Social Business Design: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
“Imagine if a company like GM, was at the core “social”. Not just participating in “social media”—but through every part of their business ecosystem, were connected—plugged into a collective consciousness made up of ALL their constituents, from employees to consumers to dealers, to assembly line works etc. What if big organizations worked the way individuals now do. We’re actively using cloud services, mobile, networks and applications that offer real time dynamic signals vs. inefficient and static e-mail exchanges. In short, imagine if what makes “Web.2.0″ revolutionary was applied to every facet of an organization transforming how we work, collaborate and communicate? We think this is possible. And we’re calling it “social business design“.”
“Imagine if a company like GM, was at the core “social”. Not just participating in “social media”—but through every part of their business ecosystem, were connected—plugged into a collective consciousness made up of ALL their constituents, from employees to consumers to dealers, to assembly line works etc. What if big organizations worked the way individuals now do. We’re actively using cloud services, mobile, networks and applications that offer real time dynamic signals vs. inefficient and static e-mail exchanges. In short, imagine if what makes “Web.2.0″ revolutionary was applied to every facet of an organization transforming how we work, collaborate and communicate? We think this is possible. And we’re calling it “social business design“.”
(http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2009/06/sbd.html)
(http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2009/06/sbd.html)
=Discussion=
Marina Gorbis on the case for having a new type of "social organizations":
"PatientsLikeMe, Facebook, Twitter, and, I expect, shortly, Chatroulette exemplify a growing clash between the promise of commons-based platforms and the relentless drive to convert them into profit-driven businesses. The clash is likely to grow simply because the number of such endeavors is growing exponentially. What this clash brings into focus is that while we have invented a generation of transformative technologies, we remain stuck in economic and organizational models of the past.
Our technology tools and platforms are highly participatory and social. They take advantage of intrinsic human motivations to contribute in order to be noticed, to share opinions, to be a part of something greater than ourselves. Otherwise how would one explain remarkable success of Wikipedia and many other crowdsourced sites that rely on contributions of volunteers? Our business models, by contrast, are based primarily on monetary rewards. They are mostly hierarchical and non-participatory decisionmaking processes (Facebook's unilaterial decisions regarding changes in privacy terms for members is but one example). And they operate without the kind of transparency of information when applied to their own operations that is at the core of communities they enable.
If we are to truly fulfill the promise of technology tools we have created, we urgently need to design new governance models and new ways of creating value. In the least, organizations whose value derives from communities they create should incorporate the governance principles of successful commons organizations and use the same technology platforms that are at the core of their operations for governance purposes. Here are some principles I believe they need to put into practice:
1. Clearly articulate the promise of the platform to the participants, with all the ensuing rights and responsibilities for members
2. Create or elect a community governance board (without direct financial incentives to the project) to guide and review major policy and strategy decisions.
3. Crowdsource major decisions guiding development and evolution of such platforms.
4. Ensure radical transparency around key decisions and financial metrics
5. Create reward structures for management and employees more akin to those of non-profits or coops rather than for-profit entities.
As community members, we, on the other hand, may need to stop thinking of such platforms as completely free and start supporting them financially in the same way we support Public Broadcasting Corporation or other non-profits whose services we use or whose missions we endorse.
We already have several organizations that operate on such principles. Wikipedia, Creative Commons, Sunlight Foundation. Several others use alternative financing mechanisms that are in line with their public and commons-like structure. BoingBoing.net accepts advertising only from organizations whose activities are not in direct violation of core beliefs and messages of its founders, either individually or collectively. Curetogether, another crowdsourced health and treatment platform, does not sell its members' data; to keep the site going, it helps pharma companies recruit subjects for clinical trials–companies can send their inclusion criteria for trials they need filled or surveys about adverse side effects, which Curetogether can then distribute to members who opt in.
No one would suggest that founders and staff working at organizations such as Twitter, Facebook, Curetogether, or many others like them should be doing it for free or should live in poverty. However, because of the unique promise of these organizations and the fact that without all of our contributions they simply would not exist, traditional profit-based business models just don't fit them.
It is not that radical of an idea to suggest that our organizational models need to change in line with the evolution of our tools. Let's not forget that organizations we inherit are not pre-ordained or immutable—they grow out of prevailing cultural norms, economic conditions, and technology infrastructure. Marshall McLuhan famously said, "We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us." We invented a new generation of technologies. Now we need to allow those technologies reinvent us and our organizations."
(http://iftf.org/InventingSocialOrganizations)




Revision as of 00:44, 30 June 2010

Description

David Armano:

“Imagine if a company like GM, was at the core “social”. Not just participating in “social media”—but through every part of their business ecosystem, were connected—plugged into a collective consciousness made up of ALL their constituents, from employees to consumers to dealers, to assembly line works etc. What if big organizations worked the way individuals now do. We’re actively using cloud services, mobile, networks and applications that offer real time dynamic signals vs. inefficient and static e-mail exchanges. In short, imagine if what makes “Web.2.0″ revolutionary was applied to every facet of an organization transforming how we work, collaborate and communicate? We think this is possible. And we’re calling it “social business design“.” (http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2009/06/sbd.html)


Discussion

Marina Gorbis on the case for having a new type of "social organizations":

"PatientsLikeMe, Facebook, Twitter, and, I expect, shortly, Chatroulette exemplify a growing clash between the promise of commons-based platforms and the relentless drive to convert them into profit-driven businesses. The clash is likely to grow simply because the number of such endeavors is growing exponentially. What this clash brings into focus is that while we have invented a generation of transformative technologies, we remain stuck in economic and organizational models of the past.

Our technology tools and platforms are highly participatory and social. They take advantage of intrinsic human motivations to contribute in order to be noticed, to share opinions, to be a part of something greater than ourselves. Otherwise how would one explain remarkable success of Wikipedia and many other crowdsourced sites that rely on contributions of volunteers? Our business models, by contrast, are based primarily on monetary rewards. They are mostly hierarchical and non-participatory decisionmaking processes (Facebook's unilaterial decisions regarding changes in privacy terms for members is but one example). And they operate without the kind of transparency of information when applied to their own operations that is at the core of communities they enable.

If we are to truly fulfill the promise of technology tools we have created, we urgently need to design new governance models and new ways of creating value. In the least, organizations whose value derives from communities they create should incorporate the governance principles of successful commons organizations and use the same technology platforms that are at the core of their operations for governance purposes. Here are some principles I believe they need to put into practice:

1. Clearly articulate the promise of the platform to the participants, with all the ensuing rights and responsibilities for members

2. Create or elect a community governance board (without direct financial incentives to the project) to guide and review major policy and strategy decisions.

3. Crowdsource major decisions guiding development and evolution of such platforms.

4. Ensure radical transparency around key decisions and financial metrics

5. Create reward structures for management and employees more akin to those of non-profits or coops rather than for-profit entities.

As community members, we, on the other hand, may need to stop thinking of such platforms as completely free and start supporting them financially in the same way we support Public Broadcasting Corporation or other non-profits whose services we use or whose missions we endorse.

We already have several organizations that operate on such principles. Wikipedia, Creative Commons, Sunlight Foundation. Several others use alternative financing mechanisms that are in line with their public and commons-like structure. BoingBoing.net accepts advertising only from organizations whose activities are not in direct violation of core beliefs and messages of its founders, either individually or collectively. Curetogether, another crowdsourced health and treatment platform, does not sell its members' data; to keep the site going, it helps pharma companies recruit subjects for clinical trials–companies can send their inclusion criteria for trials they need filled or surveys about adverse side effects, which Curetogether can then distribute to members who opt in.

No one would suggest that founders and staff working at organizations such as Twitter, Facebook, Curetogether, or many others like them should be doing it for free or should live in poverty. However, because of the unique promise of these organizations and the fact that without all of our contributions they simply would not exist, traditional profit-based business models just don't fit them.

It is not that radical of an idea to suggest that our organizational models need to change in line with the evolution of our tools. Let's not forget that organizations we inherit are not pre-ordained or immutable—they grow out of prevailing cultural norms, economic conditions, and technology infrastructure. Marshall McLuhan famously said, "We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us." We invented a new generation of technologies. Now we need to allow those technologies reinvent us and our organizations." (http://iftf.org/InventingSocialOrganizations)


More Information

  • Key background essay on the history of collaboration within the firm: Paul S. Adler and Charles Heckscher. Towards Collaborative Community / (Book: The Corporation as a Collaborative Community) [1]


Bibliography

From Peter Fingar:


  • Brafman, Ori and Rod A. Beckstrom, The Starfish And the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, Portfolio, 2006.
  • Chesbrough, Henry, Open Innovation — The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, 2003.
  • Cross, Robert L. and Andrew Parker, The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations, Harvard Business School Press, 2004.
  • Fingar, Peter, and Ronald Aronica, The Death of “e” and the Birth of the Real New Economy: Business Models, Technologies and Strategies for the 21st Century, Meghan-Kiffer Press, 2005.
  • Grantham, Charles, Jim Ware and Cory Williamson, Corporate Agility: A Revolutionary New Model for Competing in a Flat World, Amacom, 2007.
  • Harrison-Broninski, Keith, Human Interactions: The Heart And Soul Of Business Process Management, Meghan-Kiffer Press, 2005.
  • Hayes, Tom, Jump Point: How Network Culture is Revolutionizing Business, McGraw-Hill, 2008.
  • Howe, Jeff, Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business, Crown Business, 2008.
  • Kelly, Kevin, New Rules for the New Economy, Penguin, 1999.
  • Li, Charlene and Josh Bernoff, Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies, Harvard Business School Press, 2008.
  • Malone, Thomas W., Laubacher, R. J., and Scott Morton, Inventing the Organizations of the 21st Century, MIT Press, 2003.
  • Malone, Thomas W., The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style and Your Life, Harvard Business School Press, 2004.
  • Mulholland, Andy and Nick Earle, Mesh Collaboration, Evolved Technologist, 2008.
  • Mulholland, Andy, C. S. Thomas, and P. Kurchina, Mashup Corporations: The End of Business as Usual, Evolved Technologist, 2008.
  • Olson, G. M., Malone, Thomas W., and Smith, J. B. (Eds.), Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology, Erlbaum, 2001.
  • Shirky, Clay, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, Penguin Press, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Social_Business_Design&oldid=39979"