Collaboration: the Need is Here and Now

This week, I was able to attend a Cisco presentation by Jeff Day on the future need for collaboration. Jumping to ROI, he presented the following statistic (which probably should not be a surprise to most): 20-30 % retention of information from written mode of communication, another same ratio for spoken or verbal mode of communication, but a drastic 70 % retention of information when both voice and video mode of communication are utilized. The 2 major benefits most enterprises are looking for are, 1) increase in productivity, and 2) reduction in overhead.

To be able to vet ideas and increase collaboration (thus increase productivity), Jeff argues and projects there will be a huge jump in video traffic coming out of tele or video conferencing. I personally agree with his thesis and argument. I have personally used GoTo Meeting to review databases, prints and documentation. To be able to have all stakeholders (distributed and not collocated) view the same information real time is invaluable. An argument against this is not to actually see the other person’s body language or the other person’s eyes—does not negate the importance of face to face meeting. My argument is this: the higher the sensitivity (and detail) of topic for discussion, the mode of communication should move to a personal level (from e-mail or SMS messaging, to voice call, to tele conferencing, to face to face scheduled or non-scheduled meeting). The millennials and younger generation tend to stay within the impersonal level, regardless of how sensitive the information—resorting to Facebook messaging or Twitter Direct Message system, or SMS. With enterprises’ reduction in travel budget, it does make sense for an enterprise to leverage and utilize technologies that facilitate collaboration and communication, i.e., tele conferencing. However, face to face conversations and contact should not be discarded altogether.

Notes from PMI meeting 4/11/2012

Great web meetings dot com
– beating the hype cycle
*getting your team to use the tools you already paid for:

87% say collaboration tools are mission critical .
Fewer than half respondents actually used the ones they have.

The real problem:
Installation goes slowly
Training not meeting expectations

Reasons for “trough”:
Announcement and training too early
Don’t understand benefits
Doing it some other way easier
“home office” syndrome- home office got it, it must stink,
Peer pressure- “nobody is using it.”

Why does it rise? (Trough)
It solves the problem,
Find and use influencers- the “cool kids”
Proof that it works
Training if done right
You say so and mean it! With accountability.

The adoption cycle:
7% are innovators
10% early adopters=> this is the cohort that need to be co opted, with longer tenure and respected group, will give honest feedback,
35% early majority
38% late majority
10% laggards.

Prove that it works:
Trumpet accomplishments ,
Capture success stories among influencers ,
Use video.
Document success like on newsletter. Constant reinforcement . The less technical the person, the bigger the success story . Use the technology to promote the technology.

Effective Training :
No gap between learning an application,
Telling ain’t training,
On demand help- provide it,
Sometimes you need people to teach people.

Manage like you mean it:
*Performance expectations
*Reward early users
*Model it yourself
*Coach- don’t enable .

Nobody wants technology – everyone wants to solve a problem. Include them in decisions. Use early adopters. Trumpet success.

The end of Kodak moments

I heard about the declaration of bankruptcy by Kodak today. Saddening to learn about such an iconic American company that invented the camera and printing of photographs—that capture specific points or way points in our lives. I did not even know that Kodak invented the digital camera. For the executives to not have pursued the digital camera wave, for fear of cannibalizing the film portion of their business—was short sighted. This reminds me of other technology innovators in my lifetime, e.g., Palm (brought us the Palm Pilot PDAs or even the Apple Newton), tapes replaced by CDs and now MP3s, AOL (ISP regardless that it was 56K, at its peak bought by Time Warner), Wang, Compaq (now owned by HP), well, you get the idea.

It is difficult to compare Kodak’s predicament to a movie franchise’ (1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd sequel such as Star Wars), or a successful TV series’ demise (such as “Friends” or “Seinfield”). Most if not all (well, maybe with the exception of “the Oprah Show”) TV shows or sequel movies “jump the shark.” The story line or the characters (I would guess due to scriptwriters attempt to extend the show’s success) becomes unexciting, inane, does not make sense, feels old, lame, or plain boring. Sometimes, the actors or actresses depart from the show, asking for astronomic pay raise. Sometimes, for just unforeseen or inexplicable reason, the viewership dwindles and falls irreversibly.

To me, Kodak’s downfall is due to failure to innovate regardless that the marketplace was changing. There is a lesson to be learned here. Technology and product lines now change in weeks and months, not a year or 2. From a career perspective, our personal “brand” has to change with the needs of the marketplace as well. To continue to rest on past successes would be foolish on anybody’s part.