Starbucks, Star Struck with Social Computing?

In many ways, I'm thrilled about "My Starbucks Ideas", which provides Starbucks' customers an opportunity to share ideas on improvements for Starbucks.

On the other hand, I wonder if there is an overly optimistic expectation that this approach will deliver amazing breakthrough results. That some folks might be "star struck" with the notion of social computing.

And although this endeavour should drive value such as improved customer relations and incremental innovation, there are limitations (opportunities) that could be used to enhance the environment and ultimate results. To explain the potential, I'll use the engagement model.


Motivation

Unlike other heralded examples of 2.0 style innovation systems (i.e. GoldCorp, Innocentive), there is no major incentive for someone to provide their ideas to Starbucks. Without any explicit incentives, the motivated respondents will likely be those who are loyal Starbucks enthusiasts. Those willing to go through the effort to establish an ID, and write a description of their idea. Not that they should be ignored, but it does miss out on the opportunities from a more varied set of perspectives that could bring a totally different set of ideas.

So in absence of hard incentives what motivates? How about, what's in it for me (wiifm). It should be no surprise that a good number of the most popular ideas will be about giving "me", free stuff . A quick scan of Starbucks' top 10 most popular ideas show that half of these ideas are about giving me free stuff (whether it's coffee, wi-fi, content). Now who wouldn't vote for free coffee and free wi-fi? I like it!

Although "freeconomics" has been quite a popular topic recently, ultimately, Starbucks needs to understand how this translates into profit. For example, one of the ideas is about giving away free coffee on your birthday. Would this make you spend more money at Starbucks? Would it really make you more loyal? Of course it's popular (voted on), but how can they use this to drive their longer-term business model?

Now what if there was a reward or compensation for an idea that was linked to driving profits? You just might get others motivated to share their insights from a different angle.



Opportunity

On the surface, it appears that customers now have an opportunity to really share their ideas and support their favourite ideas through voting. This is true... to an extent... The opportunity however is only for those that vote favourably on an idea.

Consider a scenario in which Idea X has 100 positive votes and Idea Y also has 100 positive votes. You'd think they were equal right? Not necessarily. We haven't give an opportunity to those that would disagree with an idea. Those that are saying, "if you implement that idea, I'd leave Starbucks!". What if Idea X has 100 votes and 0 Negative votes, but Idea Y has 100 votes and 500 negative votes?

The current model only gives the opportunity to vote in favour for an idea. Digg style voting could come in handy for Starbucks if they want to understand the potential downside in addition to the potential upside of an idea.



Capability

Although there is much to be learned from the wisdom of crowds in prediction markets, can it really be used to identify 'disruptive' concepts? Clayton Christensen's work on the Innovator's Dilemma explains the challenges organizations face in promoting innovation, indicating that shareholders and customers don't want the disruptive innovation, until it's too late. Christensen's work illustrates how once innovative organizations are "held captive" by their existing customers needs.

I recently wrote a post on Steve Jobs & Innovation that quoted Steve Jobs quoting Henry Ford, which I think is useful... 'So you can't go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There's a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, 'If I'd have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me "A faster horse." '

Also previously posted was a conversation I had with a consultant that had worked with Starbucks. He shared a story about how on the surface Starbucks customers, when asked what they wanted, would reply "faster service, more reasonable (cheaper) prices" but after deeper needs analysis they identified that the real reason customers went to Starbucks wasn't because of faster service, or cheaper prices, it was a luxurious escape they could take in an otherwise hectic day. Reducing costs, rushing the experience, and having a proliferation of stores all went against the "specialness" and "luxurious" concepts.

The point here, is that asking customer is good but they may not have the knowledge/capability to give you insight into the next big thing. Digging deeper to uncover needs analysis or root-value analysis can lead to richer and more useful results.

So, I am certain I've added a little controversy to the great Starbucks initiative. Like I said earlier, I actually think their initiative is a good one. It's not that I dislike what they're doing, I just think the coffee cup is only half full :)

5 Social Computing Benefits that Adoption Rates Don't Show

Are you are promoting social computing in your organization and being questioned about the low "participation levels" or "adoption rates"? Well, here are 5 points that should help you explain that it's not just about the percentage of people that actively participate.


1. Thanks for Asking

Sometimes it's just being asked that matters! Even if people choose not to participate, it's still a choice. Have you noticed the term "employee engagement" showing up everywhere these days? The term happens to be the most common search phrase leading people to my blog.

To engage employees means that you actually need to start by asking for their input. Even if they don't have specific input right now, that's fine. What you don't want to do is incent the wrong behaviours such as "gaming" a system to meet an objective. Providing opportunity is an implicit benefit of social computing. It demonstrates respect for the employees input and leads to a more engaged and committed organization.


2. La crème de la crème

A favourite book of mine is, "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. In the book, Jim explains that the role of leadership is NOT to motivate. If you have to motivate and convince people to do something, you're already starting in a bad position. Instead, if you have the right people and the right opportunity they will be "self-motivated". The role of leadership then becomes making sure you don't let people become "de-motivated". Jim goes on to explain the importance of making sure you find the right people. But how do you do this?

One way is to leverage the power of self-organization. For example, we run on-line "jam" sessions and invite 1000's of people to participate. Not everyone will, but those that do tend to be "passionate" and willing to take on accountability. And those concepts that rise to the top tend to be well thought through. The point... Even if you only have 10% participation. It's likely that the 10% you want!


3. Needle in a Haystack

Mass collaboration isn't about simple consensus. It also provides greater opportunity to find a few gems by casting a much bigger net. 60 Minutes had a great story on John Kanzius , a retired Radio and TV engineer who's invention may ultimately cure cancer. He has zero medical training and his unorthodox method involves the use of radio waves and nano-particles! He likely would never have been invited to any discussions on the topic. And it is only that his own very unfortunate situation has inspired him to look for an answer. Is there a way to purposefully stimulate more creative ideas?

I often hear people ask for "out of the box thinking" and if they truly want that, we apply different techniques. One of the techniques is simply to bring in experts in different fields than the topic we're actually working on. Why? To drive a completely different perspective on a given situation. Hopefully leading to a breakthrough. Social computing allows us to invite many many people each with different views and perspectives. Even if you don't have high participation, if you get that one breakthrough idea, it's all worth it!


4. One for All

A well designed social computing environment encourages interactive participation of the right people. For all of you "executives" that believe this is something you let "employees" do but aren't actually engaged in yourself, you are missing a huge opportunity. The opportunity to drive "trust" and "confidence" throughout the organization.

When I see an executive who "gets it", the effect can be amazing. You can read a conversation that is authentic, public an non-hierarchical. The participants in the conversation see a "real" side of an executive whom they otherwise may never have even met. But what if it's only a handful of people engaged in the discussion? That's fine. Because even if the participation level is low, the folks that read and view the conversation also benefit. The readers will also see an genuine conversation which aids in building trust and confidence in your organization.


5. Back to The Future

By the time I write this blog, I hope many people will read it and benefit from it. I also hope many people will discuss it. But realistically, I know that it's value may really be in the future. Unless you need this information now, it may be just an interesting (which I also hope) article. In the future, when someone really needs help in this area, it will be available to them, and perhaps will help them articulate the additional benefits in leveraging social computing.

This pertains to your organization as well. Even if you don't have immediate participation, the conversation is not time bound, and employees can still join the conversation even into the future. They can understand the context (how we came to decisions we did) in addition to the ultimate decisions. This depth of understanding helps ensure smarter, better, more complete decisions can be made moving forward.

So the next time someone challenges you, that your social computing endeavours just aren't "engaging enough people", you can explain that the full value of social computing and enterprise 2.0 is more than the number of people fully interacting. These 5 real benefits just can't be determined by some magic "participation rate".

Sun Tzu and the Art of Social Computing

Sun Tzu, the influential author of, "The Art of War", might be the last thing you'd consider relevant to social computing and enterprise 2.0. And although not all of his beliefs can be directly ported, if you think of the "enemy" as, "poor collaboration", "inefficiency", "bureaucracy" or "employee frustration", there are some good insights that can help you achieve success with your enterprise 2.0 / social computing initiatives.


Sun Tzu on Planning & Strategy

"Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose. " - Sun Tzu

"Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." - Sun Tzu

When building social computing systems or events, we spend a great deal of effort in the upfront design. Based on our experience, we are well aware that a poorly thought-through social computing environment can inadvertently do more damage than good.

It can waste valuable resources, create false expectations leading to distrust, question your credibility, question the credibility of the tools, and potentially further alienate employees, just to name a few consequences of poor design.

If at first you don't succeed...You may not get a second chance....

Companies sometimes jump to implementing enterprise 2.0 technology because they have read a good book, or a good article. Perhaps they heard a good success story. Every time I read, "just try it and see what happens", I get shivers. Your circumstances may be completely different then the anecdotal success story that was told. Knowing when "not to do something" is sometimes a more difficult but useful discipline.


Sun Tzu on Knowing your Enemy and Yourself

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." - Sun Tzu

The enemy in this situation is in-effective collaboration. Knowing yourself includes understanding strength and weaknesses of the culture, the organizational processes, and the technology to be deployed.

What prevents us from collaborating? Several things. To help understand the challenges we use what we refer to as the "engagement model". This model groups the critical elements of collaboration into 3 categories (motivation, opportunity and capability). I've written a more detailed analysis of this in the past. In this post, I'll suggest a few questions to consider.

Don't assume employees will simply just adopt new technology no matter how "cool" it is. The often talked about "Wikipedia 1%" where only 1% of all Wikipedia users actually create the majority of content may be sufficient if we're talking about the entire global population, but does 1% work for your company?

Let's consider the employee's perspective. What's in it for me (WIIFM)? Do I see the benefit? Or do I see this as another management flavour of the day which I've learned to ignore? Do I feel threatened that my "reputation" as the "gatekeeper" or "go to person" will evaporate? Does the existing compensation system (process) actually motivate me to horde information such as in a competitive system?

And even if I was motivated. Do I have the opportunity to participate (real or perceived)? Or are the pressures of my job prohibiting my ability to engage in a meaningful way? How are employees being notified about these new tools? Are they aware? Are they aware of why? And what is the informal message I am getting from my immediate boss about these tools? Do they buy in to it?

Motivation and opportunity alone are still not enough. Do the employees have the skills? How will they get them? The full value of social computing is only achieved after critical mass of adoption. Mass levels of adoption require removal of as many obstacles as possible. In other words.... Simplicity (which is actually pretty hard to design).

"There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army: By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey; This is called hobbling the army. By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army; This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds. By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers." - Sun Tzu


Sun Tzu on Aaptability

"Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards... Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain. " - Sun Tzu

You can't plan for everything. Things will evolve, and you will learn, but you can accelerate that learning and stack the odds in your favour. This is not like implementing "SAP" where an employee MUST use the tool to do their job and there is no choice. These enterprise 2.0 technologies are often used (or not) by choice.

The power of self-organization and allowing for emergent use can compliment a well thought through plan. Learn from how people self-organize and build upon it. Guy Kawaski tells a good story about the launch of the Ford Mustang and how the marketers where initially upset because the car was being bought by "the wrong customers". Learn from it and adapt.

Even if you choose to ignore the Sun Tzu spin, don't ignore the importance of upfront design. And always keep in mind the bigger picture.

"Unhappy is the fate of one who tries to win his battles and succeed in his attacks without cultivating the spirit of enterprise; for the result is waste of time and general stagnation." - Sun Tzu