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 :)

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

A Code for Enterprise 2.0 Practioners?

1. VALUE AT ALL COSTS THE PERSONAL IMPACT OF SOCIAL COMPUTING

2. PEOPLE AS NOT RESOURCES TO BE EXPLOITED

3. REALIZE THAT THE CROWD IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT



Those would be my first three statements in a code for the new Enterprise 2.0 practitioner. Why do we need a code? Because the implications of social computing go far beyond a piece of technology. The personal nature of social computing means we have a moral responsibility.

Being at the beginning of Enterprise 2.0 means that we will undoubtedly see several failures in addition to the triumphs. A Code (built through collaboration of course) will help the advancement of Enterprise 2.0 as a discipline.

I was reminded of the awesomeness of the impact we can have during a discussion over coffee with Jevon MacDonald of firestoker.com. Jevon and I shared stories of our experiences in social computing as practitioners and lessons learned. Both of us had experiences which started with an ambitious objectives in the earlier years that produced results very different than what we were hoping to achieve.

The BIG lesson though wasn't about "being overly ambitious / progressive goals with social computing", or even "how to be successful in an Enterprise 2.0 implementation". The BIG lesson was that the beliefs, thoughts, ideas of individuals was more than just data and information. It was a representation of themselves personally. Depending on the topic at hand, the implications are that 'heated comments, critics, rants, and worse' bcome personal attacks. These could have long lasting and severe implications.

I am however, more than ever, a huge proponent of the positive aspects of Enterprise 2.0 having witnessed amazing results in both a cultural sense and a business value perspective. My point isn't to scare people away, it's to remind all of us practitioners that we're dealing with more than just some interesting technology. We're dealing with people. That's just background on the first statement, I'll talk to the other two statements in future blogs but I really would love to hear your thoughts.

Are you a practitioner?

What do you think of such a code?

What lessons have you learned?

What other 'rules' would you add?