Posts tagged: application
Toward Enterprise 2.0 – positioning the 2.0 characteristics in an Enterprise and some suggestions for FPT
This article discusses implications behind the adoption of a “2.0″ approach to corporate management. This article is built on and extends the introductory discussion of an FPT HR representative on their application of 2.0 to internal communications. It seeks an equivalent position of the 2.0 characteristics within an organization. Basing on this finding, recommendations are given to FPT.
Ko hiểu youtube có lỗi hay do mạng lởm nên tôi ko trả lời bạn trực tiếp được tại video trên youtube. Quản trị 2.0.
Quản trị 2.0 là khái niệm được FPT nhắc tới bắt đầu từ 2008, đơn giản là ứng dụng 2.0 vào công việc quản trị. Các bạn chắc biết rõ hơn tôi về web 1.0 và 2.0 và biết sự khác biệt giữa 1.0 – tiếp nhận thông tin 1 chiều và 2.0 tăng tính tương tác.
Quản trị 2.0 tương tự:
- Đưa ứng dụng web 2.0 vào việc quản trị. Ví dụ mở các kênh tiếp nhận thông tin từ nhân viên qua blog công ty để lãnh đạo lắng nghe ý kiến nhân viên tốt hơn. Các lãnh đạo tự mở blog cá nhân để chia sẻ về suy nghĩ bản thân, truyền tải thông điệp lãnh đạo (ko nhất thiết trong công việc) để gần hơn với nhân viên và tiếp thu thông tin.
Hiện FPT đang có kênh 2.0 đặc trưng là: Chợ Dưa FSoft – chodua.com và FLI Blog: fli.fpt20.com, là kênh internet có thể truy cập. Còn các forum, mạng nội bộ khác chỉ dành cho nhân viên FPT. Đặc điểm ẩn danh cho phép nhiều người được nói thẳng nói thật ý kiến và cả các bức xúc của mình trong công việc hay comment thoải mái về các chính sách công ty mà ko sợ lộ mặt.
Những cái này có thể nhiều công ty đã áp dụng như “học thuật” hóa thì được gọi là quản trị 2.0.
Những thông tin khác bạn có thể đọc tại fli.fpt20.com hoặc chodua.com. Mời bạn vào trao đổi! Tks!
vanbich, FPT HR representative
2. The position of the 2.0 characteristics
2a. Web 2.0 is about Communication. Is Enterprise 2.0 about Communication?
Basing on the comment from vanbich, the idea of FPT 2.0 is to provide channels and facilities for their employees to communicate with one another and with leaders.
At first, it seems sensible given light that a Web 2.0 product provides platforms for its users to communicate and share information with one another. And users do this with purposes.
Some examples of Web 2.0 products:
|Product||Effective communication channels||Purpose of product creators||Main purpose of users|
||Provide a collaborative blogging platform||Share & aggregate knowledge|
||Explore connections’ activities|
||Provide means for people, especially artists, to show off their interests||Express their ego|
How are “2.0 communication” and FPT’s explanation linked together?
It’s useful to map the idea:
Figure 1 – trying mapping web 2.0 product and enterprise 2.0: incorrect
While we see that the total scale of a Web 2.0 product is allow Communication, the total scale of an Enterprise is much larger than that. We want to revise the ‘conventional’ enterprise:
Figure 2 – simplified model of a conventional enterprise
That is the full scale of an Enterprise. Communication plays an important role, but does not take up entirely its operations.
So how do we map it more precisely?
2b. Here is what I visual it: mapping between two 2.0 entities
Firstly, as we know that communication is the main activity of a Web 2.0 product, it is important to find out what is the main activity of an Enterprise. As from figure 2, the main activity of an enterprise is Production and/or Providing Services.
Secondly, it is important to characterize the style of communication in Web 2.0 products so that we can do the same on the style of production of an enterprise.
What best describes “multi-directional” and “decentralized”? It is autonomous. People in the 2.0 sphere communicate autonomously and are responsible for their behaviors.
Combining these two findings, here is what I propose the mapping between a Web 2.0 product and an Enterprise:
Figure 3 – mapping web 2.0 product and enterprise 2.0
At full scale, the applied 2.0 characteristics does not only involve open and partially anonymous communication, but reach the level of autonomy in production.
3. Some considerations
- It’s easier for startups than for an established company.
Think about Google. It had been famous for its anti-corporate culture at the first days. As the company becomes mature, corporate issues start to emerge.
- Does the structure of the company make it reasonable to build autonomous teams/divisions?
- Does the culture of the company and the culture of the society make it reasonable to build autonomous teams/divisions?
- How ready are the employees, in terms of capability and mentality, to be autonomous?
- Autonomous, together with self-directed communication is not new. It traces back to 1970s and Motorola, Xerox, AT&T and so on. However, it might be new to Vietnam.
4. Some recommendations for FPT toward 2.0
- Select mature teams to build autonomy
- Delayer these teams
- Allow (sometimes dramatic) changes in structure, culture and mentality
- Allow (sometimes dramatic) changes in personnel management and resource allocation
- Treat this as on-going experiment
- Bring the “2.0 spirit” to the company as leaders desire
- Increase innovation
- Reduce cost, especially management overhead
- Reduce absenteeism
- Identify unofficial leaders of the teams in addition to the existing leadership training program
Changes in production characteristics, rather than sheerly in communication, reflect the full-scale shift within an Enterprise. Analyzing Web 2.0 characteristics leads us to autonomy. Whether and how FPT will implement it is interesting to observe. The implications of recommendations in this article go beyond social media, product management and technology companies to leadership generally.
It has been challenging and exciting to write this. The excitement was how I can link seemingly scattered parts of my knowledge to form a cohesion piece of consultation – something I love doing. The great challenge lies in the idea of evaluating a big, established, known and loved company. Nevertheless, if I want to learn, first thing first, I must dare the keyboard discussion.
I’d suspected that Facebook is moving fast toward monetization.
But Sheryl Sandberg’s confirmation that Facebook has been profitable for 5 consecutive quarters still comes as a nice surprise.
Nevertheless, considering this model, where all the money has been generated is not much a question.
Where else has Facebook been making money on? Will Social Search come next? Will Facebook do Data Mining behind the scene?
1. Facebook Fan Page turns out to be their depot for businesses.
See the URL facebook.com/business/dashboard/
A quick note that interaction with pages is the only thing you can’t put a privacy setting on. This is a rather aggressive move of Facebook.
2. Facebook redesigned its Fan Page to take after Profile layout
- Save the time to learn how to manage Pages for owners
- Save the time to learn how to interact with Pages for users, respectively businesses’ customers
- Increase interactions between users (customers) and Pages (business owners)
3. Facebook redesigned its homepage which gives more space coverage to applications. The more applications monetize, the more Facebook earns commissions.