The leading Crowdfunding consultancy

Advocating Crowdsourcing – Accenture and Deloitte join the drive

Crowdassets are becoming the key source of competitive advantage. We have said this for a long time now and it seems some of the bigger consultancies are catching on – at last. But do they really get it?

We have endeavoured to share the breadth and diversity of opportunity available in the crowdasset model and assist organisations to move to a more crowd enabled strategy. For example our Presentation “Social Media at Work” at the Think Digital event, back in 2012, offered a quick fire introduction to it. But it’s not been an easy path. These ideas have often been considered unconventional at best and positively crazy at worst.

But founded in the thinking of people like Yochai Benkler’s Wealth of Networks, Henry Chesbrough’s Open Innovation and the Erik Von Hippel’s work on Sources of Innovation these “Open For Business” models are now being shown to be both academically, practically, socially, technically and, increasingly, commercially valid.

We have progressively developed the crowdasset model and the techniques associated with helping organisations to identify where these opportunities exist and how they can work to tap into them and integrate them strategically. The robustness of our models have allowed us to place all the emerging trends into the horizon of the crowdasset model. So crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, collaborative economy, prediction markets, viral communication, open sourcing, open innovation and many other potential crowdempowered approaches for commercial and civic application.

Recently we have seen Accenture and Deloitte, in their respective 2014 Technology Trends publications, highlighted crowdsourcing as a major emerging trend and point to some good examples of how firms like GE, BMW and Mastercard are entering this sector.

This is good to see and we welcome their adoption and championing of the vision and recommend a read of both of the reports.

But it’s worth looking a little deeper to see if they truly do “get it”.

The reports are, perhaps understandably, approaching these opportunities from a technology led stand point. This after all is the stock in trade of both firms and the thread for the reports. But in crowd driven approaches it is a mistake to focus on the technology. Technology is merely the enabler, the value and the asset itself is based in the crowd and it is from the perspective of where the value lies that any strategic approach to utilising it must be approached. Of course it is necessary to have a technical understanding but many, indeed most, firms will have sufficient technical infrastructure in place to profit from the crowdasset economy, but what they might lack is the knowledge of how to unlock that, the mindset to consider it, or the culture to embrace it, and this is where we come in to help.

We would assert that the solution is much more behavioural and culturally led and, if there is a need for additional technology, and there probably isn’t, this will follow after the strategic approach has been established.

One of the features of the crowdasset framework we use to help both explain and explore the crowd empowered business opportunity is an expression of the degree to which the power relationships change as an organisation becomes “open for business”, and how much trust is a key feature. To operate effectively in a trust based environment behaviours and approaches that might challenge many strongly held management assumptions and principles need to be adopted.

So in reviewing the two reports from these major consultancies it’s a little troubling to find Paul Daugherty – Chief Technology Officer at Accenture – using such un-reconstructed and un-open language to describe the crowd as a “work force” as opposed to partners and collaborators, and seems to focus on the value of using this asset being primarily in the notion that the crowd might “do it for free”. This is not the primary value of the vast majority of crowd based transactions. In most crowdsourcing it is the unique, novel and wide insight and expertise that is the value to be found in the crowd and not that you might get it “for free”.

We also read that to Accenture “Channeling these efforts to drive business goals is a challenge”. We would say that in many crowd based circumstances you don’t “channel”. You might nudge, nurture, influence and encourage but channeling sounds far too direct and controlling to work well in the crowd.

The use of such language and to not grasp the real asset value is to suggest that perhaps the level of sophistication in how to develop a sustainable strategic advantage from taping into crowd assets is not quite there yet in Accenture.

For Deloitte there are some more positive indications. For them the application of crowdsourcing may not be intuitive” – this is most certainly the case.

They recognize some of the cultural challenges in adopting crowd based approaches suggesting that  “Incentive structures, performance management, operating models, and delivery models may, in some cases, need to be redrawn” and they see it is apart of a broader shift in the way the business is run by suggesting that we should “ use crowdsourcing as a tangible example of the shift to social  business.” This is entirely correct and to properly create value from the crowd and to truly create value from its disruptive power requires significant readjustment and a more holistic and encompassing approach.

They show understanding of how this can be challenging for all involved by asserting that “Employees may feel threatened by crowdsourcing” – quite so, and it is important to manage that process effectively to reduce resistance to the activity.

Some of the practical changes are also acknowledged  “Leaders should foster a culture where appropriate crowd experiments are encouraged while minimizing security, privacy, and compliance risks.” Indeed so, a process we would refer to as adopting “safe fail” as opposed to “fail safe” projects.

In a clarion call they evangelise the new initiative with the words “Leading companies are blasting through corporate walls with industrialized solutions to reach broader crowds capable of generating answers and executing tasks faster and more cost effectively than employees.” All encouraging and correct albeit with still a narrow focus on cost advantage and couched in a bit of hyperbole laden corporate speak.

They round off with “The crowd is waiting and willing. How will you put it to work?” a sentiment we would wholeheartedly endorse, and have done for some years.

So all in all of the two I am more minded to the Deloitte offering but as you might expect I would suggest twintangibles have a better handle on it than either of them!

 

The Web, The future of Business and Being Prepared

On Wednesday FutureLearn was launched in the UK. An ambitious initiative which sees a group of Universities entering the MOOC (massive open online courses) learning space offering a range of free courses in flexible formats through a variety of devices.

It’s an extraordinary development and is the logical extension of initiatives like the Open University which tapped into the technical innovations of its time with TV led teaching, distance learning and videotapes.

A fascinating range of courses are on offer, on subjects as diverse as Richard III, Game programming, Branding, Higgs Boson to teeth photography – yes, there is one on teeth photography, I didn’t make it up.

But one that caught my eye is perhaps oddly a nod towards the FutureLearn initiative itself. Called “Web science: how the web is changing the world” it is offered by the University of Southampton and describes the course as being about “how the web has changed our world in the past 25 years and what might happen next.”

That could be fascinating and I hope it looks at the extraordinary impact and possibilities that the web has had on the world of business.

In much the same way as some of us can look back over a period of development in innovation in the delivery of education, we can also reflect on the transformation in our business lives brought about by social and collaborative technology. In my first role in business, at a 50 seat firm more that 30 years ago, we had two phone lines into the building and a manual switch board who might place a call for you if you asked nicely. Manual typewriters, routine casual sexism, bad ties and rigid hierarchy were all de rigueur. Suggesting that everyone in the firm might have had a phone on their desk would have been quickly dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic, had we had the opportunity to speak up about anything. What would my old boss have made of smartphones, social media and wikis? Doesn’t bear thinking about.

But the developments are never ending. Crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, open innovation, social business, collaborative consumption, the makers movement and social knowledge are all founded in the possibilities for interaction and collaboration that technology provides. They force us to rethink many of our most soundly held thinking about how business is done, and consider how the previously uneconomic becomes suddenly economic, the impossible possible and the unthinkable thinkable. This constantly innovates new threats and opportunities for all business on all sector and all locations.

In such a fast moving and disruptive environment it can be hard to keep up. And that is where we come in. We are constantly investigating the emerging waves of the digital business world and love to help our clients understand, innovate and thrive in a world changed and enhanced through the advent of social and collaborative technologies and the cultures that underpin them.

We don’t predict the future, we just help guide people through it.

More Maslow Musings

More Maslow Musings
Barry Wellman’s kind post to the earlier Maslow post made me meditate a little more on Maslow. Pyramids turn up in management thinking all the time, the same sort of regularity to the 2×2 matrix, and I  get a bit uneasy whenever I see them.
My caution may be a little bit irrational I suppose, but I think it is founded in the notion that with most of the pyramidal arrangements typically we are encouraged to aspire to a linear journey from the base to the peak and that the peak is expressed as a constrained area by comparison to the base – hence the pyramid. It is intended to reflect scarcity through a paucity of achievement at the peak. However I fear that too often it is deemed to demonstrate a constraining factor based on the limiting of availability. So if we were to extend this to a Maslow example we go from saying that few achieve self actualisation to few want to or can achieve self actualisation.
At its worst (and in my view deeply mistaken circumstances) Maslow’s model can and is used in this more negative way in an organisational context where motivating factors and behaviours are overlaid onto a typical organisational hierarchy. The hierarchy implies that exclusivity of self-actualisation is only applied to the executive or C-level roles, and that those lower down the pyramid’s layers and hierarchy don’t, won’t or can’t find these more “enlightened” motivations attractive or available.
I have always felt this is thoroughly mistaken, and believe that the social media environment is a remarkable demonstration of an alternative model where people engage for all sorts of motivations. The point of entry is not necessarily through the base and, perhaps more importantly, it is not some exclusive group that is self-actualised. Indeed, we often refer to the transformational possibilities of the online environment through its capacity to lower barriers – not through raising aspiration. Perhaps this changing model is reflected in social businesses moving towards less hierarchical models by acknowledging the breadth of aspiration and multiplicity of motivation.
So, in this context, perhaps a pyramid is not a useful shape – maybe a simple box where each level is equally well represented would help with people entering at any level?
But for me this still doesn’t go far enough as you are bounded by imposed perceptions of what are “important” motivators. Entering at the “top” doesn’t make us all “meta-motivated”. Surely then we can find a path through a basket of motivations, individually selected and reflecting a much richer and complex mix of behaviours, with no specific linear path through, and with equal implied value and importance.

So does this take us to a segmented pentagon model?

I am not sure what the conclusions to all these musing are – but it perhaps should act as a reminder to us all that our motivations are complex and mixed and that rigid or linear models of thinking have IMHO less strength in the complex hyper-connected organizations we can now inhabit.

Maslow Renewed

Social Media, Networked Individualism and Maslow

Social Media, Networked Individualism and Maslow

We talk a good deal about the mindset or psychology of social media and in particular the motivation to participate and be social and how. One aspect of note is how the “non traditional” expectations of return challenge some of our widely and traditionally held business assumptions. An excellent example of this is Coase’s Penguin where Yochai Benkler sets out how the development of open source software – this case Linux – seems to call into question Coase’s model of economic production.

I was intrigued then to read this account of a presentation made by Prof. Barry Wellman at the sixth annual Charles Gordon Lecture on Society and Design at Carleton University setting out some research and thinking about the nature of our relationships in a social media, hyper connected environment. Now for the record I have never believed that the internet is disconnecting people or fragmenting society, but social media mindset tends to emphasise the collective aggregation of iterative or granular activity to achieve a larger impact. This paper however emphasises the idea of networked individualism.

The reason I find it interesting is because it perhaps contributes to a debate about the relevance and applicability of a model I have felt is increasingly challenged in a Social media enabled world. That model is Maslow and his much referenced hierarchy of needs. One of the most widely held criticisms of Maslow is that of Hofsetde and, at the risk of over simplifying the argument, a key component in the debate is the applicability of the model in societies that have either high levels of individuality, or at the other extreme, a greater sense of collectivism. At its most base level, it boils down to the idea that the model is applicable to highly individualised environments and begins to break down in the increasingly collective.

I don’t take issue with Professor Wellmans assertions, I think it stokes a debate and I just wonder how mutually exclusive the individualism and collectivism are in a hyper connected world and if they are, perhaps, able to exist simultaneously.

After all, in complex environments with masses of independent agents we can see flocking and coalescing, our tasks is to find ways of encouraging that behaviour to create value, perhaps through crowdfunding or campaigning for example. If we take Dave Snowden’s Cynefin model, the idea of “probe sense respond” in a complex environment still embraces the idea of an individual’s initial action.

If so, does this erode the relevance of the model yet further. Don’t know – what do you think?

 

 

Image courtesy of http://www.pachd.com/free-images/

Social Media inside the firewall

Social Media inside the firewall

We often talk about the social media mindset. It should be clear to anyone by now that what we’ve been going through in the past few years has been a cultural and behavioural shift rather than a technological one. All the various tools we’ve been working with are tools that ultimately enable us to share and communicate with the world, be it the world wide web, our local community, our network of friends, or our workplace. And that’s exactly where we’re going to focus our attention in this and further posts on the potential of Social Media “inside the firewall”.

Social Media can – and should – be used internally as a mechanism for improving business performance. The internal use of social media goes under many names: social businessenterprise 2.0corporate social networking being some of the most popular, and they all include in their definitions different nuances of meaning. It’s basically a way of working that embeds the principles of Social Media revolution: many-to-many communication, collaboration, co-brainstorming, transparency, trust, participation, inclusiveness, co-creation, flattening of hierarchies. After all intranets were born before the internet, and they can easily work in the same way, by providing a platform for conversation, knowledge sharing and creation, content management, crowdsourcing, co-innovation, and so on. And as it’s happening with externally-facing Social Media, it’s not only about reduced emails, but it can have a much more holistic impact, going from improved – and self-organising – organizational structure, reward and recognition mechanisms, workforce motivation and morale, and so on.

As part of our ongoing research activity on yet another interesting aspect of Social Media, we came across an ever-growing number of platforms that are being used as private/internal social networks. We produced the tag cloud you can see below, generated by collating the texts of the descriptions of a number of these platforms (data gathered – among the rest – from the latest Gartner‘s Magic Quadrant for Social Software for the Workplace, and Forrester‘s Wave for Enterprise Social Platforms). Not surprisingly, all the platforms share a clear focus on social, and they often mention words like communities, collaboration, networking, creation, expertise, knowledge, learning, conversation, information.

 

Analysing their descriptions and functionalities, customer reports,       opinion pieces, users blog  posts we started noticing some common themes and models they seem to be converging around, as well as the advantages and  drawbacks according to the current users. In the same vein, last Tuesday we were invited to London  to an event organized by one of the fastest-growing internal social networks, Yammer, which we’ve been using during Social Media Week Glasgow to collaborate and share information, experiences and insights with other city partners. The event was hosted by Yammer founder and CEO, David Sacks, and enriched with the experiences of Yammer users Peter Kemper of Shell; Laurie Hibbs of Lexis Nexis and Suzanne Masters of ACCA. We will be sharing with you more on the above and further insights on the subject   in future posts.

 

Contacts

Call: +44(0)7717 714 595

Join Our Mail List

twintangibles Ltd is a company registered in Scotland with company number SC397987. Registered office is Blue Square House, 272 Bath Street, Glasgow, Scotland, G2 4JR

Correspondence Address is:
twintangibles, Blue Square House, 272 Bath Street, Glasgow, Scotland, G2 4JR