Skip to main content

Home/ entreprise2.0/ Group items tagged knowledge workers

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Bertrand Duperrin

Management and Virtual Decentralised Networks: The Linux Project - 0 views

www.firstmonday.org/...dafermos

collaboration communities coordination decentralization decentralizednetworks interactions knowledge linux management networks project valuecreation

shared by Bertrand Duperrin on 15 Aug 08 - Cached
  • Bertrand Duperrin on 15 Aug 08
     
    This paper examines the latest of paradigms - the Virtual Network(ed) Organisation - and whether geographically dispersed knowledge workers can virtually collaborate for a project under no central planning. Co-ordination, management and the role of knowledge arise as the central areas of focus. The Linux Project and its development model are selected as a case of analysis and the critical success factors of this organisational design are identified. The study proceeds to the formulation of a framework that can be applied to all kinds of virtual decentralised work and concludes that value creation is maximized when there is intense interaction and uninhibited sharing of information between the organisation and the surrounding community. Therefore, the potential success or failure of this organisational paradigm depends on the degree of dedication and involvement by the surrounding community.
Christophe Gauthier

Ten Leading Business Intelligence Software Solutions - 2 views

itmanagement.earthweb.com/...ligence-Software-Solutions.htm

secafi meslectures logiciel BI business intelligence analytics

shared by Christophe Gauthier on 16 Oct 10 - No Cached
  • Christophe Gauthier on 16 Oct 10
     
    "Ten Leading Business Intelligence Software Solutions By Thor Olavsrud May 5, 2010 The Business Intelligence software market is shaping up as a David vs. Goliath struggle. Behemoths like Microsoft, Oracle and IBM offer feature-rich BI suites along with their many other enterprise software products. Meanwhile, pure-play business intelligence software vendors -- such as MicroStrategy and Tableau -- have avid followers and are known for innovating around new features and quickly adjusting to the shifting marketplace. Why is this important? Because Business Intelligence software is used to extract data from disparate sources -- spreadsheets, databases and other software programs -- inside companies and then analyze that business data to better understand a firm's internal and external strengths and weaknesses. A business relies heavily on this data. Bottom line: Business intelligence software enables managers to better see the relationship between different data for critical decision-making -- particularly opportunities for innovation, cost reduction and optimal resource deployment. The list below includes ten industry-leading BI solutions, from vendors large and not-so-large. If you're looking for a bird's eye view of this rapidly evolving market, the following condensed portraits should help. Business Intelligence Software: Ten Solutions Note: This list is NOT ordered "best to worst." The question of what business intelligence software solution is best for a given company depends on an entire matrix of factors. This list is simply an overview of BI solutions, with the debate about quality left to individual clients. SAP Crystal Reports Crystal Reports is part of SAP's Business Objects portfolio of business intelligence software solutions. It allows users to graphically design interactive reports and connect them to virtually any data source, Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, Oracle databases, Business Objects Enterprise business views and local file system info
Christophe Deschamps

Open-Source Spying - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...03intelligence.html

ib renseignement entreprise 2.0 enterprise 2.0 gestion projet 2.0 adoption technos 2.0

shared by Christophe Deschamps on 15 Jul 09 - Cached
  • The spy agencies were saddled with technology that might have seemed cutting edge in 1995.
  • Theoretically, the intelligence world ought to revolve around information sharing. If F.B.I. agents discover that Al Qaeda fund-raising is going on in Brooklyn, C.I.A. agents in Europe ought to be able to know that instantly.
  • Analysts also did not worry about anything other than their corners of the world.
  • ...57 more annotations...
  • When the Orange Revolution erupted in Ukraine in late 2004, Burton went to Technorati, a search engine that scours the “blogosphere,” to find the most authoritative blog postings on the subject. Within minutes, he had found sites with insightful commentary from American expatriates who were talking to locals in Kiev and on-the-fly debates among political analysts over what it meant. Because he and his fellow spies were stuck with outdated technology, they had no comparable way to cooperate — to find colleagues with common interests and brainstorm online.
  • Indeed, throughout the intelligence community, spies are beginning to wonder why their technology has fallen so far behind — and talk among themselves about how to catch up. Some of the country’s most senior intelligence thinkers have joined the discussion, and surprisingly, many of them believe the answer may lie in the interactive tools the world’s teenagers are using to pass around YouTube videos and bicker online about their favorite bands.
  • perhaps, they argue, it’ s time to try something radically different. Could blogs and wikis prevent the next 9/11?
  • during the cold war, threats formed slowly. The Soviet Union was a ponderous bureaucracy that moved at the glacial speed of the five-year plan. Analysts studied the emergence of new tanks and missiles, pieces of hardware that took years to develop.
  • Writing reports was thus a leisurely affair, taking weeks or months; thousands of copies were printed up and distributed via interoffice mail. If an analyst’s report impressed his superiors, they’d pass it on to their superiors, and they to theirs — until, if the analyst was very lucky, it landed eventually in the president’s inner circle.
  • The F.B.I. terminals were connected to one another — but not to the computers at any other agency, and vice versa.
  • If an analyst requested information from another agency, that request traveled through elaborate formal channels. The walls between the agencies were partly a matter of law.
  • Islamist terrorists, as 9/11 proved, behaved utterly unlike the Soviet Union. They were rapid-moving, transnational and cellular.
  • To disrupt these new plots, some intelligence officials concluded, American agents and analysts would need to cooperate just as fluidly — trading tips quickly among agents and agencies. Following the usual chain of command could be fatal. “To fight a network like Al Qaeda, you need to behave like a network,” John Arquilla,
  • This control over the flow of information, as the 9/11 Commission noted in its final report, was a crucial reason American intelligence agencies failed to prevent those attacks. All the clues were there — Al Qaeda associates studying aviation in Arizona, the flight student Zacarias Moussaoui arrested in Minnesota, surveillance of a Qaeda plotting session in Malaysia — but none of the agents knew about the existence of the other evidence. The report concluded that the agencies failed to “connect the dots.”
  • Spies, Andrus theorized, could take advantage of these rapid, self-organizing effects. If analysts and agents were encouraged to post personal blogs and wikis on Intelink — linking to their favorite analyst reports or the news bulletins they considered important — then mob intelligence would take over.
  • Pieces of intel would receive attention merely because other analysts found them interesting. This grass-roots process, Andrus argued, suited the modern intelligence challenge of sifting through thousands of disparate clues: if a fact or observation struck a chord with enough analysts, it would snowball into popularity, no matter what their supervisors thought.
  • What most impressed Andrus was Wikipedia’s self-governing nature. No central editor decreed what subjects would be covered. Individuals simply wrote pages on subjects that interested them — and then like-minded readers would add new facts or fix errors.
  • He pointed out that the best Internet search engines, including Google, all use “link analysis” to measure the authority of documents.
  • Each agency had databases to amass intelligence, but because of the air gap, other agencies could not easily search them. The divisions were partly because of turf battles and partly because of legal restrictions — but they were also technological.
  • This, Burton pointed out, is precisely the problem with Intelink. It has no links, no social information to help sort out which intel is significant and which isn’t. When an analyst’s report is posted online, it does not include links to other reports, even ones it cites.
  • “Analytical puzzles, like terror plots, are often too piecemeal for individual brains to put together. Having our documents aware of each other would be like hooking several brains up in a line, so that each one knows what the others know, making the puzzle much easier to solve.”
  • With Andrus and Burton’s vision in mind, you can almost imagine how 9/11 might have played out differently. In Phoenix, the F.B.I. agent Kenneth Williams might have blogged his memo noting that Al Qaeda members were engaging in flight-training activity. The agents observing a Qaeda planning conference in Malaysia could have mentioned the attendance of a Saudi named Khalid al-Midhar; another agent might have added that he held a multi-entry American visa. The F.B.I. agents who snared Zacarias Moussaoui in Minnesota might have written about their arrest of a flight student with violent tendencies. Other agents and analysts who were regular readers of these blogs would have found the material interesting, linked to it, pointed out connections or perhaps entered snippets of it into a wiki page discussing this new trend of young men from the Middle East enrolling in pilot training.
    • Christophe Deschamps
      Christophe Deschamps on 15 Jul 09
       
      Peut-être un peu idyllique?
  • “The 16 intelligence organizations of the U.S. are without peer. They are the best in the world. The trick is, are they collectively the best?”
  • in a system like this, as Andrus’s theory goes, the dots are inexorably drawn together. “Once the intelligence community has a robust and mature wiki and blog knowledge-sharing Web space,”
  • From now on, Meyerrose said, each agency would have to build new systems using cheaper, off-the-shelf software so they all would be compatible. But bureaucratic obstacles were just a part of the problem Meyerrose faced. He was also up against something deeper in the DNA of the intelligence services. “We’ve had this ‘need to know’ culture for years,” Meyerrose said. “Well, we need to move to a ‘need to share’ philosophy.”
  • In the fall of 2005, they joined forces with C.I.A. wiki experts to build a prototype of something called Intellipedia, a wiki that any intelligence employee with classified clearance could read and contribute to.
  • By the late summer, Fingar decided the Intellipedia experiment was sufficiently successful that he would embark on an even more high-profile project: using Intellipedia to produce a “national intelligence estimate” for Nigeria. An N.I.E. is an authoritative snapshot of what the intelligence community thinks about a particular state — and a guide for foreign and military policy.
  • But it will also, Fingar hopes, attract contributions from other intelligence employees who have expertise Fingar isn’t yet aware of — an analyst who served in the Peace Corps in Nigeria, or a staff member who has recently traveled there.
  • In the traditional method of producing an intelligence estimate, Fingar said, he would call every agency and ask to borrow their Africa expert for a week or two of meetings. “And they’d say: ‘Well, I only got one guy who can spell Nigeria, and he’s traveling. So you lose.’ ” In contrast, a wiki will “change the rules of who can play,” Fingar said, since far-flung analysts and agents around the world could contribute, day or night.
  • Intelink allows any agency to publish a Web page, or put a document or a database online, secure in the knowledge that while other agents and analysts can access it, the outside world cannot.
  • Rasmussen notes that though there is often strong disagreement and debate on Intellipedia, it has not yet succumbed to the sort of vandalism that often plagues Wikipedia pages, including the posting of outright lies. This is partly because, unlike with Wikipedia, Intellipedia contributors are not anonymous. Whatever an analyst writes on Intellipedia can be traced to him. “If you demonstrate you’ve got something to contribute, hey, the expectation is you’re a valued member,” Fingar said. “You demonstrate you’re an idiot, that becomes known, too.”
  • So why hasn’t Intelink given young analysts instant access to all secrets from every agency? Because each agency’s databases, and the messages flowing through their internal pipelines, are not automatically put onto Intelink. Agency supervisors must actively decide what data they will publish on the network — and their levels of openness vary.
  • It would focus on spotting and predicting possible avian-flu outbreaks and function as part of a larger portal on the subject to collect information from hundreds of sources around the world, inside and outside of the intelligence agencies.
  • Operational information — like details of a current covert action — is rarely posted, usually because supervisors fear that a leak could jeopardize a delicate mission.
  • “See, these people would never have been talking before, and we certainly wouldn’t have heard about it if they did,” the assistant said. By September, the site had become so loaded with information and discussion that Rear Adm. Arthur Lawrence, a top official in the health department, told Meyerrose it had become the government’s most crucial resource on avian flu.
  • Intelink has grown to the point that it contains thousands of agency sites and several hundred databases. Analysts at the various agencies generate 50,000 official reports a year, many of which are posted to the network. The volume of material online is such that analysts now face a new problem: data overload. Even if they suspect good information might exist on Intelink, it is often impossible to find it. The system is poorly indexed, and its internal search tools perform like the pre-Google search engines of the ’90s.“
  • But Meyerrose insists that the future of spying will be revolutionized as much by these small-bore projects as by billion-dollar high-tech systems. Indeed, he says that overly ambitious projects often result in expensive disasters, the way the F.B.I.’s $170 million attempt to overhaul its case-handling software died in 2005 after the software became so complex that the F.B.I. despaired of ever fixing the bugs and shelved it. In contrast, the blog software took only a day or two to get running. “We need to think big, start small and scale fast,” Meyerrose said.
  • But the agency’s officials trained only small groups of perhaps five analysts a month. After they finished their training, those analysts would go online, excited, and start their blogs. But they’d quickly realize no one else was reading their posts aside from the four other people they’d gone through the training with. They’d get bored and quit blogging, just as the next trainees came online.
  • This presents a secrecy paradox. The Unclassified Intellipedia will have the biggest readership and thus will grow the most rapidly; but if it’s devoid of truly sensitive secrets, will it be of any use?
  • Many in the intelligence agencies suspect not. Indeed, they often refuse to input sensitive intel into their own private, secure databases; they do not trust even their own colleagues, inside their own agencies, to keep their secrets safe.
  • These are legitimate concerns. After the F.B.I. agent Robert Hanssen was arrested for selling the identities of undercover agents to Russia, it turned out he had found their names by trawling through records on the case-support system.
  • “When you have a source, you go to extraordinary lengths to protect their identities,” I. C. Smith, a 25-year veteran of the bureau, told me. “So agents never trusted the system, and rightly so.”
  • What the agencies needed was a way to take the thousands of disparate, unorganized pieces of intel they generate every day and somehow divine which are the most important.
  • A spy blogosphere, even carefully secured against intruders, might be fundamentally incompatible with the goal of keeping secrets. And the converse is also true: blogs and wikis are unlikely to thrive in an environment where people are guarded about sharing information. Social software doesn’t work if people aren’t social.
  • the C.I.A. set up a competition, later taken over by the D.N.I., called the Galileo Awards: any employee at any intelligence agency could submit an essay describing a new idea to improve information sharing, and the best ones would win a prize.
  • The first essay selected was by Calvin Andrus, chief technology officer of the Center for Mission Innovation at the C.I.A. In his essay, “The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive Intelligence Community,”
  • For the intelligence agencies to benefit from “social software,” he said, they need to persuade thousands of employees to begin blogging and creating wikis all at once. And that requires a cultural sea change: persuading analysts, who for years have survived by holding their cards tightly to their chests, to begin openly showing their hands online.
    • Christophe Deschamps
      Christophe Deschamps on 15 Jul 09
       
      Un point essentiel. Il faut commencer petit technologiquement et grand humainement!
  • Indeed, Meyerrose’s office is building three completely separate versions of Intellipedia for each of the three levels of secrecy: Top Secret, Secret and Unclassified. Each will be placed on a data network configured so that only people with the correct level of clearance can see them — and these networks are tightly controlled, so sensitive information typed into the Top Secret Intellipedia cannot accidentally leak into the Unclassified one.
  • The chat room was unencrypted and unsecured, so anyone could drop in and read the postings or mouth off. That way, Meyerrose figured, he’d be more likely to get drop-ins by engineers from small, scrappy start-up software firms who might have brilliant ideas but no other way to get an audience with intelligence chiefs. The chat room provoked howls of outrage. “People were like, ‘Hold it, can’t the Chinese and North Koreans listen in?’ ” Meyerrose told me. “And, sure, they could. But we weren’t going to be discussing state secrets. And the benefits of openness outweigh the risks.”
  • Fingar says that more value can be generated by analysts sharing bits of “open source” information — the nonclassified material in the broad world, like foreign newspapers, newsletters and blogs. It used to be that on-the-ground spies were the only ones who knew what was going on in a foreign country. But now the average citizen sitting in her living room can peer into the debates, news and lives of people in Iran. “If you want to know what the terrorists’ long-term plans are, the best thing is to read their propaganda — the stuff out there on the Internet,”
  • Beat cops in Indiana might be as likely to uncover evidence of a terror plot as undercover C.I.A. agents in Pakistan. Fiery sermons printed on pamphlets in the U.K. might be the most valuable tool in figuring out who’s raising money for a possible future London bombing. The most valuable spy system is one that can quickly assemble disparate pieces that are already lying around — information gathered by doctors, aid workers, police officers or security guards at corporations.
  • The premise of spy-blogging is that a million connected amateurs will always be smarter than a few experts collected in an elite star chamber; that Wikipedia will always move more quickly than the Encyclopaedia Britannica; that the country’s thousand-odd political bloggers will always spot news trends more quickly than slow-moving journalists in the mainstream media.
  • In three meetings a day, the officials assess all the intel that has risen to their attention — and they jointly decide what the nation’s most serious threats are.
  • The grass roots, they’ve found, are good at collecting threats but not necessarily at analyzing them. If a lot of low-level analysts are pointing to the same inaccurate posting, that doesn’t make it any less wrong.
  • Without the knowledge that comes from long experience, he added, a fledgling analyst or spy cannot know what is important or not. The counterterrorism center, he said, should decide which threats warrant attention.
  • Many of the officials at the very top, like Fingar, Meyerrose and their colleagues at the office of the director of national intelligence, are intrigued by the potential of a freewheeling, smart-mobbing intelligence community. The newest, youngest analysts are in favor of it, too. The resistance comes from the “iron majors” — career officers who occupy the enormous middle bureaucracy of the spy agencies. They might find the idea of an empowered grass roots to be foolhardy; they might also worry that it threatens their turf.
  • The normal case for social software is failure,” Shirky said. And because Intellipedia is now a high-profile experiment with many skeptics, its failure could permanently doom these sorts of collaborative spy endeavors.
  • It might be difficult to measure contributions to a wiki; if a brilliant piece of analysis emerges from the mob, who gets credit for it?
  • “A C.I.A. officer’s career is advanced by producing reports,”
  • Though D.N.I. officials say they have direct procurement authority over technology for all the agencies, there’s no evidence yet that Meyerrose will be able to make a serious impact on the eight spy agencies in the Department of Defense, which has its own annual $38 billion intelligence budget — the lion’s share of all the money the government spends on spying.
  • if the spies do not join the rest of the world, they risk growing to resemble the rigid, unchanging bureaucracy that they once confronted during the cold war.
  • Christophe Deschamps on 15 Jul 09
     
    Article du NY Times qui décrit en détail le projet Intellipedia, avantages, inconvénients,.... Très intéressant pour l'étude de cas de déploiement d'un projet 2.0. les risques et écueils ne sont pas oubliés. D'autant plus utile que c'est sans doute l'un des plus anciens projets de grande envergure de ce type actuellement. 10 pages.
Christophe Deschamps

Management guru offers solutions to combat worker disengagement - 0 views

www.eurekalert.org/...s-mgo072009.php

ib entreprise2.0 enterprise 2.0 management

shared by Christophe Deschamps on 21 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Ehin developed his new leadership model which he calls "unmanagement" after analyzing research on human nature which shows that human productivity is at its peak in informal, co-evolving relationships, as opposed to within formal systems where people are stifled by bureaucracy and not allowed to work openly with their counterparts and peers.
  • He has discovered that this sweet spot is the place where the most productive and innovative work of an organization takes place, largely because people tend to want to follow their self-interests and do so through developing informal social networks in the workplace.
  • This cutting edge management book offers guidance to business leaders searching for ways to increase the innovative dynamics, motivation and performance of their knowledge workers.
  • Christophe Deschamps on 21 Jul 09
     
    Théorie du non-management pour rendre productif l'informel. Semble particulièrement en phase avec l'entreprise 2.0.
Christophe Deschamps

Enterprise 2.0 Vs Diffusion of Innovation - 3 views

ceciiil.wordpress.com/...2-0-vs-diffusion-of-innovation

ib entreprise 2.0 enterprise 2.0 management adoption technos 2.0

shared by Christophe Deschamps on 18 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Relative advantage : what value does it bring ? Compatibility : how much effort to transition to this innovation ? Complexity : how much learning is required to apply it ? Triability : How easy is it to try the innovation ? Observability : How visible are the results ?
  • None of these intangible assets (human, organizational and informational capital – i.e databases, Information systems, networks, technology infrastructure) has value that can be measured separately or independently.
  • Mc Afee still recommend to build some kind of business case with the following elements
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • Costs and time lines
  • Expected benefits
  • Technology footprint
  • People make relative evaluations Reference point is status quo People are loss-adverse : a prospective loss of X is 3 times more painful that a gain of X is pleasurable.
  • These elements lead to the fact that we value what we have far more highly that what we could have instead. The result is what Gourville calls the 9x effect : people rate what they have 3 times more than their actual value and prospective items three times less than what they’re actually worth. A new item must therefore be at least 9 times better to justify the (perceived) effort required for the adoption.
  • As a result, McAfee quotes Gourville and recommends not to oversell the collaborative platform and make it clear that the adoption will be a long phase.
  • The objectives is to help them realize that these tools are the root cause of many of their daily work frustrations
  • So a 30 days trial might not be enough to see the full benefits of such solutions. However it can still proves how easy it is to use them.
  • A good strategy to make the results visible is to locate some teams of social networks enthusiasts (IT or HR departments might be a first good guess). And start to deploy the solution on such narrow teams.
  • In a transparency and observability purpose, it might be a good idea to monitor the knowledge workers perceived value of their tools and measure the progress. Preparing a questionnaire with a set of questions around the subject of collaboration, innovation, productivity and knowledge management could be a good starting point.
  • Christophe Deschamps on 18 Feb 10
     
    Revue du livre de McAfee par @ceciil
Christophe Deschamps

Enterprise Web 2.0: Building the Next-Generation Workplace - the Driving Force behind J... - 0 views

www.marketwatch.com/...story.aspx

entreprise 2.0 etudes knowledge workers

shared by Christophe Deschamps on 07 Oct 08 - Cached
  • Building on the somewhat vague and yet particular usage of the term 'Web 2.0', 'Enterprise Web 2.0' describes a fresh, and some would say new, approach to the design and provision of business applications that incorporates aspects such as social networking, collaboration, and real-time communication. In addition, Enterprise Web 2.0 focuses a great deal of attention on the user's 'experience' or 'joy of use' -- something of a novelty in enterprise IT these days. By comparison, when Butler Group talks about 'Enterprise 2.0', we are focusing on the composition and architecture of the IT ecosystem, and the associated business models that will support Enterprise Web 2.0 applications.
  • Enterprise Web 2.0 is very much concerned with the user experience of corporate systems and applications, and on extracting business value from the social contributions and interactions of the organisation's various stakeholders.
  • The management of customer relationships continues to remain pivotal for most organisations, and so the social aspects of Web 2.0 are mirrored in the corporate world of Enterprise Web 2.0
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • Workforce mobility and changing communication patterns are two more trends that are driving change at the infrastructure layer, and so unified communication and collaboration requirements form an important part of Enterprise 2.0 strategy.
  • Enterprise Web 2.0 might be about putting the user (i.e. employee, customer, or stakeholder) first, but in order to do so it also requires supporting technology. And so at the IT infrastructure level, Enterprise 2.0 means Internet Protocol (IP) everywhere -- voice, video, and data. Enterprise 2.0 also means, 'open' standards rather than proprietary or 'closed' systems. Furthermore, Enterprise 2.0 technology means user-driven technology and not IT-driven technology.
  • Having accepted the fact that 'processes' means 'people', then we have to look for ways in which these people (i.e. processes) can self-organise and reference one another. Then, where possible, we need to somehow incapsulate the processes into a set of business services. One day (we might call it Web 3.0), Artificial Intelligence (AI) will enable organisations to do with computers that which they do via human beings today, but until that day arrives, organisations must do more to aid interdepartment and inter-company collaboration. Workflow has not yet figured largely in the consumer-oriented world of Web 2.0, but Butler Group sees this as pivotal when considering Enterprise Web 2.0.
  • Today applications that embody processes are built by IT professionals, but tomorrow they will be built by a new breed of power user, using mashup builders, software agents, and other Web 2.0 technologies.
  • Business and IT managers must therefore prepare themselves for the new generation of power user who will be creating mashups and situational applications that have a far broader impact than the typical spreadsheet macro of yesteryear, and that if organisations are to avoid a proliferation of unmanageable, siloed, micro-applications, then they must blend the power of personal productivity with an appropriate management layer and a degree of central oversight.
  • Web 2.0 is no longer PC-centric.
  • It is clearly a mistake to think that Web 2.0 is all about technology, and likewise Enterprise Web 2.0, but it is also a mistake to dismiss the technology altogether. Therefore, selecting and implementing enterprise social software solutions, next-generation collaboration solutions, and Rich Internet Applications requires careful thought, consideration, and planning.
  • The driving force behind just about every aspect of Enterprise Web 2.0, is of course, the user -- something that has not always ranked highly on the list of priorities for corporate IT mangers -- and so the challenge for all forward-looking organisations is to refocus on this aspect of their IT strategies.
  • Christophe Deschamps on 07 Oct 08
     
    Nouvelle étude de Research & Markets. Pas mal d'infos dans cette synthèse. User-centric
Yan Thoinet

Cogenz - Learn More - About Cogenz - 0 views

www.cogenz.com/...product-information.aspx

bookmarking enterprise2.0

shared by Yan Thoinet on 04 Mar 08 - Cached
  • Cogenz is a hosted social bookmarking service for companies wishing to harness the collective intelligence of their employees using social software in a simple and effective way.Think del.icio.us for the enterprise and you won't go far wrong.Knowledge workers in your organization can use Cogenz to: store the online resources - internet or intranet - they use to perform their jobs share them with colleagues across functions and geographies browse, search and track collective intelligence relevant to their needs identify experts and communities of interest Unlike public social bookmarking services, this is all done through a private branded installation that you control. Next steps Watch our introduction to Cogenz and social bookmarking in the enterprise Get more information on some of the key benefits Learn how to get started with Cogenz (it's easier than you think)
Christophe Deschamps

SÉCURITÉ : Les entreprises ne s'y retrouvent plus face au Web 2.0 - 0 views

www.lepoint.fr/...351291

ib sécurité entreprise 2.0 enterprise 2.0 web2.0 knowledge workers

shared by Christophe Deschamps on 11 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Selon l'étude, 95 % des responsables informatiques autorisent actuellement les employés à accéder à certains sites du Web 2.0, une liberté logique, dans la mesure où 62 % des sondés estiment que le Web 2.0 est indispensable à l'activité de leur entreprise.
  • Mais la liberté accordée semble insuffisante : 86 % des responsables interrogés déclarent être sous pression, notamment de la part des cadres dirigeants et des services marketing et commerciaux, pour "autoriser un accès élargi" au Web 2.0, souvent très bridé.
  • Paradoxalement, les sites les plus souvent autorisés sont aussi ceux qui sont, dans d'autres entreprises, le plus souvent bloqués : les webmails (type Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo Mail, etc.), les portails Web comme iGoogle, les wikis (pages collaboratives, comme Wikipedia) et, évidemment, les réseaux sociaux, dont Facebook,
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • 47 % des responsables interrogés admettent que les employés essaient de contourner la politique de sécurité Web des entreprises.
  • Facebook est, par exemple, un vecteur de codes malicieux, qui se propagent via les applications, des extensions du site créées par tout un chacun, et auxquelles les utilisateurs doivent donner un accès complet à leur profil pour profiter de nouvelles fonctions alléchantes (préparer des sondages pour ses amis, savoir qui a écrit quoi sur quelqu'un, etc.).
  • 80 % des responsables informatiques se déclarent confiants pour la sécurité de leur entreprise. Mais Websense, qui travaille dans le secteur, affirme : "Les chiffres montrent qu'elles (les entreprises, NDLR) ne sont pas bien équipées pour se protéger contre les menaces du Web 2.0." Paradoxalement, lorsque les questions du sondage se font plus précises, seules 9 % des entreprises reconnaissent avoir déployé des moyens de sécurité couvrant tous les vecteurs de menaces : rien à voir avec la confiance affichée au début.
  • L'étude montre une méconnaissance du Web 2.0 et des nouveaux usages d'Internet en général, de la part des entreprises. Peut-être ont-elles besoin de temps pour s'adapter, mais, au vu des menaces, la prise de conscience risque d'être plutôt brutale.
  • Christophe Deschamps on 11 Jun 09
     
    via @aponcier Une étude qui montre bien la nécessité d'avancer dans le dialogue sur ce thème.
Christophe Deschamps

Les travailleurs du savoir européens en quête d'améliorations - 0 views

www.adobe.com/...forrester_download

ib knowledge workers OutilsCollaboratifs Social software

shared by Christophe Deschamps on 19 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Christophe Deschamps on 19 Jul 09
     
    Adobe a récemment chargé Forrester Consulting de réaliser une étude pour mieux comprendre le mode de collaboration des employés au sein des entreprises européennes. (décembre 2008). Nécessaire de s'enregistrer.
Christophe Deschamps

Entreprise 2.0, collaboration et contraintes individuelles - 7 views

www.duperrin.com/...n-et-contraintes-individuelles

ib knowledge workers entreprise 2.0 enterprise 2.0 km

shared by Christophe Deschamps on 02 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Le groupe ne délivre en effet que la somme de la tâches effectuées par ses membres. D’où l’importance de la coordination. On peut même se dire que par une étrangle ironie du sort, le travail des travailleurs du savoir donne une part encore plus belle à la tâche individuelle de l’individu au sein du groupe : si on peut effectuer une tâche physique ensemble on ne peut penser ensemble. On pense individuellement et le travail de groupe demande de multiplier les intéractions entre tous pour rester coordonné et cohérent.
  • Ce qui se traduit à nouveau par un travail individuel même si ponctué de nombreux échanges qui donnent une impression de collectif. Mais il n’en est pas moins que chacun se retrouve avec une tâche personnelle.
  • Mais l’apport du “2.0″ peut être important dans la multiplication des signaux “informels” donnant aux autres de la visibilité sur son travail et leur permettant de s’adapter en évitant une coordination lourde, peu réactive et chronophage.
  • ...13 more annotations...
  • C’est là qu’une logique “2.0″ commence à porter ses fruits : on s’en remet au réseau, et à d’éventuelles communautés où des discussions sur le sujet auraient lieu. Si le sujet a déjà été traité tant mieux, sinon on trouve des personnes pertinentes à qui le soumettre, soit dans une communauté soit en identifiant un individu à contacter (très souvent on trouve ces personnes car leur activité “sociale” enrichit leur profil…et une recherche suffit.
  • l’individu part de lui, passe ensuite au groupe et ensuite aux réseaux/communautés. Il passe d’un travail solitaire à un travail coordonné dans une équipe définie avant de passer à quelque chose d’informel, avec une logique destructurée, dans un périmètre humain relativement flou.
  • On améliore l’efficacité au sein du groupe en se donnant la possibilité d’en sortir si besoin. On est, quoi qu’il en soit, dans une problématique d’organisation : on amplifie le potentiel des pratiques existantes, on en met en place éventuellement de nouvelles mais de manière très “orientée tâche”. On construit du “social” autour d’un business process, d’un workflow dont on essaie d’augmenter la bande passante. On “étend” le périmètre de l’existant.
  • il faut que des communautés actives et pertinentes existent pour pouvoir mener la logique à son terme, pour permettre au collaborateur de passer en mode “réseau” lorsque le groupe montre ses limites.  Là on entre dans une logique plus “sociale”. Ces communautés seront composées de personnes qui décideront volontairement de partager expériences et réflexions sur un sujet donné, de faire un pas au delà du travail qui leur est demandé, de donner une sorte de supplément d’âme à leur investissement professionnel.
  • on est dans le “pur 2.0″ : des conversations, des communautés qui se forment et vivent librement, de la collaboration “douce”, informelle, non structurée, de l’imprévisible et une importante composante humaine car ici on parle de l’envie d’avancer avec les autres, de partager, d’apprendre, de se lier à des personnes que l’on aurait peut être jamais rencontré autrement. En général c’est surtout cette dimension qui vient à l’esprit lorqu’on parle d’entreprise 2.0
  • les collaborateurs (et quelle que soit leur génération) tiennent à garder une frontière claire entre leurs vies privées et professionnelles et surtout dans les pratiques liées à chaque. On “socialise” entre amis mais pas dans l’entreprise. Ou avec d’infinies précautions et dans un périmètre connu. Ce qui nous ramène au “moi, mon groupe, mon réseau” énoncé plus haut.
  • ceux qui n’ont d’autres objectifs que de faire leur travail, se limitent à intéragir dans le périmètre de leur équipe et vont occasionnellement plus loin s’il n’y a pas moyen de faire autrement.
  • ceux qui, en plus, ont envie de s’investir pour échanger, benchmarquer, apprendre, proposer…sur des sujets professionnels,
  • Cela est tout sauf anecdotique lorsqu’on conçoit un projet 2.0 au niveau macro : il faut des scénarios d’usages pour chacun et surtout ne pas s’imaginer qu’on pourra emmener tout le monde dans le communautaire et l’informel, ce que d’aucuns appelleront le chaotique.Il faut penser non pas à ce qu’on aimerait que les gens fassent dans un monde idéal voire fantasmé mais s’adapter à leur logique de collaboration.
  • On dit que l’entreprise 2.0 c’est beaucoup de choses : connecter, engager, partager… Je pense qu’on oublie trop souvent une dimension qui est pourtant l’essence même de l’entreprise: réaliser des choses. C’est pour cela que le collaborateur n’a que faire d’être 1.0 ou 2.0, il veut juste une logique claire qui lui permette de faire son travail plus efficacement.
  • L’entreprise 2.0 n’est pas la fin du groupware, n’est pas le “tout réseau”, “tout communautaire”. C’est le fait de mettre en face de chaque situation les bons outils et les bons usages en fonction de l’objectif à atteindre et de la capacité d’engagement de chacun.
  • Quoi qu’il en soit il n’y a pas un contexte de travail et de collaboration unique mais une infinité de contextes dans lesquels on peut et doit développer des logiques d’intéractions spécifiques qui permettront aux collaborateurs de passer d’un extrême à l’autre en faisant des petits pas intermédiaires en fonction de son contexte propre.
  • Le collaborateur n’est pas si opposé au changement que cela, il veut juste des petits pas plutôt qu’un grand saut et que le processus respecte sa logique propre, fasse sens par rapport à ses besoins et ne violente pas sa volonté de s’engager ou non.
  • Christophe Deschamps on 02 Feb 10
     
    Très intéressant billet de @bduperrin sur les besoins des travailleurs du savoir
Christophe Deschamps

Pourquoi l'entreprise 2.0 ? Pourquoi maintenant ? Pourquoi il faut y aller ? ... - 5 views

nouveaumanagementdelinformation.viabloga.com/...t-y-aller-explication-en-image

enterprise 2.0 entreprise 2.0 visualisation visualization km knowledge workers

shared by Christophe Deschamps on 05 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Christophe Deschamps on 05 Feb 10
     
    Je me propose aujourd'hui de partager avec vous les schémas de travail qui ont accompagné l'écriture de ce livre et m'ont aidé à réfléchir autant qu'ils ont été le fruit de mes réflexions.
1 - 11 of 11
Showing 20▼ items per page