Показаны сообщения с ярлыком changes. Показать все сообщения
Показаны сообщения с ярлыком changes. Показать все сообщения

вторник, 29 октября 2019 г.

Momentum towards useful change


How to Think Differently to Drive Results Innovation Training and Development 

Michael Cardus


Imagine a solved version of the problematic situation by:
  • making exceptions into the rule,
  • changing the location of the complaint pattern,
  • changing who is involved in the complaint pattern,
  • changing the order of the steps involved,
  • adding a new element or step to the complaint pattern,
  • increasing the duration of the pattern,
  • introducing arbitrary starting and stopping,
  • increasing the frequency of the pattern,
  • changing the modality of the problematic behavior.
– Steve de Shazer – Clues pp 99
Each of the above suggestions for change that is different are useful as a skeleton-key to break a pattern and cause you to take notice of what is different and what difference that makes.
I am cautious about the work ‘imagine’  because it may lead us to believe that we are creating a utopian end point.
I’ve argued before that utopian end points ignore the past, create self-imposed stress, and increase resistance due to the fact that they are generally achievable.  In this context imagine is used to hold and slightly vary a pattern of thinking that we currently have in the face of the problem.
Leadership, change, problem solving is contextual interaction. There is an example of something that is a problem and it is worth improving. Knowing the context and observing the interactional difference within the suggestions above may be a skeleton-key that is close enough to open the door to cooperation, then create some momentum towards useful change.


суббота, 31 августа 2019 г.

The difference is where the progress is found


Michael Cardus
Note the differences between any hypothetical solutions and the complaint. – Steve de Shazer – Clues pp 99
IN EARLIER POSTS I SHARE 4 USEFUL AREAS TO LOOK FOR PROGRESS CLUES OF CHANGE:
  1. Change happens when it seems reasonable
  2. Exception to the norm is change
  3. Change through a small nudge
  4. Digger deeper taints change through assumptions
Noticing what is different and putting difference to work is a task of leadership. When leaders notice what is different and are able to put difference to work they are noticing how change happens, where change matters and what difference it makes to the team.
We become myopic and solipsistic when challenged and resisted. A wonderful response that works, otherwise it would not happen. This can be a counter-intuitive. In some change efforts the idea is bad and resistance is what’s needed. As a leader being thoughtful about difference and a bad idea are a useful leadership capacity.
As you listen to the change documenting, actually writing down, differences teams and people share between the change that seems reasonable and the complaint / resistance may create enough of a landscape to make the next decision.
The difference is where the progress clues are found.

воскресенье, 6 марта 2016 г.

Structure Conduct Performance




Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) is a paradigm coming from industrial economics (1960s and 1970s).

It states that performance (of entire markets and of firms operating in these markets) depends on various elements of market structure (e.g. entry barriers, market concentration, and number and size of competitors), as well as different forms of firm conduct and strategic behaviour (e.g. capacity utilization, marketing, innovation).
The framework is an interesting one to describe an industry (e.g. if you are looking at a potential acquisition opportunity which is a bit outside of your core markets), and get a better understanding of what’s happening and why. A number of academics have worked with this framework, and developed quantitative measures of market concentrations, to then study how this affected conduct and performance.
But the attached example shows that the SCP framework can also be used descriptively, and the key words listed on the first PPT page are a good checklist to remember.
One criticism of the framework: It is obviously quite deterministic and linear. Structure is the exogenous (explanatory) variable, everything else is dependent of that. In reality, structure itself is probably also affected by firms’ conduct.

[Pix+6b.jpg]

четверг, 19 ноября 2015 г.

5 Practices for Delivering Strategic Change


Elizabeth Harrin

Companies that are good at organizational change management complete twice as many strategic initiatives that meet their original time, budget and content goals.
The study, called Enabling Organizational Change through Strategic Initiatives, from PMI, shows that if you are good at change management, your organization will:
· Meet the goals of strategic initiatives 65% of the time
· Complete strategic initiatives on time 64% of the time
· Complete strategic initiatives on budget 63% of the time.

When you compare those figures to companies who are minimally effective at delivering change, they are almost double in every case.The study identifies 5 practices that are important for delivering change effectively, and therefore for completing your strategic projects successfully. Let’s take a look and see how you can implement these in your business.
1. Well-defined milestones and metrics
Clear measures will help you monitor and control initiatives that implement strategy. Every initiative should have clear success criteria. These set out exactly what success looks like and how the team will know when it has been achieved. You can then measure against these during the project (you’ll have to put sensible metrics in place to do this if they are not already there).
Milestones are points on the project plan that mark a significant event, such as the start or end of a phase. These allow you to track progress against the project’s schedule and identify any slippage.
In your organization: Make sure every project has success criteria set in the business case. These should be monitored and tracked throughout the life of the project to ensure it is still a viable initiative. Each project should also have defined milestones – at least one per project phase.
2. Committed senior management
Are the business leaders at the top of your organization committed to innovation and growth? Implementing strategy is sometimes a leap of faith, and you need to know that your colleagues are with you. A senior management team that is dedicated to the delivery of your strategy is essential if you want it to have any chance of success.
In your organization: Work with your peers and those above you to drive support for the strategic initiatives. This shouldn’t be difficult: there should be a clear link between the project and the strategic objective it supports. While companies do have to do tactical work throughout the year, these strategic projects should have high-level support and oversight.
3. Ownership and accountability
People need to feel as if they ‘own’ their part of the strategy. While no one person is solely responsible for completing every single task, there should be someone in an authority position who is accountable for the success of the initiative overall. Their team members should take ownership for the tasks that are assigned to them.
In your organization: Make sure that there are clear lines of responsibility. Set out roles and responsibilities at the start of every initiative. Keep people accountable by building targets into their personal performance objectives for the year. Put methods in place to track progress and ensure your key personnel are empowered to deliver.
4. Standardized project management practices
Standardized project management practices are in place in 86% of businesses who manage strategic change effectively. This means defining processes for all elements of the project life cycle including:
· Preparation and submission of business cases
· Project selection in alignment with strategic goals
· Resource allocation
· Change, risk and issue management
· Budget management and financial forecasting.
Good governance helps ensure that these processes are adhered to. Processes should be scaleable: not all strategic initiatives have huge budgets and take a long time. To ensure your delivery teams stay nimble and innovative (and not bogged down by too much paperwork) only apply the level of process that you need to get the job done.
In your organization: Find out how many project managers have had formal training in the last 12 months. Upskill those who haven’t. Consider investing in formal accreditation such as credentials from PMI, or the IPMA organization in your country.
5. Strong sponsorship
Any strategic initiative needs an executive sponsor. Unfortunately, those people who end up in the role haven’t always had prior experience of working on business-critical projects. Sponsors should be able to adequately support the team they are working with who, after all, are doing the hands-on work of delivering the strategy.
The executives who sponsor strategic initiatives should be charismatic and influential people within the organization who can adequately:
· Remove roadblocks
· Champion the initiative at all levels of the  organization
· Motivate the team
· Negotiate for resources
· Influence other senior leaders.
The project sponsor should also constantly be monitoring progress at a high level to ensure the project is still on track to deliver something of value and move the business closer to achieving its strategic goals.
In your organization: Consider putting those senior managers who sponsor projects through a program of sponsor training. Make sure they understand how to interpret project data. Give them the tools they need to unblock problems for their project teams.
These five practices will help you deliver strategic change successful in your organization. Have you tried out these tips? Let us know how they helped you in the comments below.

воскресенье, 9 августа 2015 г.

The Performance Management Revolution

The Performance Management Revolution

“Research indicates that workers have three prime needs: Interesting work, recognition for doing a good job, and being let in on things that are going on in the company.” Zig Ziglar
 Many years ago I read “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn. The main idea he developed is that once a theory cannot explain the observable reality anymore, a crisis must emerge, a revolution should occur, and a new theory must be formulated and embraced, until the process begins again. The most common Performance Management system, the one based on numerical ratings and a one-time a year appraisal, is in crisis. The existing theory cannot explain anymore the observable reality of a worker’s performance, a crisis is evident, and a performance revolution must happen.
In my opinion, as proven throughout recent history, the existing Performance Management system was intrinsically flawed and doomed to fail, particularly the approach to assess whether individuals and teams are top performers or not.
This is not just my subjective observation; there is research to support this argument. The “2013 Global Performance Management Survey Report” by the consulting firm MERCER found that “51% of respondents said that their [goal] planning process needs work, 42% said the linkage to compensation needs work, and 48% said that the overall approach needs work”.
The most remarkable finding made by MERCER, however, is that only 3% of respondents “reported that their overall management system delivers exceptional value”. It is important to notice that nearly 90% of organizations surveyed have a common Performance Management system: goal setting, mid-year check in and individual-rating-based appraisals. The same report indicated that the most important manager’s skill to drive high performing organizations and overall success is “having candid dialogue” (AKA, constant feedback).  The report also indicates that 89% of the organizations have performance ratings, and that 89% link individual ratings to compensation decisions.
Similar to the MERCER report, in a public survey carried out by Deloitte, 58% of executives surveyed “believe that their current performance management approach drives neither employee engagement nor high performance.”
Unfortunately, as it is evidenced, most organizations still consider "the carrot and the stick" approach to be worthwhile as a way to motivate people. These organizations and their management are still injecting life to the dying theory of Performance Management. If only these organizations understood that the way to achieve better results, higher performance and exceptionally value, therefore accomplishing growth and sustainability, is by doing things in a different way. We already tried and, hopefully learned, that the one way not to achieve high performance is by having a ranking-based approach.
“All organizations are perfectly designed to get the results they are now getting. If we want different results, we must change the way we do things.” Tom Northup
As probably most of us know (and have experienced ourselves) individual ratings in a final appraisal are a huge roadblock to unleash the potential of people and keep them motivated. This also goes along with the discussion of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivators.
When I look around, most organizations that I come across with have designed and put in place incentive and reward systems that appeal only to those who are extrinsically motivated. If you get an Excellent, you receive x%, but if you get an “Ok” (of course, they don’t call it that, but “Meet Expectations” or any other fancy name to say that the quality of your work is… “Ok”) you receive a far lower financial incentive.
I believe that the approach of offering purely financial incentives to drive for high performance achieves the opposite effect of what it seeks. It actually encourages and promotes the wrong kind of behaviors. It  sort of forces people to do whatever is needed in order to get that Excellent rating, regardless of the real effect that their work has on the collective entity that is the organization. Not surprisingly, we see organizations sinking very fast, but full of shining individual stars. Keep in mind the case of Enron, whereby individual stars dishonestly tried to make their way up the corporate ladder, while at the same time hiding a reality that soon exploded. As William Shakespeare said:
“His promises were, as he then was, mighty; But his performance, as he is now, nothing.”
Now, in addition to having shining stars in the “Excellent” performance realm, a rewards system that is overly focused on extrinsic motivators also misses the big opportunity to tap in the potential of people who are intrinsically motivated, people who need constant feedback and acknowledgement, as well as Support and Challenge from their leaders.
These individuals (particularly Millennials – who will account for 64% of the workforce by the year 2020 according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics) get enough energy and motivation when their leaders meet with them on a regular basis, help them overcome the challenges that might be undermining their true capacity for high performance, acknowledge their accomplishments in real time and back them up, and support/challenge them to achieve even higher goals.
For Millennials (but also very much across generations), as has been indicated in a research by The Conference Board, feedback and flexibility are essential incentives (taking for granted, of course, that they are not exploited by their employers, but have a competitive salary). This system is different than one that constantly praises “good” performers. It is rather a system that rewards high performance, tap into the challenges of low performers, at the time that achieves a highly energized organization and teams. The system, however, requires that leaders have the skills and abilities to have real and thorough conversations with their teams.
“Curious that we spend more time congratulating people who have succeeded than encouraging people who have not.” Neil deGrasse Tyson
I was once delivering a workshop on performance and somebody said “even if I get an ‘Excellent’ rating, the monetary compensation is the equivalent of two cups of a coffee a day. I want much more than that”. What does “much more than that” mean? Deloitte and Accenture are acting as trailblazers in this arena by thinking outside the box and experimenting with another methods to incentivize their workers. I believe feedback and opportunities to unleash talents are the two most important ideas behind the “much more than that”.
Constant positive and developmental feedback (not praise!) is one of the components of a bigger, more effective and purposeful approach than a merely rating-financial-compensation approach. Deloitte and Accenture deemed it necessary not only to give an answer to the Performance Management crisis, but they also take into account an updated generational (mostly because the influx of millennials in their workforce) approach in which unleashing the potential and maximizing the opportunities for learning and development are by far more important than a monetary incentive. I should say that having the equivalent in money to two extra cups a coffee a day, for a year, is definitely not a bad thing. Monetary compensation is, indeed, a critical factor..
Now, would someone go the extra mile because they received a monetary compensation as a product of their rating-based performance? is that compensation directly linked to an emergence of creativity and innovation? The answer to both questions is a definite no. Research shows the effects of diminishing marginal returns of monetary compensation for performance. After some point, it doesn’t make a real difference on your performance (your rating might still be the best, not your actual performance, though) to receive an Excellent rating.  
The good news is that, despite the fact that the crisis of Performance Management started a long time ago, the revolution is just beginning, and at a greater scale. Deloitte and Accenture are part of that revolution. Have they come up with the right theory to explain a new reality? Is their newly implemented Performance Management process the best approach? To be honest, I don’t know. We have yet to see.
Nevertheless, the neat thing about Deloitte and Accenture revamping their Performance Management system is that it is bringing to the table an ugly topic. You know, everybody loves to hate performance. And, as it happens very often, people don’t want to talk about what they hate. However, Deloitte and Accenture’s revolutionary approach to Performance is renewing a seemingly dead interest in talking about it, thereby creating a huge amount of dialogue, research, papers and, best of all, organizations questioning their own systems.
In a recent interview with the retiring CEO of Accenture, Pierre Nanterme, in the Washington Post, he said about Performance Management:
“We are not sure that spending all that time on performance management has been yielding a great outcome. And for the millennium generation, it’s not the way they want to be recognized, the way they want to be measured. If you put this new generation in the box of the performance management we’ve used the last 30 years, you lose them. We’re done with the famous annual performance review, where once a year I’m going to share with you what I think about you. That doesn’t make any sense. Performance is an ongoing activity. It’s every day, after any client interaction or business interaction or corporate interaction. It’s much more fluid. People want to know on an ongoing basis, am I doing right? Am I moving in the right direction? Do you think I’m progressing? Nobody’s going to wait for an annual cycle to get that feedback. Now it’s all about instant performance management.”
Even though Mr. Nanterme mentioned Millennials and the risk of losing them with the existing practices in Performance Management, I think organizations are already losing real potential across generations. And I purposefully use the expression “losing potential”. To me, this doesn’t mean that people are necessarily quitting their jobs, more so if they are not too far from retirement, but it means that they might not be using their full capacities to achieve even higher levels of performance, creativity and innovation.
We should be the protagonists of this revolution in the making. In that sense, for all our organizations, talking about the way we measure performance should be of paramount importance. From there, I think that the next steps in the conversation must be how to incentivize the constant formal and informal conversations between leaders and people (showcasing the benefits and results for the organization, the leaders and the people); provide collective incentives to team performance; create mechanisms in which individuals can also provide bottom-up feedback to their bosses and even appeal to the self-interests and ego of the leaders: show them the results that such a culture can have for them. In the words of Laszlo Bock in his book “The Work Rules”:
“Performance improved only when companies implemented programs to empower employees (for example, by taking decision-making authority away from managers and giving it to individuals or teams), provided learning opportunities that were outside what people needed to do their jobs, increased their reliance on teamwork (by giving teams more autonomy and allowing them to self-organize), or a combination of these.”
I keep in perspective that changes might happen bottom-up, top-down, or simply altogether. It only takes courage and leadership from the organization as an entity. Stephen Covey said “management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.” I know we need to measure performance, but, do we have the ladder on the right wall?
The ugly topic of performance is on the table and we have a big responsibility to shake up our beliefs in older and dying merit-pay systems and open the door to more energizing and refreshing approaches, be it the Deloitte/Accenture approach, or the new approaches not yet created.

HR Professional, Engineer, Writer

понедельник, 24 ноября 2014 г.

Is Your Board Built for Change?








Most industries are experiencing change at lightning speed compared to years past, with technology and global market dynamics often the catalysts. Corporations and other organizations understand that their leadership must change at the same pace to ensure sustained competitiveness. But what they often fail to see—or realize too late—is that their board governance must adapt as well, and more rapidly than in the past.
“Digital technologies … drive everything that companies do internally and externally, and yet many boards lack in-depth digital expertise.”
In this article we present several essential ways in which today’s boards must change and evolve. We cite examples from three Life Sciences market leaders—Pfizer, Merck, and Amgen—to illustrate our points, though our suggestions can apply to most any board, in any industry.
1. Go digital. Digital technologies and communications drive everything that companies do internally and externally, and yet many boards lack in-depth digital expertise. One of Pfizer’s most recent board recruitments is Shantanu Narayen, president and CEO of software giant Adobe Systems. Few boards have the resources to bring in someone of Narayen’s caliber, but Pfizer is large enough to be able to target high-tech firms for their new recruits.
2. Understand modern media and communications. Pfizer’s newest board member is James Smith, president and CEO of Thomson Reuters Corp. The company knows that reputation and media savvy are critical for success in today’s business environment, and Smith makes perfect sense as a director. Amgen’s board includes Frank Biondi, Jr., former head of Universal Studios and Viacom, as well as François de Carbonnel, former CEO of French multimedia giant Thomson S.A. Merck’s board includes former Thomson Reuters CEO Thomas Glocer. Across industries there is a definite trend toward directors who “get” the information age.
3. Go young.It should be noted that, at 51 and 55, Narayen and Smith are Pfizer’s youngest directors. But the average age for the company’s board members is in the mid-60s. As such, don’t be surprised to see Pfizer—and other companies in the same situation—bring a sub-50 director or two on board. Board youth is even more critical for smaller, fast-moving companies. With the millennial generation approaching the demographic size of the baby boomers, and the oldest millennials now in their mid-30s, firms must begin to tap into this younger mindset with board members from that era.
4. “Rightsize.”A board must have just the right amount of members. Too small and it won’t have the requisite breadth of skills. Too large and it won’t be nimble enough to make quick decisions or adapt to change. Pfizer, Amgen and Merck all have about a dozen members. This decision is really organization- and industry-dependent and can be aided by regular reviews and skills audits.
“While board stability is a good thing, stagnancy is not. It is essential to get new blood in every few years.”
5. Encourage managed turnover.While board stability is a good thing, stagnancy is not. It is essential to get new blood in every few years. Oftentimes term limits (or tighter term limits) are the answer for this.
6. Prioritize market expertise. A company or other organization must know its changing marketplace and adapt its board to it. Today’s life sciences landscape, for example, is increasingly driven by reform taking place in healthcare. On Amgen’s board is Judith Pelham, president emeritus of Trinity Health. All boards should continue to recruit and embrace members who truly understand where markets are headed and—as in the case of the expanding influence of large health systems within the life sciences— understand the shifting of decision-makers.
Building a better, more agile board is a challenge. It is also something that organizations should strive for to remain viable and competitive in their markets.
http://goo.gl/94seOs
 October 7, 2014

среда, 19 ноября 2014 г.

Technology groups in a war to dominate the world of work


November 18, 2014 5:46 pm


A man walks past a logo created from pictures of Facebook users worldwide in the company's Data Center©Getty
The war between the giants of the technology industry for the attention of the world’s office workers looks like it is about to take an unexpected turn.
Fundamental changes in the daily lives of millions of so-called “information workers” have already triggered a corresponding upheaval in the technology tools on which they rely. Staples such as email and Microsoft’s Office suite of products still hold sway, but they are increasingly being supplemented by services like group chat, internal social networks and shared online document editing. 
Now, Facebook’s ambition to create a version of its social network for the office, first reported in the Financial Times this week, promises a new twist.
The prospect of a giant consumer internet company invading office life is not new. Google has already ridden the rise of the internet into the working world, with its Gmail service and a cloud-based equivalent to Microsoft’s Office suite of software tools. Yet for most white-collar workers, still tied to their PCs, Office still reigns supreme.
The spread of mobile devices is forcing deeper changes, particularly in the way groups of workers communicate and share information. The result has been a deeper challenge to Microsoft’s grip on the software of working life.
For seven years after the launch of Apple’s iPhone, Microsoft left its mobile flank exposed, holding Office back from devices made by other companies in a failed attempt to stimulate demand for its own Windows-based mobile gadgets. But even its decision to reverse course this month and make Office free on Apple devices may not be enough to give it the foothold in mobile it needs.
“The problem is not that Office is too expensive, it’s that Office isn’t relevant to the way people want to work,” says Phil Libin, chief executive of Evernote, a mobile-centric service for storing and organising personal information that claims 100m active users, 70 per cent of whom use it at work.
The needs of workers are changing fast, admits Julia White, general manager of marketing for Office. Mobile access is expected. Communication between groups of employees has become far more open, while collaboration around work happens instantly. The sheer volume of information, for many workers, has become overwhelming.
One result is that barriers are breaking down between, on the one hand, networking and collaboration tools, and, on the other, services for creating and editing documents, says Mr Libin.

Communication kings

Facebook employees work at the company's campus in Menlo Park, California
The FT’s Hannah Kuchler takes a detailed look at the big groups in office communication and some of the leading newcomers
“You don’t need different tools for communicating and for writing,” he says, describing the separation of these activities into different software applications as a relic of the days when visions of technology were dominated by the telephone and the typewriter.
As the pressure on workers mounts, the many tools for creating, storing, sharing and collaborating are starting to converge. It is “less about collision and more about integrating different services”, says Aaron Levie, chief executive of Box, which runs a cloud storage service for companies. “If Facebook at work takes off, they will want to get to your data in Box, and edit it with Office,” he says.
That reflects how new business software markets often start out, with “best of breed” suppliers dominating different technology niches. Once these markets mature, however, consolidation often leaves dominant suppliers in control, as happened with Office, says Mr Libin. “The centre of gravity will shift to platforms in a number of years,” he adds.
For now, with most new services in their infancy and dominant consumer companies such as Facebook and Google still to make an impact, that end-game seems a long way off.
As a result, new start-ups like Slack, whose service is used by groups of workers to communicate and share information from different sources, are growing like weeds between the paving stones of existing software products.

Many workers are also spending more of their time within online applications that are tailored to the needs of specific jobs. Some of these are “horizontal” services such as Salesforce’s customer relationship management service or Github’s platform for software developers.
Others are “vertical” ones that are geared to specific industries or professions, such as the Doximity service used by 40 per cent of US doctors, and Edmodo, used by 3.5m teachers.
“You can collaborate much more effectively when you join people who have done similar things,” says Manish Kothari, general manager of platform at Edmodo.
Slack’s rapid growth – it claimed 300,000 active users each day, double the number of three months ago – is partly an indication that workers need a new place to post and communicate about the data thrown up by many of these new applications, says co-founder Stewart Butterfield. This casts the company as the “news feed” of online working life, much the same role that Facebook plays in the consumer world.
The companies that become the hubs for this kind of activity are hoping to cast themselves as central platforms for working life.
LinkedIn, which styles itself as the world’s largest professional social network, could also be threatened if Facebook succeeds in connecting employees with people outside their company. However, the majority of LinkedIn’s revenue comes from recruiters, a market Facebook does not appear to be targeting. The site also does not offer collaboration tools or the ability to chat with colleagues.
If you look at the disruption that’s happened on the consumer [internet] side, you’d expect it to creep into the enterprise as well
- Brett Taylor of Quip
Meanwhile, Microsoft, under new chief executive Satya Nadella, who has made productivity tools for workers central to his strategy, is trying to make up for lost time. Much depends on converting users of Office on the PC into subscribers of Office 365, its new online service: once more of their data are held online, Microsoft will be better positioned to create new services around it.
A nascent “groups” feature in Office 365, for instance, makes it possible for teams of workers to join open conversations that sit alongside their familiar Outlook email inboxes.
Microsoft is also hoping to extract information from workers’ online documents, calendars and communications to create what it calls an “Office graph” of their most important interactions – an echo of the “social graph” that underpins Facebook’s network of personal connections.
The first applications that draw on this new trove of data have started to appear in recent weeks: they include Delve, which aims to show useful documents and information that is “trending” around fellow workers when their names are entered, and Clutter, a way to automatically suppress inessential email.
Services such as these are designed to keep workers from being drawn away from Microsoft by other new “social” services, says Ms White. “If your tools meet your needs, you don’t need new tools,” she says.
Facebook will face other challenges as it looks to break into the world of work. The demanding security requirements of customers, strict rules about how their data are managed and the need to integrate with companies’ existing IT systems will all impose a heavy burden, says Rob Koplowitz, analyst at Forrester Research. “I’m not sure if I had a billion and a quarter users turning to me in their personal lives and the massive consumer opportunity associated with that, that I would want to slug it out in the enterprise,” he says.
But it is hard to argue with demographics. A generation that came of age using social networks and mobile messaging apps, rather than the Word documents and email used by their parents, is likely to exert a powerful influence over working life.
“If you look at the disruption that’s happened on the consumer [internet] side, you’d expect it to creep into the enterprise as well,” says Brett Taylor, a former Facebook chief technology officer who now runs Quip, another new collaboration service for office workers.
If Facebook’s plans bear fruit, the world of work, for millions of people, may never be the same again.
Profiles of the established and the newcomers
The FT’s Hannah Kuchler in New York takes a look at the big groups in office communication and some of the leading lights in the new generation of enterprise companies.
Google
The Silicon Valley group’s email service has more than 500m monthly active users, with many companies preferring their easy-to-search webmail that can be used anywhere, as opposed to the somewhat old-fashioned Outlook-style services that lived on the desktop.
Within Gmail, users can also use GChat as an internal and external office messaging service and Google Hangouts for video conferencing. Gmail is also integrated with Google Docs, which has 190m users, and offers more basic copies of the documents, spreadsheets and presentations programmes which make up Microsoft Office. Google charges for Gmail for business, which includes custom emails, more storage and round the clock support.
Microsoft
The original companion of the office worker, Microsoft’s Word, Excel and PowerPoint programmes in the Office suite are still used around the world by about 1.2bn users.
As many of the programmes are not sold as a subscription, it does not know how many people use them regularly. More than 400m people get their email through Microsoft Outlook.
The company bought Yammer, a corporate social network designed for collaborating with colleagues, for $1.2bn two years ago and has integrated it with Office 365 Enterprise, the Office subscription service. It has not reported Yammer’s user numbers since the acquisition.
LinkedIn
The 12-year-old professional networking site, has 90m monthly active users who visit it to make contacts with people who can help them do their job and – perhaps more significantly – help them get a new one.
General views of the LinkedIn logo.©Shaun Curry
With users presenting a CV-like profile to the world, LinkedIn has become a home for recruiters prowling to find what they see as “passive job candidates”, who are not actively looking but might take an opportunity when it is presented.
The company’s talent solutions business generates the majority of the total revenue by selling subscriptions with extra features to recruiters. It also produces editorial content, focused on management that it is able to target to relevant users.
Facebook
The group has 1.35bn users logging on each month and 64 per cent of those use the site daily. More than 1bn use the Facebook app and the number of daily users on mobile has risen almost 40 per cent in the last year.
If it can persuade even a small fraction of their userbase to try the work-focused product, it could have a sizeable userbase that could compete with the new generation of enterprise companies – and depending on exactly how the product turns out, even the larger companies such as Google and Microsoft.
Edmodo
One of the niche social networks, Edmodo is helping to lead the way in combining the social with the core of people’s work.
It enables teachers to collaborate with other teachers to share lesson plans with peers on the other side of the country, teachers with students to assess their work and students with other students to encourage working together.
Edmodo has 3.5m teachers in the US and 43m users worldwide, mainly in English-speaking countries. It has had to ensure a high level of security to keep student data private, an issue that Facebook might encounter with Facebook at Work.
Slack
The new kid on the enterprise block, Slack combines the ease of a chat app (think WhatsApp, not Snapchat) with integration with other software services such as Google Docs and Dropbox.
Slack website
The start-up says it has 300,000 active users each day after officially launching in February 2014. The product has already been adopted by many technology companies as a preferred means of internal communication, but it is not designed to communicate with outside contacts.
Its basic product is free but it charges for most integrations, larger teams and more storage.
Doximity
Another vertical social network, Doximity focuses on doctors. Just four years after it was founded, Doximity boasts 40 per cent of all US doctors as users.
The verified medical practitioners flock to the platform as it is the only place that they can comply with strict regulations about sending patient data, without using a fax machine.
Doctors who have shared important information with each other on Doximity have then gone on to write medical papers together about their findings. More than 70 per cent of activity is on mobile phones, as doctors go about their working lives.
http://goo.gl/HXpTK0