Emergent Collaboration

Mike Jacobs from Chess Media Group presented at AIIM’s conference in 2012. I discovered iton YouTube last night (click here to view it).

In his talk on Emergent Collaboration, he described a social business framework. This consists of 5 main areas:

  • Process
  • Organizational Culture
  • Governance
  • Goals and Objectives
  • Technology 

These 5 areas were further broken down into various sub-areas, You can click on the image below to see more on this.

This really got me thinking…you need to cover all five areas to make sure the adoption of a collaboration strategy is sucessful. Just having one is not really enough.

For example… having the technology is important, but this by itself is not enough…

BLUG – I’ll be there

BLUG

I’m going to the Belux Lotus User Group conference that is being held in Antwerp, Belgium.

Am I a big Lotus user? No – not really.

Then why am I going? Because the sessions they’ve got lined up look excellent!

There are three main streams – Development, Administration, and Business/Other. I’ll be attending the “Business/Other” sessions.

Social Business

At this years “Lotusphere” (IBM’s big conference), there was a big focus on Social Business. And and looks like this will be playing a big part at BLUG.

After what looks like a very interesting Opening Keynote, there will be a Panel Discussion on  ”Social Business”. Does this “buzzword” actually has any credence?

Members of the “Panel” include Luis Suarez, who has been living without e-mail the last 4 years, Femke Goedhart, an IBM Champion (and someone that I met at a SharePoint event last year), Stuart McIntyre, a Social Business Consultant (and author of the blog Collaboration Matters, and Chris Miller (aka IdoNotes) from Connectria.

This is one discussion I’m looking forward to.

Further in the “Business/Other” stream there will also be sessions on Cloud Computing, Balancing freedom the freedom of social media with the corporate restrictions that are often necessary, hearing how to “survive” in the business world without e-mail, as well as some other interesting sessions.

As I mentioned, I’m not a big “Lotus” person, but I feel that you can learning can come from all different sources. So I’m ready to learn. I’ll be there with my notepad (yes – the paper-based version) taking notes.

I’m also looking forward to meeting some of the IBM/Lotus crowd. (If you see me there, come and say “Hello”).

Nerd Girls

And…before I forget - I’m looking forward to seeing the Nerd Girls. At Lotusphere 2012, these girls organised the “Spark Talks”. These talks are very, very good (and inspiring). I wrote about one of the Spark Talks in an earlier post, and I am keen to see what the girls have organised this time.

Better Knowledge-Sharing: Fill The Dry Knowledge Well With These Practices

The post below was written by Sebastian Francis in 2010 for OilandGasInvestor.com.
At that time Sebastian worked for SAIC.

It’s an excellent article that describes describes some major concerns with knowledge management (including the capturing of tacit knowledge) along with making that knowledge retrievable and useful.
I’m grateful that Sebastian has given me permission to reproduce it here.

————————————————————————–

Better Knowledge-Sharing: Fill The Dry Knowledge Well With These Practices

- a Guest Post by Sebastian Francis

Here are a variety of quick and easy ways to share important business information each generation needs to know.

Today, a popular need of organizational leaders is how to quickly identify, capture and reuse information from employees who are retiring, or about to do so, for these people have industry expertise and can make it quickly available to those who need it.

The ability to quickly access the right information can improve competitive position, promote innovation, reduce rework and errors, and increase the speed to identify new opportunities.

Unfortunately, searching for information (such as proven practices, lessons from prior unsuccessful attempts, tips and techniques, documented procedures and, most important, experience and intuitive expertise locked in the heads of individuals) can take far too much time.

As the crew shift change continues—Baby Boomers retire in mass and few Generation X and Y talent enter the oil and gas industry—leaders have an opportunity to manage this shift by leveraging the latest information-sharing technologies and methods. To meet business strategy, many leaders crave the ability to “google like Google.” They desire to create a deep reservoir of information that replenishes itself and deploy methods and tools that will enable each generation to find the right information within a few clicks.

Too often, organizations rely on only one method, such as launching communities of practice, conducting after-action reviews, and promoting the use of best practices. Or, they use a limited number of technologies such as social networking tools, content repositories and search engines, and use the same solution across the board. This tends to produce dry knowledge wells.

A savvy strategy begins with understanding the needs of the internal talent group: Who has the information and who needs it? Next is meeting unique requirements by implementing several methods and technologies to create custom solutions. Characteristics of the solution should emulate popular knowledge-sharing practices that occur outside the organization.

Understanding generational issues

“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.”
–Strother Martin, Cool Hand Luke, 1967 film starring Paul Newman

Communication problems are as old as human history. Bridging gaps is a continual challenge, and industry leaders need to know how to capitalize on overcoming those gaps.

Within the oil and gas industry (as well as in other industries), there are four generations of talent: Traditionalists (birth years 1925-1945), Baby Boomers (1946-1965), Generation X (1966-1980) and Generation Y (1981-2000). Since the 1990s, professional journals have alerted oil and gas leaders that the Baby Boomers, now the largest percentage of the workforce, are exiting the workforce at an alarming rate. The potential consequences include: 
Increased competition for talent. Due to the decrease in skilled talent following the retirement of the Traditionalists and Baby Boomers, competition for workers with required professional degrees and experience will increase. 
Shifting geography. Technology enables talent to work from anywhere and teleworking is becoming more commonplace; therefore, organizations will be able to source talent globally. This shift will affect organizational communication, strategy and business processes.
Shifting generation. The corporate leaders of tomorrow will most likely be talent from Generations X and Y. Currently, organizations are balancing the activities of retiring two groups and preparing the organization for two others, while not neglecting any.
Aging workforce. A majority of Baby Boomers are predicted to exit the workforce by 2015 and are followed by a much smaller group of talent, Generation X. In addition, the next generations of talent have different learning styles, communication preferences and work/life balance requirements than their predecessors. To recruit, retain and develop the next generation of talent, organizations must recognize and adapt to these styles.
Lost information and tacit knowledge. As Traditionalists and Baby Boomers exit organizations, some for the last time, so will their communal know-how—their tacit knowledge—especially if it has not been adequately identified, captured, codified and stored in corporate knowledge repositories.
Preparing and training talent. The fact that Traditionalists and Baby Boomers are retiring does not mean that they will not re-enter the workforce in some capacity, such as starting a new career, or working as a consultant or part-time employee. In some cases, organizations will be able to leverage veteran expertise in this way. As a result, organizations will need to update the skills of these workers, or train them along with other new hires. Thus, learning/training departments may simultaneously have to train several generations, each having distinctly different learning styles. This can perplex learning organizations that do not understand the needs of each generation.

Bridging generational gaps to improve knowledge management

“When you’re 17 years old, green and inexperienced, you’re grateful for any guidance and direction you can get.”
–Christina Aguilera, pop singer

Leaders who recognize and respond to generational communication and learning commonalities and differences, can bridge gaps and prepare for the future.

Different generations favor different learning styles. Traditionalists and Baby Boomers usually prefer face-to-face, classroom and instructor-led training activities. In contrast, Generations X and Y may resist formal training sessions and prefer to connect to people informally and quickly search all information sources. Technology tools, such as handheld devices and social-networking sites, facilitate their fast connections to information.

Traditionalists and Baby Boomers tend to communicate using formal and personal methods, such as writing e-mails, meeting face to face and holding conference calls. In contrast, Generations X and Y usually like just the right amount of information, when and where they need it, such as sending abbreviated text and instant messages, and meeting via online chat sessions.

When information exchange is effective, employees seeking information receive what they need—a knowledge gem. Unfortunately, during communication, valuable information is often lost because the organization does not have an easy-to-use method of identifying and systematically collecting and depositing gained knowledge into a repository.

Capturing critical knowledge

“Any customer can have a car painted any color he wants, so long as it is black.”
–Henry Ford

Because the talent of today and tomorrow is multi-generational, a one-size-fits-all approach to information capture, collaboration and reuse does not work. What works are multiple approaches that consider each member of the audience.

Now that the typical characteristics of each generation group is understood, the next step is to understand the two phases of information flow: capturing it and accessing it for re-use. Let’s explore two key steps to capturing it.

– Step One: Understand and identify knowledge that fuels the organization.
What information, knowledge and expertise is valuable to the organization? Some businesses are uncertain and attempt to capture all information regardless of value. A better practice is to identify critical business processes and their associated performance targets across the organization’s value chain. In other words, identify the most important business activities that yield success, are vital to avoid failure, and identify where information gaps exist.
Analyzing key processes, creating knowledge maps and interviewing stakeholders will lead to key process identification. The output will assist leaders in understanding where the information is located, who has it and the prerequisites for information capture.

– Step Two: Capture what’s important.
Information and know-how are scattered throughout an organization in e-mails, individual and networked hard drives, binders containing operating procedures and training manuals, SharePoint or other Internet sites, conversations around water coolers, and within people’s heads.

Knowledgeable organizations use a variety of capture activities such as on-the-job team learning processes before, during and after major activities and are supplemented, when relevant, through a series of individual interviews.

“Learning before doing” is supported by a peer-assist process, which targets a specific challenge, imports knowledge from people outside the team, identifies possible approaches to address obstacles and new ideas, and promotes sharing of information and knowledge with talent through a facilitated meeting.

A U.S. Army technique called After Action Reviews involves talent in “learning while doing” by answering four questions immediately after completing each key activity: What was supposed to happen? What actually happened? Why is there a difference? What can we learn from it?

At the end of a given project or accomplishment, a process called a Retrospect encourages team members to look back at the project to discover what went well and why, with a view to helping a different team repeat their success and avoid any pitfalls.

A critical component of capture technique requires an effective method to record information that is comfortable for the information providers and appeals to the information seeker. For example, a Baby Boomer’s preferred sharing method could be a written report. In contrast, a Gen Y would have no interest in such and would ignore it.

This issue raises the importance of using a variety of communication methods as well as an opportunity to emulate information and knowledge-sharing practices that occur outside the organization.

Social-networking sites such as Facebook, Wiki sites such as Wikipedia, and video-sharing sites, such as YouTube, are popular tools for capturing information, connecting with people, sharing ideas, searching for information and viewing content. Such sites are popular, free and used by each generation. Instead of inventing something new, organizations can transfer popular features from public sites into the design and functionality of corporate tools. 

For example, attaching a webcam to a laptop or using a smartphone instantly equips anyone with just-in-time ability to capture information, especially dialogue and images that are challenging to document. A handheld production studio allows for ad hoc or planned capture of interviews with experts, after-action reviews, safety procedures, an equipment repair procedure, etc.

Uploading multimedia files (sound bites and video clips) to a knowledge repository creates a powerful capture and sharing opportunity. The “YouTube” approach makes it possible for any employee to post a video to a corporate site so that any team member can watch it instantly. “Nu-tube” is the name of a concept that a nuclear energy company gives its effort.

Launching pop technology is “hip” when end-users are engaged, needs are understood and the solution meets their requirements.

Make Information Accessible Quickly and Easily

“I try to learn from the past, but I plan for the future by focusing exclusively on the present. That’s where the fun is.” 
–Donald Trump

With a plan now for perpetually capturing valuable information, people must be enable to access and use it. Two steps help to achieve success here. The first is to leverage technology to visually present information. The second is to involve end-users in the design of the sharing process. The following case study describes these two steps in action.

Recently, a U.S. pipeline service company realized that critical information trickled throughout its business unit. The increasing inability of talent to readily tap information sources sharply diminished the value of stored resources. The service company encountered several challenges to make information available.

The overwhelming amount of information to capture, organize, store and manage caused employees to spend days (then) versus minutes (now) searching data.

A document repository contained unmanaged versions and uncontrolled copies of files scattered in network file shares, laptops, intranet sites, CDs, flash drives and filing cabinets.

Other challenges were increasing regulatory constraints, litigation and business-continuity issues, and the rising need to capture “know how” from retiring staff.

Considering generational changes as an opportunity to plan for the future and social-networking tools as an opportunity to innovate, leaders acted. The result is “e-discovery,” a solution that increases the speed to find reporting information from across disparate business units, regulatory-compliance improvements and business-performance enhancements.

Solution highlights include preserving content on an enterprise level versus only at an individual level, implementing a self-service information portal, facilitating contextual and “smart” search, and reducing administrative costs of managing paper records.

The method of designing this solution contributed to its success. The e-discovery design team:
– Identified the valuable information needed to comply with legal requirements,
– Understood learning, technology and communication preferences of each generation,
– Devised methods to allow users to share and access information in multiple formats and
–Designed a tool that emulates features of popular social-networking sites (easy, visual presentation of information, collaboration, smart search and dashboards).

The e-discovery impact on the pipeline business segment includes preparing litigation-status reports in one step versus multiple steps; retrieving archived documents in minutes versus days; eliminating risks associated by damage to paper-based files; reducing employee frustration of not finding who or what they need; and serving as a solution model for re-use within the enterprise.

And most importantly this method helped all generations of talent quickly find the right information when they needed it, so that they can perform their job.

“Diamonds are forever.”
–De Beers ad

Information can be a valuable organizational asset when people can quickly recall where it is stored.

Fortunately, organizations have an abundance of internal information sources: documents, expertise, lessons learned, best practices and the like. Unfortunately, waves of experts are leaving or retiring, usually without depositing their rich knowledge or revealing the location of information “gems” critical to performing business processes.

Leaders can respond by providing a variety of communication and learning methods, leveraging popular social-networking technologies, and embracing the uniqueness of each generation. The impact for the organization can be a rich field of valuable information that continuously replenishes itself.

Note – this article can also be downloaded here.

Test Driving the Bottlenose

It’s amazing how you can stumble upon things. In reviewing the results of a Google Alert for “Hootsuite”, I came across a reference to a new Twitter client called “Bottlenose“.

Bottlenose looks like a pretty powerful tool. You can read about it in this post on allthingsd.com, and check out, on the Bottlenose site, the “tour” of its features.

I have just signed up, and I’ve got to admit, it looks impressive. I understand that the beast is still in BETA, and that there are a few limitations, but I am going to give it a good try out over the next couple of weeks.

I’ll let you know how things go…

Summary of The Pharma Summit 2012 – by someone who was there

The following is an excellent overview that Carolyn Buck Luce has written on her blog of The Pharma Summit 2012, recently held in London . (Everything below is hers. The highlighting, however, is mine, and I have added my own comments.)

Clearly some very interesting topics have been discussed. And from Carolyn’s excellent notes, it’s readily apparent that there is a huge move in this industry.

—————————————————————

Insights from Economist Pharma Summit – Finding New Directions

Here are some insights that are “sign posts” of Pharma 3.0 where the patient is in the middle, not the product and the focus is on delivering health outcomes to individuals at an economic benefit for health systems and society.

  • GSK CFO, Simon Dingeman, observed that in emerging markets most medicines are paid for “out of pocket” by individuals. This reality has spurred a different business model by more closely integrating the Consumer, Pharmaceutical and Vaccines businesses to focus on ultimate customer.
  • Bruno Strigini, Merck President of Europe/Canada — reflected on the demise and bankruptcy of Kodak and observed that in hindsight the trends were visible to all but changing a business model is exceedingly hard. This is quite analogous to the pharma industry where it has to move to delivering outcomes. For Merck this includes increasing innovative partnerships with non traditional players like food and IT companies and building solutions and services.
  • Managing Director of GAVI, Nina Schwalbe, discussed that every two minutes a woman dies of cervical cancer but now, based on the system working together, there is a vaccine for this.
  • Stephen Whitehead, CEO ABPI, and Bruno Strigini, Merck President Europe/Canada
    — Fascinating conversation about value and outcomes. Everyone agrees that today there is not a common definition of what is the optimal health outcome with payors, patients, doctors and pharma having different perspectives. All stake holders have a role in the measures to assess value. And this can include a range of interventions to innovations. For example, if a pill can be taken once a day instead of 4 times a day could increase patient adherence and is therefore a valuable intervention.
  • Patrick Flochel, EY, observed that we are in the health business not the sick business. The HC system needs to put the patient in the middle. And the HC system will be shifting to health care everywhere – beyond the two pillars of the doctors office and hospital to the “the third place(s)” —wherever the patient/health care consumer is.
  • Theresa Heggle, Shire: A shift from provider to payor with the patient at the center has helped Shire shift their focus to the needs and value to the patient. Working with rare and orphan diseases, Shire works closely with patient organizations and families, possibly a model for the future of “personalized” medicines. There are already 300-350 drugs for orphan diseases and over 7000 such diseases.
  • John Pottage, ViiV: HIV is a good example of patient at the center model where patients literally took an activist part to become equal partners in innovation and regulatory process. Relationships, incentives, roles and responsibilities, data transparency etc were redefined.
    Now, ViiV is an example of a business model where the focused resources of two large companies contributed to a new company that is focused on just one disease with extensive partnerships and collaborations, from medicine to delivery with the patient at the center.
  • Wendy White, Siren Interactive. Patients and caregivers with rare disorders are now frequently the primary drivers of diagnosis and treatments given their active use of internet and mobile technology to get educated. Their activity can be predictors for future innovations as innovation happens at the margins.
  • Fascinating conversation about the value of transparency and data.
    For example everyone publishes what IS working in clinical trials but there is a wealth of insights in the data of what didn’t work but those data are not published in an easily accessible way.
    On Social media —notwithstanding the regulatory constraints of using social media in interactions with doctors and patients, pharma companies are beginning to dip their toe in by listening. However, there are challenges —in part due to the quick response expectations that don’t leave time for appropriate reflection and educated deliberations. Building trust is key to the industry so missteps in social media would be a real setback for the industry.
    (This is an excellent point. Listening, however, is an excellent start. There is a continual stream of incredibly useful feedback that the patients are giving. – Mark)
  • Sir Andrew Dillon, Chair of NICE — the trend of value-based pricing will continue. This is a growing trend that will touch both developed and developing markets.
    Sir Andrew encourages pharma companies to not “run away” from the developed markets to find countries without this approach as there will eventually be a NICE-like agency in China and India etc. The future will have funders, providers, innovators and users working more closely together earlier and earlier in the process to come up with good decisions. There will always be tensions but they can be creative tensions that produce value for health systems and better outcomes for patients.
  • Anders Ekbloom AZ - it was interesting to hear his perspective on what the innovators need from the payers:
    • reward value that medicines contribute to the overall cost of health
    • create trust by considering all the relevant data and being transparent in rules for decision making
    • insure rigor in how decisions are made to insure they reflect the needs of the population
    • justify decisions with clarity and give innovators opportunity to reflect and react
    • go faster as sometimes it takes payers up to a year after approval to agree on price but the IP clock is ticking

In the end, innovators have a long lead time and are making big investments. The more harmonized, clear and transparent rules and decision making across boundaries are with respect to reimbursement, the greater the win for all.

  • Reflections upon listening to Brian Griffin, CEO Medco International on Patient Data and how it will transform the Pharma Industry:
    Many of the health systems strategies around bending the cost curve through cutting prices has not been effective and the focus is turning to increased adherence which will be driven in part by better data —integrated, actionable and accessible to stakeholders, including investors.Facts in Europe. — 50% of patients don’t take medicines. This is made up of 1/3 don’t fill their prescriptions; 1 in 10 stop taking their pills; 1/2 forget to finish regimen and 1/4 of all patients don’t take recommended dose. This costs pharma companies in Europe $125B and causes 200,000 premature deaths per year.Focusing on real of use patient data and offering an integrated medication support package with a suite of adherence services can make a real difference and provide the base line improvements that support demonstration of value. These real use data will also provide key insights on patient behavior that will help build incentives and interventions to improve adherence and safety.
  • Freda Lewis-Hall, Chief Medical Officer Pfizer and HBA 2011 Woman of the Year, spoke on The Future of Medicines – The Disruptive Innovators.
    As usual, Freda had compelling perspectives of the future from the patient perspective and the need to approach this with a sense of urgency. She made the point that disruptive innovation is only disruptive in hindsight.
    Pharma can’t lower performance or be all things to all people – ie better, faster, cheaper – given the imperative to move to targeted precision therapies. More important that we start asking disruptive questions like 1) how to best characterize diseases, and 2) how do we streamline the matching of therapies to disease to increase precision and 3) how do we create 21st century science by upgrading 1950’s funding.
  • The conference ended on a high note with a keynote from Tachi Yamada, former President of the Global Health program at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and now EVP, Chief Medical Officer of Takeda, speaking on changing the game in global health.
    Tachi spoke eloquently about the importance of the emerging markets to the industry and the “moral tragedy” of the current state — 8 million children dying unnecessarily life expectancy less than 50 years; with examples like TB which kills millions of people every year and is being fought with a vaccine that is 80 years old and medicine that is 40 years old.
    His answer is to revolutionize innovation, turn things upside down and get to work with the following prescription: 1) Challenge accepted dogma and promote those that challenge 2) Be willing to fail and fail often and take big risks 3) Forget peer reviews because innovators HAVE NO peers and don’t let the experts kill ideas 4) Decide fast while the excitement and enthusiasm is there 5) Create a sense of urgency so that desperate ideas are welcome.(The comment “Forget peer reviews because innovators HAVE NO peers and don’t let the experts kill ideas” is brilliant and worth repeating – Mark)

Forget peer reviews because innovators HAVE NO peers and don’t let the experts kill ideas

Carolyn’s original post can be read here. Also check out her other great posts.

Pharma 3.0

What follows is a post that I recently published on AIIM’s site as an “Expert Blogger”. (The original can be read here)

———————————————————————–

Pharma 3.0

When I first heard the term “Pharma 3.0” I thought that it was the latest in the trend to put “x.0” (where x = 2, or higher) after everything. I was delighted to find out that it wasn’t, and there is a (reasonably) well-defined “Pharma 1.0, and 2.0”.

To get to “Pharma 3.0”, we need to detour past Pharma 1.0, and 2.0.

To bring a pharmaceutical drug to market is not something for the faint-hearted. There are strict regulations that need to be complied with. The length of time taken to bring a drug to a point where it can be sold can be up to eight and a half years, or longer. And the cost can add up to more than US$800 million.

As a result, pharmaceutical companies rely on a “blockbuster” drug. Which is one that alleviates, or cures, specific problems, and for which there is a high demand.

This is what defines “Pharma 1.0” -  the age of the “Blockbuster”.

However, Pharma companies also realized that there is more than just having a “really great product”. “Pharma 2.0” is a period where there was a recalibration to do business leaner, nimbler and more focused on emerging realities. Effectively, the focus was on redefining the business model.

There are no precise dates when the next “Pharma x.0” period is entered, but “Pharma 3.0” has started to emerge.

Pharma 3.0 can be described loosely as “Pharma + Web 2.0”.

That is, “social media” plays a big role.  The advent of social media has brought a voice to the end consumer. With a greater wealth of knowledge at their hands, the patient has become more knowledgeable about their ailments, and more critical of the medicines they are taking. Insurance companies and governments are also now starting to look for real value in the medicines that they are paying for, rather than just relying on the claims of the pharmaceutical company.

As a result, the pharmaceutical company has had to redefine who the “customer is”. No longer is the customer the Medical Doctor. Now more focus is put on delivering real value to the patient.

And this is where social media, and related technologies, are coming into play. Companies are starting to identify ways that they can not only “talk to the customer”, but to also “listen”. Examples include smartphone apps that provide information on the medication that a patient is taking, allowing them to ask questions directly to the pharma company, or to get in touch with others using the medication; apps that give patients easy ways to record treatments and keep track of the symptoms they experience; through to devices that measure the blood glucose levels of a patient, and then transmit them to a mobile device where the data can be stored, and shared with a physician. (InPharm maintain a great list of apps currently available. Click hereto see it). Initiatives include, also, more transparency, and information to both the patient and the doctor.

“Pharma 3.0” is about adding value by empowering the patient. And it’s something that the pharma companies are all involved with (in one way, or another). The newer, more dynamic pharma companies that are appearing in places such as Asia, and India, are able to put into place the business partnerships and innovation required to fully take advantage of Pharma 3.0. The tradition Big Pharma companies, however, are burdened with an “entrenched” value network that needs to be changed. This is happening.

It is likely that, in the current year, there will be quite some activity in this area. I’ll be watching with interest.

Reference Material:

Progressions report, 2010 - Ernst & Young

Progression report – 2011 - Ernst & Young


I’m not a “late adopter” – I’m a “Late Bloomer”

I’ve never really been into FaceBook.

I didn’t start using Twitter till 2010.

And the whole iPod / iTunes thing (that is – before the iPhone came out) was totally unknown to me. Those around me would look perplexed when I responded “Huh” to any conversation on this.

“Web 2.0” was alien to me (hell – what happened to 1.0?). “Gamification” sounded like something cute, and as far as I was concerned the “Cloud” was something that got in the way of the sun.

I felt that I was an “old fuddy duddy”, a dinosaur, a relic from a simpler time (just to be melodramatic).

However, I knew that I had to come to terms with this new “fad”. If only to be able to talk with others in my field.

When I first started tweeting, I remember I was shocked when I got my first “follower” (“Who is this person? “How did they find me?”). It was also around this time that I started blogging. I wasn’t really sure why, but it was a way to “put down on paper” what my thoughts were regarding the technology I work with.

It always bothered me that I seemed to be always ‘lagging”. That new things were coming out, and I was never an “Early Adopter”. Never on the cutting edge. 

Then, last year, I read Malcom Gladwell’s book “What the Dog Saw”. Chapter 8 is titled “Late Bloomers”.

In it he talks about creativity, and describes some findings economist David Galeson had made in the world of art.  Of the famous artists, there were those who did their best work when they were young, who knew what they wanted to achieve (Picasso), and then there were those who didn’t do their best work till much later (Cezanne).

It seemed that the younger “prodigies” start with a clear idea of where they want to go, and then they execute it.

On the other hand, the older “late bloomers” have imprecise goals, and tend to “explore” in a tentative, and an incremental, way.  And, for these artists, because the goal is imprecise, they never actually get to a point where they say. “Goal achieved!” They just keep exploring, testing and discovering along the way.

This really struck me as interesting. It made me look at what I have been doing. As I mentioned above, I never started out with a goal when I started my blog. I never had an idea what I would be doing with Twitter.

But, looking back, I can see a journey of incremental discoveries. The “subject matter” of my posts were, initially, to do with “document management in a regulated environment”. But as I have done research on this, it has lead to other areas that, while not directly related, have a tenuous link with the initial concept. And these have, in turn, taken me to other, loosely connected, areas of interest.

This “way of learning”, this “exploration”, is a good example of “naturalistic vs. mechanistic” learning. It is my own passion, my own interest that is leading me on this journey. And I get the feeling that it has given me a far better (may I say “wiser”) view of things, and how they can be used, and applied in real-life situations.

I am proud to call myself a “Late Bloomer

Other interesting “Late Bloomer” posts

A comment by David on “Social Leadership”

In my last post, #SWCHAT – Social Leadership, I mentioned that there seemed to be the feeling that there was no such thing as “Social Leadership”.

In response, David Christopher, the host of the #SWChat’s, posted a really valuable comment. You can read it at the end of the above-mentioned post, but I feels it’s really worthy of its own post…

The term “Social Leadership” doesn’t really exist in business today but it was clear from the event that leaders need to start understanding and working towards being more social.

The reason reason? Empowerment.

With a social business infrastructure the old hierarchical structures are broken down and decentralised. Employee’s become more empowered and open collaboration becomes the norm.

Leaders therefore need to evolve their leadership styles to accommodate this type of new workplace, a social workplace. Once they embrace this type of leadership then the tacit and explicit knowledge of the employees can be shared openly and becomes an incredible asset. An asset that is often ignored or not realised.

This is the future, the next generation workplace as some call it but many companies are still a long way off achieving this.

The SWChat event last week clearly highlighted this.

I’m looking forward to next weeks chat. Thanks David.

#SWCHAT – Social Leadership

  Yesterday, David Christopher hosted another Social Workplace Tweet Chat.

Social Workplace Chat is a weekly event on Twitter where people from all corners of the globe come together to discuss topics around The Social Workplace. This particular chat session is an incredible way to learn more about the “Social Workplace”.

David is an excellent host, and knows, exactly, how to encourage excellent discussions on the topic in question. You can find out more about up-coming #SWCHAT’s, as well as interesting stuff over the most recent one, at http://www.stopthinksocial.com/swchat/.

This week’s chat covered “Social Leadership“.   The main feeling about this was:

There is no such thing as “Social Leadership”.
Leader is inherently “social”.

Further to that, David also put forward three other questions:

  • Why are companies not adopting a “Social Leadership Infrastructure”?
  • What type of people do you see embracing Social Leadership, and what type do you see fearing it?
  • Are introverts more comfortable with Social Leadership?

The answers to these were interesting. Based on the fact that the “Social” Leadership didn’t actually exist (see above), the responses to these questions tended to concentrate more on the adoption of social media (i.e. the web 2.0 tools used).

With regards the last question, many references were made to a book titled “The Introvert’s Guide to Success in Business and Leadership”. This seemed to be the basis for this week’s chat. I have bought the book, but have only had a chance to skim through it.  David, however, wrote about it on his blog.

I have captured the essence of the chat in Storify. Click here to read it for yourself to read the discussion (note I have removed Retweets, and any “small talk” tweets).

http://storify.com/markjowen/swchat-social-leadership

[Alternatively, you can download a PDF version here.]