Source:  http :// blogs.voices.com / thebiz /2006/09/ web _20_ definition.html  & Adapted from “Publicidad y Marketing en ...
Source:  http :// www.flowtown.com / blog /social-media- demographics - whos - using - which - sites?display=wide   Source...
 
<ul><li>BARRIERS </li></ul><ul><li>It starts strong in a single department and  never makes it out.  </li></ul><ul><li>Sel...
 
 
][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][...
Source:  http :// www.voaok.org / Portals /43/ Images / group%20hands . jpg   How to Use Google and Twitter to Find Your C...
Source: Revista Emprendedores
http://misioncumplida.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/formula-1-2009-el-simulador-mas-esperado/
Source: http://www.fondos-gratis.net/wallpapers/2009/12/Wallpaper-Geek-042-1024x819.jpg
Source: http://radiocontempo.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/orm.jpg
Source:http://2photo.ru/uploads/posts/4268/20090630/nzinzi-fabrice/30_06_2009_0074546001246355241_nzinzi-fabrice.jpg
http://www.freeamazingpictures.com/
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EZ16vWYvHHg/S8SiwtQ8UQI/AAAAAAAAKGE/fRwiYCn5fmk/s1600/www.BancodeImagenesGratuitas.com-SeriePlat...
 
Adapted from: Jordi Vilaseca, Joan Torrent , Josep Lladós i  Pilar Ficapal (2004). Comparing Paradigms Industrial Economy ...
 
“ Highly  flexible , both in skills and salaries,  self-programmable jobs , requiring an  ongoing knowledge-updating proce...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The impact of collaborative tools on hierarchical companies

2,229 views

Published on

The Impact of Collaborative Tools on Hierarchical Companies - Presentation at TII 2010

Published in: Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,229
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
142
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • El treball col·laboratiu, o també dit cooperatiu, com el web 2.0, és un concepte reeixit que hom esmenta com a paradigma d’innovació, tot i que sovint no acaba de restar del tot consolidat, o bé és entès de maneres diferents per diferents autors i per diferents disciplines. Podem definir el treball col·laboratiu com la sinergia que es duu a terme entre individus o grups d’individus que, mitjançant una dinàmica de treball adequada, assoleixen millor uns objectius determinats, que possiblement no haurien assolit per separat, o bé que ho fan optimitzant més els propis recursos. En l’economia, tot just han començat a definir conceptes com wikinomics i mass collaboration per tal d’entendre i avaluar com les empreses empren o aprofiten les eines col·laboratives per a generar contingut. A la vegada, posats a especular, a mesura que la força col·laborativa es vagi inserint en les dinàmiques de treball, podria aparèixer un nou tipus de fractura digital, però associada a organitzacions o individus que no participen, per diferents motius, en la nova cultura col·laborativa.
  • El terme nou web o web 2.0 és el que s’ha descrit com l’evolució de les tendències en l’ús del web i la tecnologia de disseny web que apunten a millorar la creativitat i les comunicacions i a assegurar l’intercanvi d’informació, la col·laboració i la funcionalitat del web. El terme nou web no és, com sembla a primera vista, un tecnicisme propi d’informàtics. De fet, fa referència a una nova generació de webs –comunitats d’usuaris i xarxes socials que faciliten la interacció entre ells i l’intercanvi d’informació. D’acord amb O’Reilly (2005), el web 2.0 es basa en l’arquitectura de la participació. Al mateix temps és un canvi de forma del web en què es promou: - La participació: un lloc on els participants poden crear continguts i generar un efecte xarxa (Metcalfe, 2007). - La personalització i col·laboració: el web ara és una plataforma de publicació i creació. Els usuaris no només llegeixen el web, sinó que ara escriuen, publiquen i barregen informacions. Aplicacions d’internet innovadores: eines interactives. http://ictconsequences.net/uoc/erainformacion/author/jpenas12/ Las redes sociales han supuesto un cambio en nuestro quehacer diario en Internet pero, ¿hasta que punto somos conscientes del cambio?. Sociólogos, publicistas, economistas e informáticos han comenzado a plantear el desarrollo de las redes sociales como una versión 2.5. de las Web adelantando el tiempo que nos espera hasta la W.3.0. El potencial económico de las redes sociales es evidentes: interactividad entre miembros, inmediatez en las comunicaciones, búsquedas acordes a las necesidades reales, flujos continuos de población, formación o aficiones….los economistas han encontrado una nueva utilidad a la red: un mercado de población finita pero con necesidades infinitas basadas en un entorno virtual, o lo que es lo mismo, crear necesidades electrónicas en el medio electrónico, a costa de una transacción en dinero físico (gestionado a través del dinero de plástico o tarjetas de crédito); los sociológos han puesto de acuerdo a la población y entre ellos mismos que se ha focalizado a la población por intereses manifiestos mediante formularios que los vinculan a otros usuarios y los publicistas saben como atacar a esa población para que sea la panacéa comunicativa en los próximos años. ¿Qué es una Web 3.0.? No dista mucho de los actuales modelos de compartir información entre usuarios de todas las formas conocidas y usadas (redes P2P, streaming, blend-lerning y un largo etcétera más evolucionado de la mera página estática en html…) pero añade una característica básica que las redes sociales están utilizando: los metabuscadores dinámicos que permiten crear asociaciones entre usuarios, contenidos y sobre todo búsquedas de información según los parametros iniciales. La tecnología ha evolucionado: html, c+, java y ahora Ajax (sin confundir con el equipo glorioso holandés de los años 70) han escrito las líneas de un papel necesario en nuestros días: comunicación, relación y eficacia. Muchos preguntan por los límites de contenido de las redes sociales y tan solo el tema de la seguridad parece derriban el futuro de los Tuenti, Facebook, Hi5, etc…mientras esta barreras no se superen, las Webs 3.0. son tan solo un objetivo válido, pero distante.
  • Slideshow of different Web 2.0 Tools
  • MC Afee Scheme
  • In general however, the more of these that are true, the more likely failure will be. It starts strong in a single department and then never makes it out. An effective community or environment may start to build at a departmental level but its culture, work focus, or perspective may not be appealing to the organization at large. Consequently, there’s no broad appeal and while the Enterprise 2.0 effort may even be highly successful locally, it’s not one that will spread across the organization. A significant number of Enterprise 2.0 efforts end up in this category. Pro-active community management efforts might be able to mitigate this factor. Selecting the tools first. As I emphasized in my latest survey of the Enterprise 2.0 software market , the needs of the social computing strategy come first, and then a tool should be selected to match. What a tool is capable of and what its core strengths are will have a direct and dramatic impact on what you can achieve. Right now, SharePoint remains the dominant tool by far for Enterprise 2.0 today , largely because it’s already on hand in most organizations. A small but significant number of Enterprise 2.0 projects, however, languish because the users have to fight the software to get it to do what they want. Look at any default solution with some skepticism. Selecting the wrong tools and sticking with them. Successful projects make needed course corrections and change what they do based on what they’ve learned from experience. Agile processes in recent years have encouraging revisiting important decisions until they are the correct ones. Because of the way software acquisition typically works in most organizations (and the length of time it takes), it’s often hard to revisit the tool decision in any meaningful way, even if important lessons are learned and better solutions found in the meantime. Consequently, it’s wise to try to delay final product decisions and avoid over-committing to individual solutions until your collaborative community is thriving and actively getting value from their Enterprise 2.0 environment . There are no resources allocated to adoption and training. Most users never read the manual, whatever the software is. But this is particularly true of today’s supposedly easy to use browser-based applications. However a little evangelism and social media literacy can greatly help with both adoption incentives and good business outcomes. Understanding what tags are and how they help users locate content later on, publishing frequently requested information in blogs, teaching that wiki editing is safe and that it’s virtually impossible to harm them are all key learnings that many less-social media literate workers will greatly benefit from and can actively address many upfront barriers to adoption. It’s purely an IT initiative. When there is not enough involvement by business stakeholders, any IT project will be at risk. But since Enterprise 2.0 essentially embodies participation by the business, this situation is invariable fatal. The effort excludes IT. I’ve seen Enterprise 2.0 project delayed for six months and even much longer in some cases whereupon IT is subsequently involved and begins doing infrastructure planning, tool validation, staffing, and playing catch up on the learning curve. It is one of the most common causes of major delay, if not outright failure. Engaging with HR, legal, branding, compliance, etc. too soon. It’s extraordinarily easy to create a bureaucratic logjam when you involve all the potential stakeholders of Enterprise 2.0, particularly ones the aforementioned ones. An entire effort can be buried in committee and planning forever, while policies and procedures are formulated. Clamp downs on the project while major, strategic issues are sorted out in great detail are not uncommon. While I’m certainly not advocating going completely rogue, many successful initiatives flew under the organization’s radar long enough to be able to achieve focus on what mattered most: better collaboration and knowledge sharing. Only then did they engage, often sequentially, with the various internal groups to make sure governance details were eventually worked out. Pushing Enterprise 2.0 as a generic toolbox instead of the solution to specific problems. One of the big lessons for rapid adoption is that having an unsolved problem or specific situation to address is one of the fastest ways to get directed uptake. That’s when users know exactly when and why to use a given approach. When users have to decide on their own when to use all the communication tools at their disposal, systematic uptake is less likely and will take longer. Successful initiatives often have specific situations in mind that they believe an Enterprise 2.0 approach will resolve. Lack of effective executive champions. This is a classic cause of failure for any project. The only real difference here is that it’s even more effective when at least one well-regarded executive actively participates not just in the project but socially in the online community itself. That kind of visible championing, in addition to budget or buy-in, is highly effective on the ground once participation is under way. Lack of effective participants: Empty blogs, wikis, or silent social networks. If there’s nothing there, then no one will come. Seeding content, hand-picking early participants, and other strategies to build critical mass can ensure there is enough activity taking place and knowledge accumulating that it will draw in a self-sustaining audience. No long term plan or budget for governance, community management, upgrades, or maintenance. Communities are very different creatures from software projects, but both are required to make Enterprise 2.0 failure. This requires a long-term view and understanding of the investment and often unexpected skills (hiring community managers for example) required to keep it healthy and successful. Failure to draw in key influencers as adoption broadens. This has been a notable lesson early on, that the official gatekeepers and organizational leaders have to be engaged and not usurped by a successful and rapidly growing Enterprise 2.0-style community and knowledge base. Parts of an organization that may already be responsible for maintaining certain types of information or being the officially designated experts for certain subject matter may co-opt or request control of what’s taking place, often to assimilate and/or reduce perceived duplication. Organizations will have to begin looking at this phenomenon as a spontaneous re-engineering effort and decide how to create an effective reconciliation between the conflicting entities. Building it all as a self-contained, top-down effort. As we saw from the Nielsen research, this is a key lesson. Finding (or encouraging) an Enterprise 2.0 success story is often a better approach than doing it all yourself and avoiding not-invented-here syndrome. Not waiting long enough to let critical mass build. Sometimes it takes a while for an organization to change its habits, to learn the tools, and understand how to get value from them. Some efforts have taken 6 months to a year before serious critical mass began to build. In the interim community management staff can experiment and find the right way to motivate and draw in participants. There are a lot reasons why any project won’t succeed. Enterprise 2.0 is unique, however, in the respect that there is virtually no technology risk but there is much higher risk when it comes to people and organizational issues. Social computing in the enterprise is most successful when there is a healthy community with moderate levels of dysfunction at most. Creating and nurturing a community and keeping it thriving is not something that a project plan alone can achieve or that the traditional stakeholders in software projects are often skilled at. It takes diligence, patience, engagement, emotional intelligence, and understanding of the needs and motivations of participants to be successful for the long term. I’m also hoping Michael Krigsman, himself a well-known expert in software project failure, will chime in from his own research. In this way we can identify the most common sources of potential challenges in Enterprise 2.0 projects and proactively address them.
  • The three waves of information. La Edad del Hierro y la Edad de la Información y el Conocimiento Keith Devlin: si a un hombre de la Edad del Hierro le preguntáramos qué es el hierro, no entendería la pregunta “¿qué es?”, pues para él ese metal es una experiencia manifestada en forma de útiles, y en absoluto una realización de un elemento químico de tales o cuales características. De la misma manera, si a un humano de nuestra generación le preguntamos “¿qué es la información?”, lo normal es que responda desde su experiencia de uso, viendo la información como algo que utiliza cada día, en múltiples formas, sin que hacerse esa pregunta le aporte un valor complementario. Pero dentro de unas generaciones sabremos mejor “qué es” la información. Quizá se dirá que el universo existe porque la información se hizo tiempo, y éste se hizo energía. Quizá resulte que “dios” es información; quizá que la información es la sustancia que mantiene tensas las 11 dimensiones –o las que entonces sepamos contar– del universo (del multiverso, si al final decidimos que no hay un solo universo, sino varios conviviendo y chocando entre membranas inimaginables en el complejo de la realidad).
  • Decentralization or Decentralisation (see spelling differences ) is the process of dispersing decision-making governance closer to the people and/or citizen. It includes the dispersal of administration or governance in sectors or areas like engineering , management science , political science , political economy , sociology and economics . Decentralization is also possible in the dispersal of population and employment. Law , science and technological advancements lead to highly decentralized human endeavours. &amp;quot;While frequently left undefined (Pollitt, 2005), decentralization has also been assigned many different meanings (Reichard &amp; Borgonovi, 2007), varying across countries (Steffensen &amp; Trollegaard, 2000; Pollitt, 2005), languages (Ouedraogo, 2003), general contexts (Conyers, 1984), fields of research, and specific scholars and studies.&amp;quot; (Dubois and Fattore 2009) A central theme in decentralization is the difference between a hierarchy , based on: authority : two players in an unequal-power relationship; and an interface: a lateral relationship between two players of roughly equal power. The more decentralized a system is, the more it relies on lateral relationships, and the less it can rely on command or force. In most branches of engineering and economics, decentralization is narrowly defined as the study of markets and interfaces between parts of a system. This is most highly developed as general systems theory and neoclassical political economy. Organizational Theory Decentralization also called departmentalization is the policy of delegating decision-making authority down to the lower levels in an organization, relatively away from and lower in a central authority. A decentralized organization shows fewer tiers in the organizational structure, wider span of control, and a bottom-to-top flow of decision-making and flow of ideas. In a centralized organization, the decisions are made by top executives or on the basis of pre-set policies. These decisions or policies are then enforced through several tiers of the organization after gradually broadening the span of control until it reaches the bottom tier. In a more decentralized organization, the top executives delegate much of their decision-making authority to lower tiers of the organizational structure. As a correlation, the organization is likely to run on less rigid policies and wider spans of control among each officer of the organization. The wider spans of control also reduces the number of tiers within the organization, giving its structure a flat appearance. One advantage of this structure, if the correct controls are in place, will be the bottom-to-top flow of information, allowing decisions by officials of the organization to be well informed about lower tier operations. For example, if an experienced technician at the lowest tier of an organization knows how to increase the efficiency of the production, the bottom-to-top flow of information can allow this knowledge to pass up to the executive officers.
  • Gladwell describes the &amp;quot;three rules of epidemics&amp;quot; (or the three &amp;quot;agents of change&amp;quot;) in the tipping points of epidemics. &amp;quot; The Law of the Few &amp;quot;, or, as Gladwell states, &amp;quot;The success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts.&amp;quot; [4] According to Gladwell, economists call this the &amp;quot;80/20 Principle, which is the idea that in any situation roughly 80 percent of the &apos;work&apos; will be done by 20 percent of the participants.&amp;quot; [5] These people are described in the following ways: Connectors are the people who &amp;quot;link us up with the world ... people with a special gift for bringing the world together.&amp;quot; [6] They are &amp;quot;a handful of people with a truly extraordinary knack [... for] making friends and acquaintances&amp;quot;. [7] He characterizes these individuals as having social networks of over one hundred people. To illustrate, Gladwell cites the following examples: the midnight ride of Paul Revere , Milgram&apos;s experiments in the small world problem , the &amp;quot; Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon &amp;quot; trivia game, Dallas businessman Roger Horchow , and Chicagoan Lois Weisberg , a person who understands the concept of the weak tie . Gladwell attributes the social success of Connectors to &amp;quot;their ability to span many different worlds [... as] a function of something intrinsic to their personality, some combination of curiosity, self-confidence, sociability, and energy.&amp;quot; [8] Mavens are &amp;quot;information specialists&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;people we rely upon to connect us with new information.&amp;quot; [9] They accumulate knowledge, especially about the marketplace , and know how to share it with others. Gladwell cites Mark Alpert as a prototypical Maven who is &amp;quot;almost pathologically helpful&amp;quot;, further adding, &amp;quot;he can&apos;t help himself&amp;quot;. [10] In this vein, Alpert himself concedes, &amp;quot;A Maven is someone who wants to solve other people&apos;s problems, generally by solving his own&amp;quot;. [11] According to Gladwell, Mavens start &amp;quot;word-of-mouth epidemics&amp;quot; [12] due to their knowledge, social skills, and ability to communicate. As Gladwell states, &amp;quot;Mavens are really information brokers, sharing and trading what they know&amp;quot;. [13] Salesmen are &amp;quot;persuaders&amp;quot;, charismatic people with powerful negotiation skills. They tend to have an indefinable trait that goes beyond what they say, which makes others want to agree with them. Gladwell&apos;s examples include California businessman Tom Gau and news anchor Peter Jennings , and he cites several studies about the persuasive implications of non-verbal cues, including a headphone nod study (conducted by Gary Wells of the University of Alberta and Richard Petty of the University of Missouri) and William Condon&apos;s cultural microrhythms study.
  • Over the last three decades, computers have substituted for the calculating, coordinating, and communicating functions of bookkeepers, cashiers, telephone operators, and other handlers of repetitive information- processing tasks. The capability of computers to substitute for workers in carrying out cognitive tasks is limited, however. At present, the need for explicit programmed instructions appears a binding constraint. There are very few computer-based technologies that can draw inferences from models, solve novel problems, or form persuasive arguments. In the words of computer scientist Patrick Winston “The goal of understanding intelligence, from a computational point of view, remains elusive. Reasoning programs still exhibit little or no common sense. Today’s language programs translate simple sentences into database queries, but those language programs are derailed by idioms, metaphors, convoluted syntax, or ungrammatical expressions.”
  • Digital Eminence: Those who embrace Enterprise 2.0 often find themselves becoming leaders within a network, with active listeners and followers for their ideas and activities. They may not necessarily be part of the management chain--they may come from the edges of the organizational chart--but their digital eminence can give their words as much power as those of their formal managers. &amp;quot;Digital eminence&amp;quot; is a loose term for standing out in an online environment. In the words of Gail Hock, of the Center for Advanced Learning at IBM ( IBM - news - people ), &amp;quot;Users with high digital eminence publish high quality articles ... and add value to key online business discussions. ... Evidence of their eminence is supported by others who have rated their contributions as valuable and have tagged them for reuse by others. Anyone can have high digital eminence, and you&apos;d certainly expect that of your leaders.&amp;quot; To develop digital eminence traditional leaders need to participate in or even lead discussions online. They may, for instance, write about what they are working on, or start or respond to discussions around topics of interest to their employees, or guide others to find significant online content by sharing their Web bookmarks.
  • Hydrid Profiles Antonio Flores – Alfons Cornella Science with Business &gt;&gt; Hightech &amp; Hightouch Companies Hibridators /Glue-people – Teamdividualism : Multidisciplinary teams composed of specialists and glue-people. Reformatting the concept of Clusters. Ie. The cluster of satisfying a certain segmenet of customers. The Madonna Company Innovate America Report 2005 (www.compete.org) “ The innovation process begins with curiosity-driven research, then moves through the development of applications that are commercialized, creating new businesses and new jobs,” Clough explained. To fuel that process, NII participants set the goal of reversing the decline in interest among American students in science and engineering, and “replenishing the pipeline” of these professions that drive innovation. Recommendations in the NII report include retooling curricula from kindergarten through graduate education, creating an “innovation culture” at all levels, and providing students opportunities to explore open-ended problems, engage in teamwork, and work on projects that cross traditional disciplines. In addition, for young men and women who demonstrate interest in science and engineering, the report calls for establishing opportunities and incentives for studying these disciplines in college and graduate school.
  • The implication of our discussion is that because present computer technology is more substitutable for workers in carrying out routine tasks than nonroutine tasks, it is a relative complement to workers in carrying out nonroutine tasks. From a production function standpoint, outward shifts in the supply of routine informational inputs, both in quantity and quality, increase the marginal productivity of workers performing nonroutine tasks that demand these inputs. For example, comprehensive bibliographic searches increase the quality of legal research and timely market information improves the eficiency of managerial decision-making . More tangibly, because repetitive, predictable tasks are readily automated, computerization of the workplace raises demand for problem-solving and communications tasks such as responding to discrepancies, improving production processes, and coordinating and managing the activities of others. This changing allocation of tasks was anticipated by Drucker [1954] in the 1950s: “The technological changes now occurring will carry [the Industrial Revolution] a big step further. They will not make human labor superfuous. On the contrary, they will require tremendous numbers of highly skilled and highly trained men—managers to think through and plan, highly trained technicians and workers to design the new tools, to produce them, to maintain them, to direct them” Los mejores pueden ser gente difícil. Son resueltos y obcecados, y por eso mismo son buenos. Es mucho mejor trabajar con ellos que con Don Termino Medio el Simpático. Paul Arden. Leading Clever People. A leader is not anymore the mountain climber that stands up at the top with the flag in his hand, to appear in the  photograph; it will be more the one that stays in the base camp waiting for good news from his/her team, while providing them with the best tools.
  • The process of empowerment The process which enables individuals/groups to fully access personal/collective power, authority and influence, and to employ that strength when engaging with other people, institutions or society. Empowerment includes the following, or similar, capabilities:- The ability to make decisions about personal/collective circumstances The ability to access information and resources for decision-making Ability to consider a range of options from which to choose (not just yes/no, either/or.) Ability to exercise assertiveness in collective decision making Having positive-thinking about the ability to make change Ability to learn and access skills for improving personal/collective circumstance. Ability to inform others’ perceptions though exchange, education and engagement. Involving in the growth process and changes that is never ending and self-initiated Increasing one&apos;s positive self-image and overcoming stigma Increasing one&apos;s ability in discreet thinking to sort out right and wrong
  • Summary of The Network Company Basics
  • Thanks type En_2010 Spastor
  • The impact of collaborative tools on hierarchical companies

    1. 2. Source: http :// blogs.voices.com / thebiz /2006/09/ web _20_ definition.html & Adapted from “Publicidad y Marketing en las Redes Sociales: hacia el community marketing. SIX JUMP.S Autor: Javier Reyes http://www.slideshare.net/eaula/marketing-y-publicidad-en-las-redes-sociales . http://ictconsequences.net/uoc/erainformacion/files/2009/03/web31.png . http://techtrends.eu/face-a-opensocial-facebook-lance-le-fbopen/ Web 2.5 Web 3.0 >2010 20xx “ the semantic web” “ the social web”
    2. 3. Source: http :// www.flowtown.com / blog /social-media- demographics - whos - using - which - sites?display=wide Source: http :// en.wikipedia.org / wiki / File:Technologycardset.jpg
    3. 5. <ul><li>BARRIERS </li></ul><ul><li>It starts strong in a single department and never makes it out. </li></ul><ul><li>Selecting the tools first. </li></ul><ul><li>Selecting the wrong tools and sticking with them. </li></ul><ul><li>It’s purely an IT initiative or the effort excludes IT. </li></ul><ul><li>There are no resources allocated to adoption and training. </li></ul><ul><li>Engaging with HR, legal, branding, compliance, etc. too soon. </li></ul><ul><li>Pushing Enterprise 2.0 as a generic toolbox. </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of effective executive champions or lack of effective participants. </li></ul><ul><li>No long term plan or budget. </li></ul><ul><li>Failure to draw in key influencers as adoption broadens. </li></ul><ul><li>Building it all as a self-contained, top-down effort. </li></ul><ul><li>Not waiting long enough to let critical mass build. </li></ul>
    4. 8. ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ • ][ •
    5. 9. Source: http :// www.voaok.org / Portals /43/ Images / group%20hands . jpg How to Use Google and Twitter to Find Your Customers http :// www.economist.com /editorial/ freeforall /14-9-97/ec4. html
    6. 10. Source: Revista Emprendedores
    7. 11. http://misioncumplida.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/formula-1-2009-el-simulador-mas-esperado/
    8. 12. Source: http://www.fondos-gratis.net/wallpapers/2009/12/Wallpaper-Geek-042-1024x819.jpg
    9. 13. Source: http://radiocontempo.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/orm.jpg
    10. 14. Source:http://2photo.ru/uploads/posts/4268/20090630/nzinzi-fabrice/30_06_2009_0074546001246355241_nzinzi-fabrice.jpg
    11. 15. http://www.freeamazingpictures.com/
    12. 16. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EZ16vWYvHHg/S8SiwtQ8UQI/AAAAAAAAKGE/fRwiYCn5fmk/s1600/www.BancodeImagenesGratuitas.com-SeriePlatinum-6.jpg
    13. 18. Adapted from: Jordi Vilaseca, Joan Torrent , Josep Lladós i Pilar Ficapal (2004). Comparing Paradigms Industrial Economy Knowledge Economy Basic technologies Industry-applied technologies. Substitution of manual tasks. Information & Communication Technologies. Substitution of cognitive tasks. Organizational Structure Classical : - Divided into tasks. - Executed individually. - Grouped by Departments. - Hierarchic (Pyramid). - Centralized decision. Network: - Divided by areas of knowledge. - Multidisciplinary teams. - Grouped by Projects and Goals. - Interconnected. - Decentralized decision. Key production factor Physical Capital & Manual Tasks. Knowledge & Non- routine and/or Cognitive Tasks. Required Training Regulated and standardized training for the  entire work life. Continuous training at the workplace. Skills Experience and perseverance Flexibility and Innovation Salary Fixed Variable Commitment As agreed on the basis of a contract More than agreed contractually Relationship with the company Collective, trade unions Individual Corporate value Stability Flexibility
    14. 20. “ Highly flexible , both in skills and salaries, self-programmable jobs , requiring an ongoing knowledge-updating process , can't deploy their potential in a traditional, rigid , organizational environment such as the one in the Industrial Economy ”. “ Work in the Knowledge Economy requires an organization based on a horizontal hierarchy , that promotes team work and enhances plain , open and straightforward interactions between employers and employees, departments, and the different levels along the organization chart &quot;. (Manuel Castells, 2002). flexible self- programmable jobs ongoing knowledge- updating process traditional, rigid Industrial Economy Knowledge Economy horizontal hierarchy plain straightforward interactions organization chart

    ×