Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT, Frankfurt am Main, 2009
- 1. Dr. Kjetil Kristensen
© Kristensen Consulting 2009
MEASURING COLLABORATIVE PERFORMANCE
- Due Diligence for Enterprise 2.0
Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT
Frankfurt am Main - 11 November 2009
- 2. Outline
Outline
Quick introduction: Collaboration - the big picture
Characteristics and challenges
Collaborative performance
Common misconceptions
Suggested approaches
Measuring impacts: Due diligence for Enterprise 2.0
Collaboration inventory; diagnostics tools and techniques
Success factors for realizing benefits
Final reflections
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 2
- 3. Collaboration
Collaboration –
– Opening Statement
Opening Statement
“Firms come into being in order to enable human
beings to achieve collaboratively what they could not
achieve alone. If one accepts this as the true purpose
of any organization, then the main focus of
executives’ attention should be on how to foster
collaboration within their companies”
Hansen & Nohria, MIT MR 2004
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 3
- 4. The Big Picture
The Big Picture
“The only thing that gives an organization a competitive
edge… is what it knows, how it uses what it knows, and
how fast it can know something new”
Laurence Prusak, IBM
“If only HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times
as profitable”
Lew Platt, former HP CEO
The majority of work is collaborative
Knowledge: 60-80 % of our time is spent on interactions
Trend: Portion of interactions growing [Gartner, McKinsey]
Technology plays an increasingly important role
Reducing the cost of interactions
Making it easier to find relevant knowledge and experts
New perspectives on knowledge and competitiveness
Possible to achieve a quantum leap in productivity
The million dollar question is – how to do this?
4
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT
- 5. Basic Performance Dimensions
Basic Performance Dimensions
Efficiency ( )
Effectiveness ( )
Activity
(Ak)
O
G
R
I
I: Input
O: Output
G: Goal
R: Resources
I: Input
O: Output
G: Goal
R: Resources
Source: O’Donnell and Duffy, 2001
5
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT
- 6. Basic Performance Dimensions
Basic Performance Dimensions
Efficiency ( )
Effectiveness ( )
Activity
(Ak)
O
G
R
I
I: Input
O: Output
G: Goal
R: Resources
I: Input
O: Output
G: Goal
R: Resources
Source: O’Donnell and Duffy, 2001
Make sure you
know what you
want to achieve
6
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT
- 7. Basic Performance Dimensions
Basic Performance Dimensions
Efficiency ( )
Effectiveness ( )
Activity
(Ak)
O
G
R
I
I: Input
O: Output
G: Goal
R: Resources
I: Input
O: Output
G: Goal
R: Resources
Source: O’Donnell and Duffy, 2001
Make sure you
know what you
want to achieve
“There is nothing quite so useless as doing with
great efficiency that which should not be done at all.”
- Peter Drucker
7
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT
- 8. Knowledge Discovery
Activity Space
Team Setup
Knowledge Worker Requirements
Knowledge Worker Requirements
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT
Personal Workview
Management Overview
Real Time Collaboration
Based on the 6FP EU-project
8
Efficiency ( )
Effectiveness ( )
Activity
(Ak)
O
G
R
I
I: Input
O: Output
G: Goal
R: Resources
I: Input
O: Output
G: Goal
R: Resources
- 10. Measuring Collaborative Performance
Measuring Collaborative Performance
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 10
Current
Practice
Benefits
Costs
Future
Practice
Blurry
Can be identified
Blurry
Can be identified
Blurry
Can be identified
- 11. Common Misconceptions
Common Misconceptions
More collaboration is
always better
E 2.0 is primarily about
technology or efficiency
There are no success
stories
Knowledge work is
unmeasurable
Collaboration is so
ingrained in what we do
that its effects cannot be
separated from the rest
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 11
Source: McKinsey, Compustat
- 12. Measuring Impacts: Due Diligence for E2.0
Measuring Impacts: Due Diligence for E2.0
Measuring collaborative performance is about measuring
how collaboration contributes to objectives
Cause and effect relationship can be difficult to assess
That should not prevent us from trying
Preparatory work
Know the baseline; current problems and their related costs
Establish proper links; identify collaboration causalities
Collaborative strategies
• Objective(s)
• Scope (domain)
• Advantages
A collaboration inventory of approaches and methods are
outlined on the next slides
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 12
- 13. Evaluate
opportunities
for
collaboration
Spot barriers
to
collaboration
Tailor
collaboration
solutions
1.1 Upside calibration tool
Benchmark data: 107 companies*
1.2 The collaboration matrix
Collaboration Inventory
Collaboration Inventory -
- #1
#1
13
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT
Source: Morten T. Hansen: Collaboration. Harvard Business Press, 2009.
Collaboration
premium
Collaboration
premium
Return on
project
Return on
project
Opportunity
cost
Opportunity
cost
Collaboration
cost
Collaboration
cost
= - -
2.1 The four barrier rating
Benchmark data: 107 companies*
2.2 Barrier-to-lever worksheet
3.1 The lever barometer
Benchmark data: 107 companies*
3.2 The lever gap analysis
Collaboration Premium Concept
* Benchmark sample: 107 companies, 50-150 000 employees (mean = 11 076 employees)
- 14. Collaboration Inventory
Collaboration Inventory -
- #2
#2
Success factors – Mattesich et. al.
Environment (3 factors)
Membership characteristics (4 factors)
Process and structure (6 factors)
Communication (2 factors)
Purpose (3 factors)
Resources (2 factors)
Most important success factors for collaboration identified
from 40 (18+22) out a total of 414 (133+281) studies
Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory
A free online collaboration assessment
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 14
Source: Mattesich Murray-Close & Monsey, 2001
- 15. Collaboration Inventory
Collaboration Inventory -
- #3
#3
ROC = ((functional area spend) * functional area change)
overall UC&C spend
Functional area spend = the total annual organizational revenues * the revenue
percentage spent on each functional area
Functional area change = the percent of improvement on each functional area
that the organization believes is attributable to deploying collaboration solutions
Overall UC&C spend = the total amount of money an organization spent to
deploy their collaboration solution set during a specified time period
Many other approaches exist, but
The application of these approaches depend on the context
If you need to measure and justify, define precise objectives
Know the baseline (current performance, costs and benefits)
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 15
Source: Frost & Sullivan, 2009
- 16. Example Perf. Measurement
Example Perf. Measurement –
– Eng. Design
Eng. Design
Determining the most productive way
of carrying out a set of eng. design tasks
4 different scenarios / platforms tested
Simple experiment with defined script
Measures
Subjective (S) and objective (O)
Intersubjctive (IS) and interobjective (IO)
Exterior measures (O/IO)
Clock
Wage plans
Checklists
Interior measures (S/IS)
Forms
Semantic differential
Forced ranking
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 16
- 17. Useful results
Some hypotheses confirmed
Other hypotheses rejected
Factors & trade-offs in a dashboard format
Improved decision support
Industrial processes complex
But they can be broken down
Example Perf. Measurement
Example Perf. Measurement –
– Results
Results
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 17
Interobjective
Objective
Subjective
Intersubjective
- 18. Realizing Benefits: 12 Theses on Collaboration
Realizing Benefits: 12 Theses on Collaboration
1. Collaboration is an essential part of knowledge work.
2. The majority of work is collaborative.
3. Think, then act.
4. Collaboration requires disciplined management and leadership to succeed.
5. While important, technology is not enough.
6. Work practices should be systematically developed and reviewed.
7. Usability is too important to be left to the technology people alone.
8. The importance of awareness and training cannot be overstated.
9. Collaboration is inherently dynamic and should be treated accordingly.
10. Get your priorities right.
11. Find the sweet spots rather than using a forced approach.
12. Never forget that collaboration is about creating value.
Source: KC Blog – www.collaborationperspectives.com
18
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT
- 19. Collaborative Performance
Collaborative Performance –
– Final Reflections
Final Reflections
Quick summary
We spend 60–80% of our work time on interactions and collaboration
Some approach collaboration strategically, others operationally
Both perspectives are required to build collaborative advantage
Know the baseline – otherwise asymmetries will kill your business case
Objective-driven approaches are more likely to succeed
Identify potential benefits and barriers before planning solutions
Reflect on what you are targeting – effectiveness or efficiency
Some final points
Justification is possible, but the process is time consuming
Methods often require business information that is not readily available
Operational collaboration objectives require clear strategic objectives
A justification exercise will increase the transparency of trade-offs
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 19
- 20. Kjetil Kristensen, PhD
Kristensen Consulting
Beddingen 8, Aker Brygge
Central Business District
N-0250 OSLO, NORWAY
E-mail kc@kristensenconsulting.com
Office +47 22 82 36 44
Mobile +47 92 61 50 08
Blog www.collaborationperspectives.com
Twitter www.twitter.com/k_kristensen
Web www.kristensenconsulting.com