel) My take: Although ideally you own the properties on which you engage with your customers (think of an online customer community) because it is easier to plough through the data to pick up on issues and trends and formulate an appropriate response, it is still very common to have customers talk to you about your products (and those of your competitors) elsewhere. These conversations can be extremely insightful and could even provide the basis for discovering

new opportunities and ideas, but if you are not listening, you cannot pick up on these.3. Capitalize on first mover advantage by communicating in new and/or more relevant ways with your customers (align your business with emergent social technology and culture, and beat your competitors to the party) My take: as with many new concepts, being the first to do it well in your market can help set the bar about what customer will come to expect as well as gain share of mind - which all puts pressure on your competition to catch up or lose market share. Were still in a stage where we are discovering how social technologies can provide the most benefit, so there is still a lot of room for experimentation!4. Utilize Internal Collaboration (Enterprise 2.0) and/or Community Platforms to streamline communications and/or product and service development functions My take: Community Platforms and other Enterprise 2.0 tools are a great way to encourage exchange between employees to find answers to issues and ideas for innovation - whilst capturing information in an easily searchable and retrievable format and providing insights into employee skills and internal networks. The Enterprise 2.0 tools enable a flattening of the organisation, reducing both physical distances and mental barriers and help to align the different parts of the organisation to providing customers with what they need.5. Increase engagement with existing customers on new channels in a way for the world to watch and observe (Be everywhere your customers are – and enable them to share what they love (or don’t love) about you to their network(s)

My take: the New Order is about Authenticity and Transparency, which means that customers are coming to expect that you communicate openly and humbly, be it to positive or to negative commentary – and part of the new game is turning both types to your advantage. One thing that is currently still largely underexploited is Customer Enablement – facilitating interactions between customers and us and especially between each other. It is the sharing with each other that will give you a whole new level of insights if you can become an equal in those exchanges.Where I think Brian Vellmures list can be completed is the need to organise forSocial CRM by enabling your employees to participate in the conversation andlearn from these interactions using Customer Feedback Loops. This feedbackneeds to converted into actionable insights, then integrated, prioritized, andventilated to the right people in the organisation in the form of innovation ideas,customer experience management, dealing with support requests and so on.Managing this requires effective and efficient collaboration and this is whereEnterprise 2.0 is a key enabler. There is no Social CRM without Enterprise 2.0and vice -versa. A Social CRM programme cannot be run solely by onedepartment as it just would not be effective – all parts of the value chain canimpact your attractiveness as a supplier to meet the needs and expectations ofyour customers – from the pre-sale to invocing to customer service and beyondduring the value-in-use phase. Any interaction between a company and itscustomers can potentially have major consequences on how you are viewed bythe outside world, you no longer control your Brands image but you caninfluence it through your actions.And similarly, Social CRM cannot function optimally if the whole of thecompanys ecosystem is not engaged in providing the services and experiencesthat the Social Customer now comes to expect. The service you provide may begreat, but if you doo not collaborate with suppliers and channels to align all withwhat you know about your customers and their needs and expectations, you

risk that they will judge you negatively for factors that you do not managedirectly, and thus impact your sales.To conclude, Social CRM and Enterprise 2.0 are the true enablers of SocialBusiness. The key driver is collaboration between your company and yourcustomers in an open and fluid manner. These interactions can be used tonurture a better understanding of - and a closer alignment to - current and futureneeds and expectations – and adapting how you organise your company tomeet these. Mark is an experienced Consultant, Manager and Advisor who has successfully provided Consulting and Education Services across EMEA. He spent five years with BEA Systems and Oracle where he successfully created and managed a Professional Services Practice doing Enterprise 2.0 and Business Process Management. With his current venture called Net-7 he specializes in Social CRM, Social Business and Adaptive Case Management. In a very short time with Net-7, he became one of the first people in Europe to be certified in by Paul Greenbergs BPT Partners in "Social CRM Strategies for Business", and has gained an international reputation as a thought-leader. You can find outmore on his blog Social CRM ideas.

Introduction: Enterprise 2.0 isn’t only for employeesFor many people, the expression ―enterprise 2.0‖ refers to the notion of a socialplatform that facilitates collaboration and communication, internally, betweenemployees at the same company. In my opinion, this definition is too limiting.First, because the tools do not do everything (there are also the methods, theprocesses etc., but the aim of this article is not to linger on this point), second,and most important, because this expression also refers to the capacity of abusiness to use social media externally. In particular, so the business canmanage their web reputation and communicate with clients/consumers.There are very few companies that have launched a ―social web" strategy,particularly in France. However, this is beginning to change. Reassured bymore and more positive feedback and also by necessity (consumers are usersof social media), companies are less and less hesitant to use Facebook, Twitterand the like.Every company has an interest in exploring this avenue and its possibilities; thebenefits are enormous, however they also raise many questions.

Having a digital identity and managing your web reputationFashionable or not, one thing is certain, every company owes it to themselvesto manage and monitor their web reputation. Social Media are forums whereeveryone can express themselves and discuss brands. Nasty surprises, even ifthey are quite rare, do exist. It is important to take them into account, whetheryour business is a sole proprietorship, a microenterprise, a small or medium-sized enterprise, or a large group.I am surprised to hear/learn that many businesses don’t know what is saidabout them on the web. How are they viewed? Imagine that within the first fewGoogle results that appear following a search for your company, you find anarticle that is disparaging towards your products or that emphasizes the poorquality of your after-sale service. What will a potential client think if they seethis? Not very appealing is it?What to do? First of all, prevention is better than cure; don’t wait for negativecomments about you to circulate. Act as soon as you can, start now! Then takestock of what is out there and define objectives and establish a plan of action.Finally, monitor/analyze so you can respond or adapt your position if needed.Particular actions that can be taken include the creation of relevant content(creating a blog of experts, creating a Facebook page so you can provideupdates, monitoring tweets that mention your company, to mention just a fewexamples).To conclude, have a presence, be attentive and react when you need to."Listen, Engage, Respond"A satisfied client is one who will buy more, more regularly, be more loyal, andwho will be an ambassador for your brand and your products. But how do youget a satisfied customer? To start with, you need a good product! Next, listen,engage and respond. In other words, we see two elements: involve consumers

and make them participate (were talking about crowdsourcing); and respond toconsumer concerns via client service/support.CrowdsourcingFor brands, crowdsourcing means making consumers participate in thedevelopment or promotion of products or services. Participation is possiblethrough voting (e.g. choosing a new flavour—at Danette internet users havebeen asked to vote for their favourite flavour since 2008), or via suggestions(e.g. Pepsi’s Refresh Everything site or Dell’s IdeaStorm). All sectors of activitycan be involved: from the world of lingerie (Victoria’s Secret) to banks (in 2007,the Caisse d’Epargne gave individuals under 25 the possibility of designing avisual for the payment card designed for them, and then submitted it to a vote).According to a study by OpinionWay, the use of crowdsourcing meets severalobjectives. Brands use it to:  Develop brand/consumer proximity (79%)  Listen to consumers (78%)  Improve products/services (47%)  Support seasonal sales/events (46%)  Support sales (33%)  Other (1%)Client ServicesAn acquired client might not always stay a client. You have to make them wantto stay; you have to listen, monitor and be available. And not just usingtraditional tools (like telephone or email), but also via other tools like Facebookor Twitter, which offer an aspect of responsiveness and immediacy. Yet veryfew companies use Twitter for client support (cf. the study by a Gartnerconsultant which indicates only 15%). Still, we can find the internet serviceprovider Free @LALIGNEDEFREE, the airline company EasyJet

@easyJetcare, or the English clothing brand FatFace @fatfacedotcom. And wecan also point to Mozilla, who has just launched a mutual-aid community viaTwitter.Things have changed. Today we can’t just mention the consumer; we also haveto mention the responsible consumer. They have an increasing role in design;they express themselves, provide opinions, inform, share, recommend, so thereis an interest for brands not to content themselves with just saying that they dothings well, but to do them well.ConclusionSlowly we are moving from the idea that done well, it is good for the image of acompany to use social media, to the idea that it is becoming a necessity.Companies understand more and more that they can’t overlook social media asa way to listen to, involve and provide answers to their clients. Several studieshave shown that they are interested and that this bears fruit. Don’t be afraid ofthe risks, the benefits are huge. Using the social web makes a business moreresponsive, accessible and open to their clients, and more commerciallyefficient; it’s a win-win approach.Be careful though, marketing via social communities is double-edged. There isa loss of control that is not to be ignored, which is why it is necessary to putforward a planned strategy, to have identified the most adapted tools and themessages to communicate. Emilie Ogez is the manager of Marketing at XWiki (a web-based content solutions company for open-source collaborations based on wiki) and a consultant on social media and managing web identity. She blogs for several sites (Emilie Ogez News, Doppelganger and Motrech among others) and is an event coordinator (Yulbiz among others). Emilie is also an author, and has been involved in several publications (ebooks and collective works). She can also be found on Facebook and Viadeo.

Design : Frederic DOMON Illustration : Rockgem

http://www.blogpersonalbranding.com	459
http://www.xwiki.com	189
http://www.duperrin.com	41
http://flavors.me	40
http://www.scoop.it	40
http://itko2013.wordpress.com	10
http://xwikicom2.devxwiki.com	8
http://larejna.posterous.com	5
http://www.techgig.com	2
http://wiki.fr	1
http://cigarjamp3.com	1
http://xwiki.com	1
http://www.bonweb.fr	1
https://si0.twimg.com	1
http://www.linkedin.com	1

Enterprise 2.0, french touch : the white paper

by Anthony Poncier on Oct 24, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

15 Embeds 800

Statistics

Enterprise 2.0, french touch : the white paper Document Transcript