The era of the perpetual job seeker?

Over the last several decades, the level of trust between employee and employer has corroded.  While there are many causes for this decline, the bottom line is most employers no longer hesitate to slash employees, and most employees do not hesitate to jump ship for better opportunities. And each party is fully aware of the other's intent.

So what does this mean for average Joes like you and me?

It means that your employer is going to continually look for new and exciting ways to squeeze productivity out of you (more on this to come soon).

And it means you are going to have to change from the traditional passive model of "job hunting when necessity strikes" to being ever vigilant and alert for new opportunities.

First, the easy part -- get your personal "brand" polished and ready to go at a moment's notice. At the moment, LinkedIn seems the be the primary mechanism to do this, tho other social media matter as well.  Whether you use Facebook or Twitter or some other site, these social media outlets need to collectively communicate your strengths, and hopefully few of your weaknesses.

Second, you need to find ways to always be on the lookout for that next gig. This is the real challenge -- traditional job posting web sites like Monster or Careerbuilder are tiresome to wade thru, as is Craigslist (which seems to be on the wane from its glory days as a job site) and newspaper sites. LinkedIn appears to have the lead here, but other than using your network to suggest connections, technologically it is not particularly interesting.

Jobfox is little more interesting in their approach. Sure, they have job postings as well, but you use your resume to build a profile on which the site performs an automated categorization of your skills.  This enables Jobfox to recommend jobs that you might not find on your own as the title, keywords, or details may be different from the kind of job you would normally search for. Of course, when you automate categorization it is rarely 100% (for example, my profile came back with Linux, which was not on my resume, as a skill -- and while I can fat finger my way around VI, I am by no means proficient).

A way to make the categorization more effective is by applying semantic technology. Being able to eliminate options that are in the wrong context increases the overall quality of the associations.  And the ability to mine for non-obvious associations provides insight into opportunities that would have remained hidden.

Bottom line, whatever the technology, being able to have relevant, quality, networked opportunities delivered to you as they occur will certain help you prosper in the era of the perpetual job seeker.

The possible business benefits of social networks

I have to admit I have been slow to find value in social networks and social media, particularly in a business context. Sure, I've tried Facebook, but I closed the account after I decided I simply did not care enough about the comings and goings, minute-by-minute activities and phone-enabled orgy of idiotic imagery (for example, the image here shows a foul baseball that landed just under the front passenger side of my car, hit by my 11 year old last night at the little league playoffs (they won, BTW) -- without my iPhone, this magical memory would be lost forever) of people I had not seen in person in years, and frankly have little in common with anymore.

Same for Twitter -- I have enough frequent, brief thoughts of my own to organize and evaluate I don't need them crowded out by the pithy musings of others, nor am I needy enough to really believe I am doing a disservice to humanity at large and hindering the advancement of intellectual discourse by not instantly sharing my every thought. That's what blogs are for, which are only slightly better in that they allow for the all-too-often unused capability to produce multiple drafts.

Now, LinkedIn I do use frequently, but less for interaction with others and more for research. And the more features they add, the less interesting it becomes to me as it just creates more visual noise.

Which leads me to the enterprise.  While many people are keen on the benefits of social media within business, I have been much less so.  Businesses exist to produce goods and services for less than the market will bear.  Social networks are distracting, and combined with other distracting technologies like email and phones, it seems to be more counter productive than not.

But here's the thing, whether I like it of not. Social media and networks can be fun and engaging. And if people engage, they contribute.

This has been the classic challenge in knowledge management. Just because you install software to enable a "Community of Practice" does not mean people will contribute. And those who do may not be the ones you really need, as the people who are really good at their jobs are generally busy doing their jobs, and have little time for anything else.

Another approach has been to hide rewards within a system to encourage users to explore it, but that tends to encourage the people who like to find things and get rewarded, and have the time on their hands to do so.  Which, again, are most likely not the people who excel at revenue producing activities.

Social media may be different.

Social media, if woven into the work flow and processes, could bridge the gap so that knowledge capture is thorough, useful and painless. But it will need to be guided and managed to truly be successful.

The fundamental human benefit of the Web

As a follow up to the previous posting:

The Web empowers individuals to rapidly achieve innovations while reducing dependencies and removing barriers.

And while this may not encourage "team spirit," what it does do is free innovators, creators and thinkers to move at speeds previously unimagined. No longer constrained by middle managers who covet information as means of consolidating power; weighed down and slowed down by forced collaboration with mediocre performers (when was the last time you were in a brainstorming session where no one played devil's advocate and everyone offered real ideas and suggestions without fear of being ridiculed?); managed by superiors who either claim credit for efforts not their own or who claim vast improvements of quality by making trivial changes, the Web removes market boundaries, provides access to highly skilled but reasonably-priced resources, and allows for entire companies and brands to be built overnight merely by creating a well designed, thoughtful and information-rich online presence.

Now this may lead to more frequent job changes for these folks, expected or unexpected, but in the long run, a small price to pay for great leaps in innovation.

There is another risk — just because something is innovative is no guarantee that anyone will want it enough to pay for it. But I'll save that topic for another day.

The fundamental business benefit of the Web

It empowers the individual while reducing the burden on the enterprise.

Fundamental to the World Wide Web is the ability to provide anyone anywhere instant access to information, processes, tools and resources. This empowers individuals by helping them learn more quickly; think faster on their feet; improvise, improve and produce better results; and generally be more productive and self-sufficient.

And, while the same information, processes, tools and resources are accessed by many different people over time, the cost to the enterprise to define and disseminate occurs only once. And, once processes, information and resources are captured, organized and distributed, the enterprise can operate more efficiently — and more profitably.

Free the desktop!

While virtualization is all the rage, making your word processor, spreadsheet and other day-to-day tools “virtual” still ain't solving your big problem. While your TCO can certainly be brought down, you aren't going to get a corresponding or greater return on productivity.

A brief history:

In the beginning, the application or program was the primary point of entry for the user. Then, as users installed more and more applications on their desktops (which begat more and more files), the file became the primary means for entry – click the file and the OS generally knew which program to launch. Today, we are in a hybrid environment of desktop apps, network client/server apps, files and URLs/URIs that connect to networked or remote hosted applications. And lets not forget "the cloud."

The problem with the desktop is simply that it is the wrong metaphor for the distributed enterprise. And, as illustrated by the floppy disk that represents “save,” software companies are loath to change “learned” metaphors. Great leaps are only made by taking risks (or at the very least stepping outside your comfort zone).

So how do you build a better desktop? By reinventing how you interact with business content and business process. Business process can provide a crystal clear lens into the enterprise that reflects and communicates exactly what an employee could, should or must do.

Imagine:

No matter where you are, or what device you are using (laptop, smart phone, kiosk, toaster), you log into your “workspace,” where you see the processes and tasks that define your job. As each task is selected, the relevant content, regulations and policies, subject matter experts and yes, the software systems, are exposed. Clicking on any one of them links to, contacts, or logs you into that thing. You in turn print, download or upload work files, enter data and collaborate with peers.

Bottom line – while virtualization is not solving the productivity puzzle, it certainly does provide some critical, enabling pieces. But the rest, well, is yet to come.

The imperative to reinvent business process

Why am I so keen on the idea of reinventing business process?

Because an amazing thing happens when an enterprise's business processes leverage the distributed nature of the Web.

Productivity...increases.

Unfortunately, this is not what traditional business process methods, tools and techniques were created to enable. Originally, they were developed to do essentially two things – one, to analyze how an organization operates and determine areas for improvement (which might or might not have resulted in a technology implementation); and two, identify resource types and definitions so that database schemas could be designed. Thus the tools created to do this are generally expensive and complicated, with steep learning curves. And the result, or output of these tools are diagrams either too large and complex to comprehend, or so granular and precise that they fail to communicate any understanding of, or relationship to, the enterprise as a whole.

For an enterprise to see dramatic productivity gains, the tools to do so must be in the hands of, and usable by, the business user – the person actually doing the work.

So what about business process needs reinventing? Four things:

1. Anyone should be able to document, or model, a business process with little or no training.
   
2. Anyone should be able to use the result, or representation, of a documented process to navigate the tasks and activities that define their role within the organization.
   
3. The documented process should directly connect process activities to all relevant content.
   
4. Human interactions with a process should act as feedback into the process, either validating it or indicating areas for improvement.

How to start "managing knowledge"

When I attended a conference on knowledge management a while back, I was struck by the number of people trying to figure out how to best get started with KM in their organization. The real question was, are they still trying to figure it out after several decades, or was it a whole new generation who have been tasked with KM projects but not constrained by the intellectual baggage of past techniques – a generation far more willing to embrace technology than shun it?

It appeared to be the latter (at least I have convinced myself that is the case). So here's my best advice for them, along with a do-it-yourself "KM starter kit." But first, the advice: stop worrying about tacit knowledge. Pursuing tacit knowledge delivers few nuggets of usefulness amid mountains of useless information, and wastes much time and effort to do so. And, while things like questionnaires and communities of practice are “low cost” technologically, they most certainly have a financial impact on productivity (and consulting budgets).

So what is tangible and “knowable” in the enterprise? Drum roll please...that's right, business process.

While an organization is made up of people, it is the processes, the tasks, where people interact, hand-off and collaborate that define organizational purpose and value. People can be replaced, the processes cannot (unless the business model changes, of course).
With that in mind, here's how to build your KM starter kit:

1. Make a list of all the processes you can think of (feel free to ask others, consult process models, etc.). Then next to each one, prioritize it in a way meaningful to you by assigning a naming or numbering sequence (“high value, medium value, low value,” or “1,2,3”).
   
   
2. Next, make a list of all or some of your employees. Again, prioritize in a way that is meaningful, whether by retirement date, average employee tenure, RIF candidate, etc.
   
   
3. Connect the dots. Cross reference processes with employees, then use highest priority of both people and processes to determine where to start – which processes to document first, which employees to interview.

And there's more you could do – you could make a list of information resources, and prioritize and cross reference those, so you have even better insight into the most critical areas. You could do the same with controls — types of regulations and policies. And you could even cross reference software systems.

All these things together will give you a powerful road map for managing knowledge in a useful and meaningful way.

Now get going!

Process power to the people!

There are two kinds of business processes in the enterprise – consistently executable processes (deviation will not be tolerated!) and ad hoc processes, which guide, advise and recommend. The first are ideal for automation as they are tangible in their output, the second, not so much. The first have an entire class of tools and software to support them (BPM in its many forms), the second, very few. Ironically, this seems backward, as only 10-20% of the enterprise is automatable, while the majority consists of ad hoc, or “knowledge” processes.

Why aren't traditional process tools used for ad hoc processes? Process thinking is hard, it is not natural nor intuitive as it is a man-made thing created to describe man-made things (people brought together to produce goods and services for less than the market will bear) – thus the tools developed are hard to learn, hard to use and hard to understand by humans (but relatively easy to use as business rules for software code, thus the connection to automation).

For the benefits of business process to be realized throughout the enterprise, the tools to capture and communicate process must be easily utilized by anyone, anywhere, anytime with little or no training.
Is it possible for process tools to be created to do this? Sure it is, but it is hard. It takes time, experimentation and investment. And process tool vendors don't even consider it a requirement to do so as they have used the same metaphors for decades and assume rigorous training is a given, not an option.

While the Web freed the interface, web-based tools are only as good as the effort put into the design. And, while process tool vendors are bringing browser-based process tools to market, they have only done so now that the technology has made it easy for them to reproduce the same interfaces they have always used.

Of course, since these vendors now have browser-based tools, they seem to think this makes them inherently more useful and that they can now support and enable ad hoc processes.

But they simply don't get it.

While the Web provides a powerful means of distribution, it is not the medium that matters most – it is usability and usefulness. Only then will the power of business process truly be brought to all people.