JP Ranganswami posted an article that resonated with the work I am doing on my MSc as well as some thinking about social enterprise in my day job.  Please take the time to read JP’s post Thinking about the Social Enterprise and Flow, it will definitely stimulate and challenge your thinking about how people and companies conduct business.

Here is the main paragraph from JP’s post :

The theme was simple. What causes friction between companies in a market? How can that friction be reduced or removed altogether? What can be done with the resources that are freed up by removal of the friction? It may sound boring to many of you, but I enjoyed thinking about it and talking to friends and colleagues about it. Most of the time, in a post-trade world, frictions are caused by “reference data” mismatches: names, addresses, that sort of thing. Low-volatility data are incredibly important in capital markets; vast sums of money are spent in seeking to keep them accurate and up-to-date; and yet errors related to such data continue to be immense sources of friction within that trading environment.

Here is my comment back to JP:

JP, thanks for another outstanding post. The timing for me is particularly good. I am taking an Enterprise Social Media course as part of my MSc in Information Management at Syracuse University. The course is taught by Dr Anthony Rotolo (@rotolo). I just completed reading a book by @chrisbrogan and @julien smith called Trust Agents. They proposed similar themes to yours about friction, community, trust. While the book doesn’t speak specifically about “flow” the proposed characteristics would generate it:

1. Make your own game – pick something and do it well
2. Be one of us – join or create a community
3. The Archimedes Effect – leverage your environment
4. Agent Zero – be at the centre of wide networks
5. Human Artist – be genuine with people
6. Build an Army – empower others to take up the work

Some of my thinking about social business/enterprises puts the actors at the centre instead of the policies and processes. Perhaps your focus on company pairs can take a similar approach. If we have companies (this is really simplified) be more open and tell a community about what they are doing and perhaps need then matches may be found with other companies who are equally social. Finding the medium to do this and changing corporate culture seem to be the big challenges.

Thanks again for the inspiration and pushing all our boundaries. Leo

JP replied with:

 

Today, I participated in a focus group to help start up the BCIT School of Business Business Analytics Centre of Excellence.  The room was full of Business Intelligence/Analytics/Insight leaders from around Vancouver.  We were brought together by Ed Bosman and Karen Plesner both instructors in the BCIT School of Business.  Karen facilitated a two hour discussion on a series of topics.  The group provided advice on the skills expected of graduates in the various business analytic roles – consumers, artisans/analysts and systems technicians.  The other major focus was on what a “centre of excellence” for business analytics should provide and deliver to industry.

We were provided with a definition of Business Analytics as the seed for the discussion:

Business Analytics: the skills, technologies, applications and practices for continuous iterative exploration and investigation of past business performance to gain insight and drive business planning (Davenport and Harris, 2007)

This definition generated a very good discussion and the consensus was that this definition was too narrow.  It failed to address real-time analytics for operational performance management and web analytics for customer behaviour management.

We had a good discussion about master data management and data standards.  One of the great quotes of the day came from an panel member.  He was referring to a discussion about how confident and accurate your numbers need to be.  I really like this pragmatic approach.

Business Analytics augments your gut

The another panel member introduced the group to a model used by Davenport and Harris.  Here is what it looks like:

Davenport and Harris Model

Information

Insight

Past
Present
Future

The model is a measure of where business analytics efforts are focused.  This would be a good model for us to look at the maturity of our Business Intelligence/Analytics practices.

This table contains the lists of topics and themes I noted during our focus group.  There are many topics and themes below that will warrant future blog posts.

Trends Tools BI/BA Type Audience
Web Analytics Excel Operational “Real time” Consumers
Mobile Access Tactical “Just in Time” Artisans
Bring Your Own Device Qlikview Strategic “Points in Time” Analysts
Security Tableau Compliance Authors
Privacy SAP Predictive Systems Technicians
Predictive IBM Cognos
MDM MS Analysis Services
Big Data SAS
Information Overload SPSS

 

I am looking forward to the next steps in the process and hope to contribute to the effort.

Davenport, Thomas H.; Harris, Jeanne G. (2007). Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning. Harvard Business School Press

 

On Friday February 19, 2010, I underwent laser eye surgery (Intralase Sub-Bowman’s Keratomileusis) to correct my short sightedness. I have worn glasses since I was 6 years old and contact lenses since I was 16. Over the past 15 years, I developed an allergic reaction to the protein buildup on the contact lenses and had to restrict my use to sports only.  This is a quantum leap forward for me and I am floored by the results – no more glasses!  Thank you to my surgeon, Dr. Suren Sanmugasunderam, FRCS (C) and his team at London Eye Centre.

The evolution from squinting to see, to having thick, then thin lens glasses to contact lenses and now to laser eye surgery led me to think more about several topics:

Problem Management – as described by IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL):

A `problem’ is an unknown underlying cause of one or more incidents, and a `known error’ is a problem that is successfully diagnosed and for which either a work-around or a permanent resolution has been identified.

As a child, I squinted because I did not know that I needed vision correction (unknown underlying cause).  My opthamologist successfully diagnosed that I was short sighted with astigmatism.  The workaround he prescribed were prescription glasses.  Now glasses helped modify the root cause of my vision problem but did not fix it.  Contact lenses were the next evolution of glasses but still did not address the root cause.  Finally, my laser eye surgery procedure modified my eyes by vapourizing microns of cornea cells to correct the root cause providing a permanent resolution.

How often do we consider a work around good enough? Once the work around is in place do we just get used to the added complexity without attacking the root cause?  Do we take the time to really look for a root cause and think of ways to permanently resolve it.  Enterprise Architecture and ITIL together provide the framework and processes for us to travel this road. Making time to review what we have done in the past is important so that we can move our enterprises forward with a solid foundation.

Manage Complexity – Complexity as described by Roger Sessions (@RSessions):

I use the word “complex” to mean an entity that has more “complexity” than needed to do what it is intended to do. By “complexity” I mean the number of internal states.

© 2007-2012 Enterprise Architecture in Higher Education - Leo de Sousa Creative Commons License
Enterprise Architecture in Higher Education by Leo de Sousa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at leodesousa.ca.
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site