Talk to me like a 3 year old...

Sorry for the delay in posts as I've been with the family in Jamaica... However, lots of ideas for new blogs.

One thing that struck me as I was the "water train" for my daughters and some other kids was how great it was to have "free thought". To not be tainted by everything else you've "learned" or have been taught. We talk about this all the time when it comes to creativity and we try to artificially reproduce this state.

Spend some time with some 3 year olds having conversations and you can't help but smile at how their logic works. Try it. Ask them why something is the way that it is. You'll likely get either a colourful answer unless they've already been "corrected" about why things are the way they are.

There is absolutely great value in hearing truly "out-of-the-box" thinking. For them, the box of "adulthood", rules, schema's and logic has yet to have been formed. It's not just cute. It's insightful.

Anyways, just a quick post to say I am back and will write some more soon.

Move over SaaS.... Meet YaaS (You As A Service)

YOU ARE A SERVICE.

It's not a new concept but to say it makes me think...

Those reading this blog are likely familiar with the concept of Software as a Service (SaaS). This blog is NOT about SaaS, the notion that with advances in reliability, security & efficiency of the Internet, there is a growing opportunity to run applications, on-demand, via the web with no installations, or even IT support staff. Although the term SaaS is still a bit in flux, the same value proposition that makes SaaS an interesting concept can be applied to the you. Yes... You... You can be (if you aren't already) a service. Introducing YaaS, "You as a Service". Even when we speak of "mass collaboration" it ultimately comes down to you.

What makes You-As-A-Service a reality? Scale & Efficiency...

1. Scale: For the same reason that Gartner predicts SaaS to be the delivery model for 25% of all business applications by 2011. As big as a company is, it can't possibly hire everyone. What if it needed one idea from one person and that was it. Would you hire them? Would you even consult with them? Even if a company could hire everyone, what kind of bureaucracy would be required? By tapping into things like Innocentive, individuals become their own services.

2. Efficiency: For the same reason Ronald Coase won a Nobel prize in economics in explaining why firms exist. The need to vertically or horizontally integrate was spurn because of cost inefficiencies. It was simply more efficient to buy out the partners or hire them then it would be to create contracts with everyone you worked this. This is now changing. To the extreme there are now companies with virtually no employees such as CrowdSpirit.

You can now be a service. A thought source. A problem solver. A creative entrepreneur. And the globe is your marketplace. What a fascinating world it is when we can all hang up our own "Open for business" signs.

Web 2.0 explained in under 5 minutes

In case you haven't seen it yet, I just had to share this video on web 2.0 with you. I thought it did a good job trying to capture the essence of web 2.0. Sure it's not perfect but it's still pretty cool.



I wonder how the application of video will evolve in the web 2.0+ world... We see signs of the possibilities with SecondLife. What do you think? After all, this web 2.0 stuff is about interaction isn't it? And don't we as humans primarily interact visually?

Does Mass Collaboration = Mediocre Innovation?

One common concern I hear from people around mass collaboration is that it will result in perpetuating the average and mediocre. For those truly breakthrough concepts, truly disruptive innovations, mass collaboration drowns out those voices. Could it be that we're not really tapping into the long tail for most of the web 2.0 but really just growing the mass market?

It all depends on the situation and application. This is one of the reasons a "do nothing and Enterprise 2.0 will just happen anyways" tactic concerns me. For some applications in the E2.0 space it really isn't about innovation. For example, Wikipedia is about facts not creativity. There should only be 1 answer and given enough people to draw from we should be able to get to those facts faster. Innovation really doesn't matter.

In other situations, let's use American Idol as an example that is looking to sell you a product from a limited number of products versus creating new products, again, innovation doesn't matter as much. (Yes I realize I used American Idol in a discussion of E2.0... Yikes...)

But if you are trying to tap into the masses to create a future disruptor is it possible? The nature of disruption is that it's not easily understood. That the "many" may vote it down, because it is beyond their comprehension or perhaps anybody's comprehension for that matter.

The design of the next breed of collaborative tools for the enterprise will need to tap into the long tail to provide as many diverse possible combinations of concepts and original ideas, but it equally needs to design a model that allows for those radical concepts to be identified and nurtured.

How do you do this? Perhaps it's combing E2.0 with closed collaboration of experts to drive the next set of breakthroughs. Wouldn't you rather have a group of the top surgeons come up with the cure for a medical problem you have versus putting it open to the world to pick the best treatment? Of course, you'd want as many different options as possible for them to select from and elaborate on.

Enterprise 2.0 Organizational Structure: Importing more than just technology from Web 2.0

There's much more to web 2.0 than just the technology. For those looking to replicate the success of web 2.0 into their enterprise 2.0 initiative they should consider organizational structure for the the self-organizing community.


Long before Web 2.0, I was inspired by Jim Collin's work in Good to Great. Of the many observations made, he talked about the role of leadership. That the role of leadership is NOT to motivate people. That if you had the right people first, and provided the right opportunity, people are self-motivated. The role of leadership is to not let them get de-motivated!


I've personally experienced this and am sure many of you have as well. Where you have been a part of something you were quite passionate about. The thrill wasn't about the money, but making your mark and driving 'the right thing'.

Unfortunately, the traditional hierarchical organizational model is a bit of a hit-or-miss. Sure we may get some activities cascaded through the chain-of-command and we can get passionate about them but there are so many opportunities that don't cascade to the individual through this model. What if somewhere else in the organization there is a team doing something I know I could help them with and that I was extremely passionate about? I don't get the opportunity and the organization misses the opportunity.


Web 2.0 has some advice for us. It has proven the potential of a more heterarchical model. One where the individual self-selects the activities that best fit his/her skills & passions. Being Saint Patrick's day and all, here is a visual (The Clover) that represents the self-organized hierarchy and which happens to look a bit like a 4-leaf clover. Others have also referred to this as the Hollywood model.

This org chart should look a lot different to the standard one we see. Does it completely replace the traditional org structure? In my opinion... No... It actually co-exists. For this to work, a couple of things are missing from the visual.

First, there needs to be co-ordination of the activities within the self-organized communities. A co-ordinator allows people to know when opportunities exists, manages the set of activities holistically. Note this does not mean the co-ordinator is the "leader" of the activities.

Secondly, there will be tasks that nobody may volunteer for. For those tasks, leadership will still have to request individuals to perform the tasks and try to best match skills with the task.

Thirdly, people are still people. They need mentoring, coaching, feedback, compensation. In a fluid model like "The Clover", this can be quite difficult. My proposal here is to retain stability of a coach/boss. They may or may-not actually report into these coaches.

Way back in school I recall an economics class on "perfect discrimination". The ability to perfectly match price to the individual to maximize profit. In a way, this self-organization friendly org structure allows us to much better match that value an individual brings to the table with the work that needs to be done.

Innovation: The Difference between Communication & Collaboration

I sometimes refer to collaboration as communication 2.0. Just because we can connect two or more people together and share information does not mean we are collaborating. The difference between communication and collaboration is when new concepts emerge through that exchange in knowledge & creativity.

This is not to say the individual is void of their own creativity or ability to think "out of the box" but they are limited to their own insight and understanding. Only through the introduction of new information can they go beyond that.

The opportunities are astounding. We've all heard the "1+1=3" saying but if we wanted to think about it mathematically, it is indeed true. In fact it's even greater than that. If we take every concept person A has and matched that with every concept person B has we could create some very interesting formulas. To keep it simple, assume the number of ideas (x) is the same for all the people (n) collaborating and that we will only look at pairing of ideas. The resulting formula would be: = "x^n+n(x)^(n-1)+(n-1)x^(n-2)+…"

This would mean that 1+1=3.5, and 1+1+1= 14.5... Now consider mass collaboration where n=1,000,000... Yikes! An analogy would be to consider every individual idea as one of the chemical elements (of which there are only 92 natural ones) and every physical thing on this entire planet is made up of only these 92 elements or combinations of them.

So what are the implications? Well here are 5 and there are several others.

1) Just one more person adds tremendous opportunity.

2) The more diverse the individuals the more ideas in the funnel.

3) Effective convergent thinking is extremely crucial.

4) The "pipe" to connect people really is a "dumb pipe."

5) Brainstorming can be enhanced by techniques that merge concepts.

I want to thank Dan & Kathleen for the seeds to this blog even though they were separate conversations across time & space. It's an example of the integration of concepts. Dan & I had an interesting discussion about what really is "thinking out of the box" and Kathleen & I had an interesting discussion on the chemical elements.

Consultants in the Web 2.0 era?

Over the last few years, I've noticed a change in the value proposition of consultants. It really hit home in a meeting I was in where an "advisor" for a large company was explaining their product to us and it's adoption rate.

They discussed how they could help us with our next set of opportunities, what was happening with other customers and what best practices are. As they were going through their slides, one of the folks on my team pointed out some flaws to the material. In fact, they even googled it on the spot and sent them details which contradicted what we were be presented.

This was just an example. Over and over again, I encounter similar situations where the "experts" don't seem to provide a tremendous amount of insight. If best practices, case studies, methodologies, are freely available and I have instance access to knowledge what is the value of the consultant? If I can consult with the best minds in the world via blogs, articles, white papers, and often for free, where is the value proposition? Why would I bring them on? In fact, if I insource 'consulting', I get the advantage of deep understanding of the business that a consultant would have to learn as it is not available. Just as Don Tapscott talks about the "prosumer" where individuals are no longer just consumers but producers, companies are also becoming prosumers. Their knowledge sometimes eclipsing that of the vendor or consultant.

Don't get me wrong, some of the smartest people I've met and some close friends are indeed consultants. Experience has got to count for something right? Perhaps. Many times I've personally just "felt something didn't feel right" which I base on experience. Does external experience outweigh internal experience? Do we need to hire a consultant ;)

I suspect, the consultant has to move up the value chain. Has to provide more than "thought leadership" and "best practices". She/He would require critical skills that I do not have or have decided not to invest in. I suppose the other aspect is neutrality. But that would depend on the situation and whether neutrality is even required.

At a minimum, I think it's a wake-up call for companies to focus on their own people. This means more than just saying we believe in our people but giving them an opportunity, the skills to think and contribute to the long-term success of your firm.

The Balance Between Efficiency & Creativity

When does efficiency impede innovation? Or does it? Hasn't "kaizen" (continuous improvement) been a key component in creating the dominance of Japanese manufacturing? Isn't every improvement that drives efficiency an "innovation"? Efficiency means delivering more output, faster and/or at a lower cost. Seems pretty good...

Picasso once said, "Computers are useless... All they can do is give you an answers". Interesting, since answers are usually quite useful. My interpretation is that important piece of the equation is in the question. More importantly asking those creative questions lead us to creative breakthroughs.

When we drive efficiency, we automate more. We drive out the need for human intervention. For those cases where we can't eliminate the human aspect, we try to control it. We measure it. We time it. We provide a very detailed script and try to control as much of the process as possible. We program them.

The impact of this is that we treat our people as computers. This robs them of their ability to be creative. Even worse is when we ask them to go and be creative, but please do it while we penalize you for not meeting a performance objective.

Let's do an analogy... Imagine you are a pizza delivery person. But when you get an order, you are given the exact specific directions even timed to the minute. As you're driving let's say you have a countdown alarm timer and for every minute you are late, you lose $1.

Chances are, you're not going to be looking around for new better ways to drive to the destination. You are never asked for your opinion. Even if you see a flaw in the directions do you offer it up? Even glaringly obvious opportunities are missed as the focus is on the script.

Chances are that if something unexpected comes up your ability to respond is diminished. Problem solving isn't in the job description.

Chances are that if the cook asks you to do him a big favour and pick up some ingredients on your trip back, you are less likely to help him. We reinforce silos and boundaries. You are not rewarded for helping others. Even if the most valuable thing you could do was stop what you're doing to help another piece of the organization. You get penalized for this. This is a collaboration killer.

Is efficiency bad? Of course not. Just don't let it be the only focus if you really want to be innovative.

Rediscovering Mind Mapping Methods

Hopefully you've found the previous blogs interesting, albeit more theoretical. I thought I'd share with you my mind mapping technique that I use on a fairly regular basis. Something a little more practical. :)

I had started mind mapping in university but gave it up as I found I was needing to re-create them digitally from hand scribblings. Very time consuming! I've re-discovered them however and with the numerous tools out there for mind mapping, I can't see myself not using them.

When to mind map?
I use mind maps when trying to deal with a complex scenario. One that I am just trying to grasp and understand holistically. The beauty of mind maps is that it's not bound by time. Just concepts. This means, I don't need to know where to start, i just start. Through mind maps, I can in a single page (a very very big page sometimes) explain why we should be doing something and how it all fits together conceptually.

Step by Step on How I mind map.
Please don't take this blog as the definitive guide to mind mapping. Everybody has there own technique, and I suggest you create your own technique tailored to your mind. I vary the technique myself depending on the situation, sometimes just letting just my subconscious by my guide in making connections. However, I'll review the most common technique I use which is to help understand a concept and conceptualize about how to address the concept.

1. In the centre of your page, draw a circle and label it with the core of what you want to understand. If you are not sure guess. You can change it later.
2. Ask yourself the question "Why does this matter?"
3. Connect these concepts to your main idea. Circle it and draw a line that connects it to the core.
4. For each of these new nodes ask yourself the question "Why does this matter?" and do the same thing. Keep repeating this until you've exhausted each branch.
5. Start back at the core and ask yourself the question "What's stopping me from achieving this?"
6. Draw the answer in a circle and connect it to the core, and keep asking yourself the question of what is stopping me? Use a different colour
7. Do step 6 for every node until you've exhausted it.
8. The last circle should be what you need to do. Circle this in a different colour

Personal suggestions on effective mind mapping.
1. Don't use the mind map as a plan. Doing this will force you to think in a very step-by-step procedural way. It limits your creativity. You can create a plan after you do a mind map (which I often do). Usually by taking the outer limits of your map and creating actions from them.

2. A mind map is personal. Don't assume that if you have 2 people independently doing mind maps that they will have the exact same map at the end. That's not the point. It's a reflection of how you see things (or how a group sees things if done in a team setting). With this in mind, take the time to explain the map. I try to close off all branches in a map when explaining and going down one branch at a time. They can be intimidating to others if you don't do this.

3. USE software! I used to believe that whiteboards & wall talkers were the best way to do this because of the speed. But now I am finding the software out there is beautiful. It organized it, allows you to collapse branches on demand to focus on what you need and very helpful is the ability to drag and drop entire branches (or copy them) in different areas. I highly recommend FreeMind. It's freeware & open source!

4. If you are developing a plan, I suggest grouping common sets of activities first (usually I number them on the Mind Map). This is helpful in being practical about your planning.

5. Mind maps can be done personally or in group brainstorming sessions. Both approaches are helpful depending on the situation. Try experimenting.

6. Come up with your own use of colours and icons which make sense to you.

Let me know if you found this helpful or if you have additional ideas or suggestions as I am always looking for new ways to do mind maps.