Friday, 24 February 2012

Social Business and Unified Communications


   I still have loads to write up from Social Media Week but also want to note that the week after next I will be participating with IBM in a collaboration dinner (on Wednesday 7th March am) in the Social Business area of the Unified Communications Expo:

A focal point of IBM’s Social Business Expo will be “The Collaboration Diner” run by one of its key partners, Collaboration Matters. The Diner is a modern twist on Edward Hopper’s famous 1942 painting, “Nighthawks”, with a majority of the diner-themed space being devoted to debate and discussion with key Social Business thought leaders sat at informal coffee tables.

At one end of the diner, actors will re-create Hopper's painting and transition to a modern scene where they will be using a range of handheld communication devices - iPads, laptops and smartphones. This will demonstrate that, while Hopper depicted the alienation and loneliness of the 1940s’ big city, this is not the case today as, although alone, these characters are far from lonely, being connected to the wider world through social networking.


Sounds fun!


Technorati Tags: IBM,collaboration dinner,Social Business,Unified Communications,Expo


  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com


Wednesday, 15 February 2012

#SMWLdn Like Minds and Social Business


   It’s social media week this week, and I’m presenting at two events with Like Minds on social business today.

I’ve attended a few other events already and social business has already had a significant focus.  For example, yesterday I was at Edelman where Euan Semple was talking about enabling people and changing culture to be able to say (and tweet) what they think.

David Armano from Edelman was then speaking about the importance of the employee within a social business (building upon the results of their recent Trust Barometer, that whereas trust in CEOs has fallen, trust in technical experts, regular employees, and particularly ‘people like me’ has been maintained).  However, I agreed with whoever asked a question, suggesting that despite this mention, the agenda was very much focused on marketing and PR.

I’ve tried to re-tilt the balance at the event today.

I was second, after JP Rangaswami from Salesforce who suggested that companies are sometimes antisocial because they have a level of fear in being open with their customers.  There’s also a deepening connection between employees and customers.  Eg Cluetrain made a case that there were different external and internal conversations.  Nowadays, these are both and across.  People are used to connecting with each other and having conversations with each other inside and outside of their firms.  This is going to mean a change in the nature of the firm.  Absolutely – though I still think organisations can focus social first - and I think the same point applies to internal antisocialness too.

In my session, I talked about five things:

  • How HR activities are changing (social recruiting, social learning etc – but other areas too eg social performance management using Rypple / Success Force from Salesforce).  This provides benefits for efficiency, effectiveness and transformation but needs a high level of trust.
  • Transformational benefits depend on focusing on outcomes rather than activities.  These can include human capital, eg engagement, but social (internal) and relationship (external) capital too.  I talked about the Visa case study you’ll find here as an example of a social / 2.0 organisation which doesn’t use social media at all (though a guy from Detica in the audience suggests that they are now moving this way).
  • Out of these forms of capital, it’s social capital which is most important.  Eg see Hamel’s / Birkinshaw’s stuff on management / organisation (internal) vs leadership / business (external).
  • Because of this, each organisation’s journey in social business will be different – as we discussed in the Enterprise 2.0 Summit last week, there are no best practices.  An organisation focusing on social innovation will need to take different actions to one focusing on social execution, including in their use of social media tools.
  • However, the other enablers need to be tailored to the relevant outcomes as well.  These can include social leadership; social approaches eg open space / unconferencing; social facilitation / community management; social HR practices – and also social values.  I talked about the need for ‘love’ (in Euan’s book), or a high level of mutual regard, again here.


Later sessions reinforced some of the same points, eg:

  • Euan talked about the way the language of business has been desanitised and depersonalised and that we need to talk more normally, ie be more human.
  • Joanne Jacobs talked about community, suggesting the people can flock together but won’t want to be part of a borg collective.  They’re still a group of individuals, just working together.
  • Neville Hobson also talked about how social business is a bigger agenda than social media, though mainly from an external communication perspective, and demands trust.
  • Delphine Remy-Boutang talked about IBM’s social business journey, which has been about leadership, technology and process (but people are the most important) and started internally with things like Beehive (IBM’s internal Facebook) before they allowed it to take place externally too.  Last year, new developments included:
    • Social Business @ IBM tool providing guidance on using social media and including Foursquare type badges
    • The formation of their Social Business Management Council
    • A Social Business Jam.
  • Lee Provoost also emphasises the need for social to solve business problems (or boost opportunities?).


Of course there were a few disagreements too, which will hopefully become clearer in this afternoon’s panel (I think people learn best by considering disagreements between people rather than listening to everyone violently but maybe superficially agreeing).

For example I suspect I see a need for greater teaming than Joanne. Love may be the wrong word but for me, a social business has to have a strong sense of social identity.  And whereas Lee emphasised the need to understand individual people’s selfish behaviour which may not fit into a company’s plan, I’d suggest what’s even more important is encouraging selflessness.  I’m not a believer in a unitary agenda between organisation and employees, but I do believe that social depends largely on a strong consensus about what’s really important, and a shared commitment to making this work.


Also see Live Minds’ live blog.


Technorati Tags: Like Minds,social business,social media,week,London,2012,smwldn


  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com
  • .

Friday, 10 February 2012

A Friday Rantorama… Responsible Capitalism and the £££££ Culture


   ‘Responsible capitalism’ seems to be generating more widespread support across the UK.  For example although Ed Miliband, who I think was the first to initially popularise the idea, was initially criticised for suggesting things need to change (I supported him), similar ideas are now being brought forward across the political spectrum.  And this isn’t about politicians acting in a leadership role, it’s just a sign of them catching up with the mood of the nation.

So I completely understand the rise of initiatives like the Move Your Money campaign promoting consumer activism against Barclays’ bonus payments today (and of the the broader Occupy movement too).  Bankers’ bonuses are currently at odds with the idea of a fairer and more just society, which is what responsible capitalism is all about, and they need to be reformed.  Unfortunately, politicians are still playing catch-up on this one too.

And despite everything that has happened over the last couple of years, bankers still don’t seem to understand how much things still need to change.  You can see the extent of this in Stephen Hester’s reflections on having to turn down his £1m bonus last week.  Whilst Hester deserves a large amount of credit and respect for taking this decision, his actions were somewhat tarnished by his later comments that RBS executives do still deserve multi-million pound bonuses.  After all, he said, they have been doing a “jolly good job”.  I suspect that the general population, many of whom consider themselves to be doing a pretty good job as well, will feel largely unimpressed.

It’s now over a year since Bob Diamond suggested that the age of contrition needed to come to an end.  Unfortunately I don’t think that’s going to happen until bankers’ behaviour – and attitudes – change as well.

But for me, the issue isn’t absolute levels of pay.  I can understand and have some sympathy for the general reaction to the RBS and Barclays bonuses but be less fussed when Goldman Sachs announce their next round of bonuses, as from what I understand, at least these are more widely shared – eg a secretary at Goldmans does quite well from these payouts as well.  That doesn’t apply to Barclays or RBS cashiers.  There’s still an issue from a societal perspective, but from a pure organisational / HR viewpoint, there’s nothing wrong in what they do.

And I don’t begrudge new start-ups earning enhanced returns (though isn’t it about time that Google is treated as a global utility company and is globally-nationalised? hmm, back to the point…).

But for mature organisations paying people on near the national minimum wage, I don’t personally believe its helpful to provide people at the top with such vastly differentiated pay.  Why?  Because it demotivates 90% of the people in the organisation and doesn’t actually even motivate the 1% at the top.  Result: the organisation fails.

You can see evidence for this in England’s football team (yes, you know where I’m going with this).  Despite paying vast salaries for our last two international coaches (£6m a year for Fabio Capello with a potential £1.5m reward for failure bonus on top), England still lies well outside the premier league of international teams.

What’s happened here?  The extra payment hasn’t motivated extra performance (eg learning the language or culture) and the appointment of a manager who clearly doesn’t have rapport with the team he is supposedly leading has meant that he’s been largely unable to lead.

What’s important in all these cases isn’t the appointment of individualistic masters of the universe but people who are able to inspire the people in their teams.  Vast reward differentials don’t help the social connection which is needed to support this type of rapport.

You see exactly the same thing more generally in business too.  The new mood is about achievement and contribution to society not just fattening up shareholder returns.  And this is even less compelling for many people when the shareholders who benefit most are those they perceive as the super privileged cadre of ‘fat cats’ at the top.

It’s why, that whilst Vince Cable remains my favourite politician, I’m disappointed that the coalition decided not to accept the conclusions of the High Pay Commission and tackle pay differentials in their recent review.

And why I’d like to see more action from the CIPD too.  I wasn’t being completely serious in my recent post on the new CEO for the CIPD, but I would like to see the institute appoint someone who understands the new pay agenda (and gets paid a fair bit less themselves as well).

Sorry for the rant!  Now, about this young couple who have just won £45m….


More on the same theme.

Photo credit: Move Your Money

Technorati Tags: Vince Cable,Ed Miliband,Bob Diamond,Stephen Hester,Fabio Capello,high pay,commission,Move Your Money,RBS,Barclays,responsible,popular,capitalism


  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com


Thursday, 9 February 2012

Reflections on social strategies from #E20S


   So in my last but one post I wrote about some of the common experiences that organisations tend to face in their Enterprise 2.0 ‘journeys’, eg the one year tipping point.

To an extent that ‘route map’ type things are ever useful I think you can see a few more common factors from this type of analysis as well.  One for me would be the common delay at the start of this sort of strategy before organisations decide to take the leap.  I’m not suggesting organisations shouldn’t develop a strategy, I think they should – but once they have this, supported by a clear series of next steps (allowing for emergence) they just need to get stuck in.

But you can also see various differences between organisations embarking on their journey.  One of these relates to the fast adopter premium which John Sumser has been writing a lot about – the fact (and I think it is a fact) that early innovators in the social space gain a disproportionate share of the benefits.  Employees and others associated with these implementations see these as new and exciting and are therefore more likely to engage with them than employees in similar organisations doing similar things later on when these won’t be perceived as so special.

Of course can still get this feel of newness if you’re operating in a sector or country etc where not many people are using social media (eg I certainly think this is still the case in most of Asia and Africa).

But I suppose all I’m arguing about here is the shape of the curve, rather than whether or not there is a standard curve at all.  In fact, thinking it through, I can see further evidence for there being a curve (though I still don’t agree that it progresses from IT to OD).

For example, you can see the curve taking place at an individual level too.  There’s the same reticence to jump into social media use (I started posting here over four years ago, but that was six months after actually having set my initial blog up).  There’s the same one year tipping point (at which a lot of bloggers give up).  And I think you see the same disproportionate benefit (readership, links, page ranking etc) going to early individual adopters of social media too.

For example, I believe I put high quality material on my blogs but I still consider myself extremely fortunate that I took up social media quite early on (this applies particularly to my Strategic HCM blog which was one of the first blogs in the HR space, at least in the UK and Europe).

But once again, you see the same variation between sectors and countries etc.  Even when I first got in blogging I remember seeing that some of the very first adopters, particularly in IT, who had been using bulleting boards for years and years before, were already predicting the death of blogging.  I think that’s complete rubbish as, even today, most people haven’t got into the social media habit at all.

That’s why I think any talk of ‘peak social’ is completely missing the point.  If you’ve been using social media a few years it may feel less exciting than it was (hence the one year tipping point).  But you’ve got to remember that most people haven’t yet experienced that sense of excitement (even if it will be less) at all.

Plus of course, even when / if we do reach the real peak of social media use, social media is only one part of a broader more social approach.  We’re getting to grips with social technology but we’re still in the very earliest phase of understanding how we can make the social organisation work.

And that’s the biggest reason of all for not subscribing to any adoption curve that stretches beyond the specific implementation of social technologies.  For much of the rest of it, we simply don’t really know, and it’s much too early to tell.


Technorati Tags: Enterprise 2.0,social media,maturity,adoption,evolution,strategy,route map


  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com


Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Klout crossfire at #E20S


   I’ve got another two or three posts to complete on the Enterprise 2.0 Summit, but I’ve just been re-reading through all the tweets whilst sitting at Charles de Gaulle.

Twitter has just done another redesign again (why?!) and I don’t really understand the difference between “interactions” and “mentions” but both of these pages are pretty full.

Mainly though just as a result of one lengthy exchange about – well, actually I’m not quite sure.  And it’s not even something I contributed to but was just involved within.



So does my Klout score really deserve a ‘whooooop’ curve (you know, when you go up and down between your toddler’s fingers) as a result of this?

I rather think not.


Anyway, just to note that I’ll be at a session on social influence – one of a number of very interesting events during Social Media Week London next week – and I’ll be blogging (and tweeting) about it here.


BTW, if you’re not sure what Klout is, or what on earth Twitter mentions might be, well I’m now going to explain them here – sorry (but get with the programme!).


Technorati Tags: Klout,twitter,social media,social business,enterprise 2.0,summit,Paris


  • Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

  • Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

  • Contact me to create more value for your business

  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com


#E20S in the social media garden


   Still at the Enterprise 2.0 Summit, Richard Collin has just presented the results of a survey conducted in tandem with the conference – I didn’t manage to note down any of the results.

However, there’s also another interesting piece of research going on at the moment which might appeal to Enterprise 2.0 folk – this is the social media garden using Hybrid Wisdom which was launched at the Web 2.0 conference last year – social media comes to surveying!

You can read more about the approach here.

And respond to the ‘survey’ here. (Note because this is social, the idea is that you respond to some questions yourself, then comment on other peoples’ responses, plus go back later and check how other people have commented on your own responses.)


Technorati Tags: Michael Silverman,Hybrid Wisdom,social media,garden,enterprise 2.0,survey


  • Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing

  • Strategy - Team development - Web 2.0 - Change

  • Contact me to create more value for your business

  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com


Tuesday, 7 February 2012

#E20S Developing social strategy 2


   The second session which resonated with and provoked me was the one on social maturity strategies, ie having a basic strategy is all very well, but this also needs to be tailored according to where the organisation is in its journey.

Again, this gave me a few problems as I don’t believe there is one journey, but I can see how the various challenges which were discussed will be experienced by most organisations implementing 2.0 at some stage.

According to Luis Suarez, most companies go through a stage of initial excitement for those early adopters (weirdos) who are using the new system.  But after about one year, the project reaches a tipping point where the adopters are already using the system and are looking forward to the next big thing; evangelists are thinking about it; but the laggards and luddites still need to be convinced.  So whilst it doesn’t disappear, the project definitely slows down.

You can see this in this SNEP curve (Social Networking Evolution Process – or: Start-up, Neglect, Excitement and Productivity)



I thought this was really interesting, particularly it’s something I’ve had conversations about recently with a couple of clients as well.

I just talked about the standard change curve, and the slightly more specific Gartner hype cycle, but I think the SNEP model has value too.  However, the hype cycle has particular value as it points out that whilst the original benefits may not be achieved, eventually lesser, but more sustainable outcomes are developed.

From this perspective, it doesn’t matter that much, and may even be useful, that the wave of initial over-optimism has passed.


We also had inputs, in a couple of different sessions, from Cordelia Krooss at BASF as well.  BASF have 30000 employees connected -53% of which are collaborators.  Their Community builders facilitate over 2000 communities.  Cordelia uses nSight’s maturity model and described BASF’s journey through test, pilot and introduction phases:

  • During the testing phase it was crucial to involve owners, so BASF performed a stakeholder analysis and invited people to join the extended team.  They got buy-in because they asked them to own the solution – on BASF’s network.
  • In the pilot phase, involving 1000 users, BASF continued to focus on getting on board the right people – ensuring that experts were involved in communications.   They also focused on digital natives as they instinctively knew how to use the platform and use it for open sharing.
  • They’re now at the end of the introduction phase.  This is about balancing the need to cater for business needs and being very individual.  So they come up with general business cases but its hard for employees to see how these can be useful for them.  So Cordelia and her team talk about them rather than BASF Connect – what could be useful in a very individual way.  Then they share best practices with others.  The approach has been so successful that BASF’s advocates naturally promote the tool.
    • Cordelia also made a few points supporting Euan’s perspectives (I think) eg that vision isn’t useful as most employees aren’t interested in it, and that the team has continually been surprised by the benefits people have found from sharing – so there’s a need to be open.
    • I repeat the same point in response – emergence has a role, but you’re going to gain the best benefit by focusing on what you want to achieve – Rawn at least agrees.
    • Strategy doesn’t mean top down.  Cordelia noted that BASF didn’t start with the head quarters – they left this till last, which raised a few eyebrows.  But it sent a really strong signal about them really going global with the approach.  And I fully support this.


That explanation sort of worked.  However the journey then progresses into enterprise-wide usage (as if it’s impossible to do things enterprise wide to start) and then onto the more cultural aspects of OD and E2.0 culture where they won’t need to talk about social because it will be part of everything they do.


That last point is frankly bizarre and reinforces the unfortunate technology-centric focus at the Enterprise 2.0 Summit here, the Social Business Summit in Milan (despite the change in name), the Social Workplace Conference in the UK and the Enterprise 2.0 Conferences in Boston or Santa Clara.

Why should OD have to wait until the technology piece has been done?  In my presentation in Santa Clara I gave Visa Europe as one example of what I consider to be a very advanced (cultural) Enterprise 2.0 organisation although due to huge, and valid, security concerns don’t use any social technologies at all.  Also see this post: Enterprise 2.0 Summary.

It’s time to tear up the route maps, and see technology as just one of a number of levers that E2.0 organisations can pull.


Technorati Tags: Cordelia Krooss,BASF,SNEP,maturity,adoption,social,media,technology,business,enteprise,2.0


  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com


#E20S Developing social strategy 1


   In my last post, I raised concerns about Euan Semple’s reluctance to define a strategy for social media use.  Whilst I understand Euan’s wish to help organisations become less formal, which I support, I whilst I understand the role of emergence, I just believe social is too important to be left to chance.

My views about social are actually a lot closer to those that Rawn Shah from IBM covered at Europe’s Enterprise 2.0 Summit this morning.


1.   Organisations need to understand what the value creation from social technology will be (ideally, in my view, the need for value would drive the use of the technology rather than the other way around).  Eg:

  • Radically innovate models markets products
  • Leverage collective intelligence
  • Innovate through partnerships
  • Cultivate networks and communities of expertise


2.  Social conversations need to be structured to support this so that people know what they need to do (this is my key argument against Euan’s perspective).

In Rawn’s view, the journey is from lower to higher value (I don’t agree that there is one journey, or if there is, that these are the order to value):

  • Capture unstructured data
  • Collaboration and discovery
  • Insight (attention, pattern recognition, semantic research)
  • Transformation – which Rawn sees as embedding social within business processes (supporting process exceptions and avoiding process frustrations).


3.   This needs to be adapted for each line of business as these have slightly different needs (yes).  Eg HR will focus on:

  • Mobilising speed and agility
  • Retaining expertise within the company
  • Improving recruiting and training
  • Creating a culture of sharing.


4.   You then need to develop strategies and execute actions to support this, for example, in the area of HR / workforce optimisation:




Yves Caseau from Bouygues Telecom also came back to the point on business processes, questioning whether we still need them in the new social world and concluding that we do, at least for larger teams (1000 people) in order to support efficiency and execution.  This isn’t necessarily about lots of procedures as the real key to process management is role autonomy:




One of the speakers in a later session (apologies, can’t find my notes) suggested that perhaps processes are less important than this – users know what the business processes are – they don’t need to be told how they work – they just need the tools to be more efficient.

I’m not convinced we do need processes either – but for a different reason.  I think their role is being progressively taken on by networks and communities.  And I certainly don’t see them as being at the heart of transformation.  Processes can take you so far, but you need a supporting culture too – so that people behave a certain way when executing processes, but they behave the same way the rest of the time as well.

Still, a very insightful and entertaining start to the day…


(Note, I’ve got another post on adoption, and one on HR 2.0 (on Strategic HCM) coming up later.


Technorati Tags: Rawn Shah,IBM social,Yves Caseau,Bouygues Telecom,social,media,technology,business,enterprise,2.0,adoption,strategy,processes


  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com


Tweeting Netiquette


   I’ve been reading my ‘mate’ (can I call you that, Euan?), Euan Semple’s new book, Organisations don’t tweet, people do.

There’s a lot of good stuff in here.

For example, there’s some wonderful advice on ROI:

“Consider turning the ROI question on its head.  Given that it appears inevitable that the web and social tools are going to become an even more significant part of how we do things, instead of asking me to justify the ROI of encouraging this process – justify to me the ROI of stopping it.  What is the financial benefit of continuing to do things in inefficient ways when there are more effective alternatives available?  Where is the competitive advantage in preventing staff from using these tools to build and maintain the networks that develop their knowledge and their ability to get things done?  Where is the competitive advantage in allowing your competitors to embrace these changes before you do and potentially re-inventing the industry you are so rigidly clinging to?”


I particularly like Euan’s discussion on social media friending:

“Even if we can learn to cope with the ‘friends’ bit, the other half of ‘real friends’ is problematic too.  What does ‘real’ mean?  Does it mean you have to meet face to face?  Is knowing someone face to face all it’s cracked up to be?  There are people I have worked with for years, working in the same office every day, who I barely know.  Some would argue it is possible to be married to someone and not really know them!  And yet there are many people I consider to be real friends on the internet who I have never met in real life.  Recently I got to meet a blogger I had have been friends with for ten years.  And I mean friends.  Over the ten years we have got to read each other’s thoughts on a whole range of topics and have experienced each other in more thoughtful way than many people in more normal circumstances.”



It’s certainly more apt advice than that published in the FT this morning, which includes:

“Social networking is another area where technology etiquette is still evolving. Tricky questions include whether employees should accept requests from the boss to be friends on Facebook, and if it is ever acceptable to ‘unfriend’ someone on a social networking site.

The answers are ‘no’ and ‘no’. The experts suggest politely declining requests from the boss with an explanation about keeping personal and professional lives separate. Letting a boss see social networking updates will only mean trouble later, if there are embarrassing photos posted by friends, or unwise remarks made about a bad day in the office.

The question of unfriending is harder. It can never be done with delicacy, the experts say, so the best solution may be to close down the account and start again if someone really must be removed a friends list. It is better to be more selective about accepting friends in the first place, than to deal with pruning them later.”


I can’t say I agree with either of these suggestions.  On the first point, it’d be much better to develop a personal rather than simply professional relationship with your boss (not always possible).  And on the second, right, yes, I’ll just delete my 2000 person Linkedin network so I don’t have the delete the person who’s just spammed me – I don’t think so.

However, whilst I vastly prefer Euan’s advice, I think Euan’s book, and the FT article approach the topic from the same angle.  They are about twitter netiquette (‘twetiquette’), about how to behave given the disruptive force of this new technology (and the societal changes which have supported and been reinforced by these technological ones).

Euan explains the primacy of behaviour:

“You can have an overall strategy of behaving in certain ways depending upon how your ecology develops.  It is possible to sell this as a strategy to those who need strategies.”


This would be my only criticism of the book.  And Euan might dismiss my criticism as overly structured and mechanical thinking (I’m sure he would do it nicely) – for him, it’s about ‘managing the mess’ and ‘needing more rubbish’, but I just think the opportunity of social media is just to great just for this.  We need to have a plan that extends beyond the ‘how’ (behaviour) into the ‘what’ (strategy) – and you’re not going to find it in this book.

That’s not to say that you won’t find lots of great advice – you absolutely will.  And you’ll be entertained from Euan’s stories from the BBC and elsewhere at the same time.  You’ll probably even find a few things you didn’t expect.  For example, I definitely recommend reading Euan’s final few words on love.  (And you can then go and vote for my proposal to talk about love at this Summer’s Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston!).


Picture credit: FT (hope they don’t mind a bit of cutting and pasting – it does give them publicity for their article!

Technorati Tags: Euan Semple,Organisations don't tweet people do,twitter,social media,netiquette,twetiquette


  • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
  • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
  • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com


Friday, 3 February 2012

My Enterprise 2.0 Summit Schedule


       I’ll starting to really look forward to the Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Paris next week now.  I’ll be blogging and tweeting on quite a few of the sessions which you can follow via my id @joningham or by following the conference hashtag #e20s.

I thought it might help to let you know which of the sessions I’ll hopefully be attending (though I may change my mind).  Interestingly, though I’d assumed most my sessions would be in the ‘organisational excellence’, most of these are in the ‘project management’ one – perhaps because this is the area I understand least (and I may have to suggest speaking in the organisational / similar area in the summit next year).

All times CET:


Tuesday 7th February

    09:30 - 11:00 Understanding the Social Business Excellence: Rawn Shah, IBM; Yves CaseauExecutive, Bouygues Telecom

    I’ve met Rawn a couple of times in Boston and Santa Clara and I think he’s one of the most insightful people working in this area – so really look forward to this.  Expect more debate about the meaning of social business!


      11:30 - 12:20 Social Maturity Strategies: Frédèric Charles, Lyonnaise des Eaux; Anu Elmer, Swiss Reinsurance Company; Joachim Niemeier, University of Stuttgart; Alexander Richter, Cooperation Systems Center Munich; Luis Suarez, IBM Spain

      This is another key session for me – I’ve talked to Anu before, and met Luis quite a few times, including in Milan last year (and also over a projector screen from Gran Canaria).  And I think the idea of tailoring approaches to different contexts is an absolutely key one in 2.0 implementations.


      13:40 - 14:30 Community & Engagement Management: Joanna Walczak, Lecko; Jerome Colombe, Alcatel-Lucent; Jon Mell, IBM; Björn Negelman, n:sight / Kongress Media

      Should be some good ideas in this session.  I personally believe there are more important benefits of community than engagement, but the connection is a very solid one too.


        14:40 - 15:30 Leveraging the Social Business Deployment: Johan Lybaert, Cegeka; Ludovic Dubost. xWiki; Mark Masterson, CSC Computer Sciences Limited

        ‘Challenges the correlation of adoption and deployment’ – No idea what this is supposed to be about, but look forward to finding out.


          16:00 - 16:40 Realizing an Enterprise-Wide Assessment: Patrick Rumpel Abteilungsleiter, Allianz Deutschland; Michael Wegscheider, Allianz Deutschland; Lee Provoost, Dachis Group

          More challenging correlations in this one.  I met Lee briefly as he was a panel member in the Social Workplace conference I chaired last year, and look forward to hearing more…

          However, I might change my mind on this one and go and see Cordellia Krooss from BASF, who I saw in Milan last year, and others – speaking about the role of the Enterprise 2.0 Manager.


            16:50 - 18:30 On the Road to the Model of the Social Enterprise: Richard Collin, Grenoble Ecole de Management; Jean-Christophe Kugler, Renault


            Wednesday 8th February

            08:50 - 09:40 Models for the Social Business Transformation, Nicolas Rolland, Danone; Jerome Colombe, Alcatel-Lucent; Luis Suarez,IBM Spain

            I’ve come across Nicholas’ work quite a few times but have never met / heard him before so am really looking forward to this.

            Shame though that I’ll miss two of the best speakers in 2.0: Bertrand Duperrin and Emanuele Quintarelli


            09:50 - 10:40 Defining the Social Business Analytics: Peter Kim, Dachis Group; Guillaume, LECKO; Alexander Richter, Cooperation Systems Center Munich

              A quickly changing area, so looking forward to this one too..


              11:10 - 11:30 Dundu - The philosophy that can change a group: Fabian SeewaldDirector, Dundu-Teambuilding



              11:30 - 12:40 Interactive Roundtables: Jane McConnell, Frédéric Williquet, Fabian Seewald, Bertrand Duperrin, Jean-François Ayel, Björn Negelmann

                More DUNDU


                14:00 - 15:00 Future Roadmap of Social Business Technology: Ludovic Dubost, xWiki; Tarik Lebtahi, Dassault Systemes; Dennis O'Malley, Moxie Software; Sunny Paris, YOOLINK; Thomas Pich, blogSpirit; Stefano Pogliani, IBM France; Christophe Routhieau, blueKiwi


                15:00 - 16:15 Next-Generation Eco-System and its key success factors: Dion Hinchcliffe, Dachis Group

                I’ve seen Dion present the same presentation a couple of times, so we’ll have to see about this – I might have a look at what else is on in Paris…


                Anyway, I hope readers of this blog will follow along with at least some of the sessions – or that I may even see you in Paris next week!

                To register, visit here, and use the booking code 20ambassadorji for a 10% discount on the current registration fee.  There are still also some reduced, special prices for ‘consultants’, defined as freelancers and staff members of consulting firms with 20 employees or less.


                Technorati Tags: Enterprise 2.0,social business,Europe,summit,conference


                • Consulting  - Research - Speaking  -  Training -  Writing
                • Strategy   -  Team development  -  Web 2.0  -  Change
                • Contact  me to  create  more  value  for  your  business
                • jon [dot] ingham [at] social [dash] advantage [dot] com