When I read recent news that Taleo had purchased Learn.com, to be honest, I was pleasantly surprised. (and not just for my buddy Dave Wilkins)

No, not because I’ve been yapping about the need for the Standalone LMS to go the way of the dinosaur and thus feeling a sense of vindication, but for a new reason.

There is a new showdown upon us.

Talent Management versus Collaboration Systems.

Now that the Standalone LMS domino is falling, we can now turn our attention to the looming next battle which, in my opinion, will be between Talent Management Systems and Collaboration Systems. (links are to Wikipedia entries)

Maybe I’m off my nearly 40 year-old rocker, but to have separate Talent Management and Collaboration Systems in an organization seems as silly as a standalone LMS. As silly as England ever winning another World Cup.

Think about the example of Rypple for a moment. Albeit a SaaS model, Rypple demonstrates how concepts of Talent Management and Collaboration are already merging, in this case, as a form of feedback and/or performance development for your employee base.

Collaboration tools, applications and systems are inherently better ways in which to drive a flatter and more connected culture within your organization. But, to truly gain traction, the ‘human capital’ processes found within the ‘talent management’ space (such as performance reviews, learning management, onboarding/induction, succession planning, retention and attraction practices, compensation protocols, etc.) really need to have collaboration practices built into it.

In summary, now that the learning management system is being woven into talent management systems (or in some cases with collaboration systems), is it time for players such as Atlassian, Jive, Liferay, SocialText, etc. to begin merging with the likes of SuccessFactors, Taleo, Halogen, etc.

Or, how do the likes of Microsoft, Google, Cisco, SAP, Oracle etc. play a part in what arguably could be labeled as the ‘Talent & Collaboration Convergence’? (see Oliver Marks recent entry as well)

We shall see.

As the big three refine, revise and retool their television platforms (Google TV, Apple TV and Microsoft MediaRoom) it got me thinking about the death of TV.

Not necessarily as Warren Ellis describes in his laugh out loud Wired UK piece out next month entitled “The Death Of TV As We Know It”, rather, the TV as an albatross to the learning space.

If I were any of the aforementioned big three, here is what I’d be contemplating in the opportunity:

• Like the TV, learning itself is becoming more and more unscripted; informal and social is finally taking its rightful place on the gold and silver podium, shifting formal learning to bronze status. Although I don’t personally watch them, is there a coincidence in seeing reality based television at the top of the viewing charts?
• Like TV viewers, learners want choice, variety, and a Personal Learning Environment (or PVR in TV-speak). Must-See-TV on Thursday nights is a thing of the past, and the 5-day course that comes around once every quarter really is antiquated thinking at its best.
• Like the TV industry, the learning vertical is undergoing a radical change; the industrial revolution model of ‘bums in seats’ is analogous to family time around the wood encased floor model television. It’s changing, whether the networks or the learning executives like it (or see it) or not

What does this mean for the big three?

Although it’s early days, thus far, what I’ve seen from each of the companies is actually far superior to that of normal cable company software packages … if they even have a software package with their service. There is the ability not only to record multiple ‘shows’ at the same time, there are mobile recording options, web-based interaction with ‘picture in picture’ television viewing at the same time, amongst other 2.0-esque features.

But what’s missing is the learning opportunity; the Learning 2.0 opportunity.

Yes, we will continue to see a proliferation of laptops and mobile devices entering the home. This is good. I still believe, however, that as more and more families become dissatisfied with the ‘sage on the stage’ approach to K-12 learning that the combination of a web-based or IPTV-based learning ecosystem model around a television (with laptop/mobile device access as well) will conquer.

The big three, if thinking about this opportunity, will use this as a catalyst to get disenfranchised parents to subscribe to their particular product, if it comes with the 2.0 ability to combine classic educational shows, with collaborative-based learning experiences, with webcam/tele-presence-like features, with specific content that is indexed, searchable, useable and modifiable.

A learning ecosystem as described above with specific content options for K-12 (and perhaps higher education) takes iTunesU to a whole new level. It becomes the basis to (once again) unite the family and create opportunities to enrich the learning experience that is, for the most part, lacking in the traditional K-12 and higher education environment today.

So, Google, Microsoft and Apple, the challenge for you is to create the new Dewey Decimal system for 2010 and beyond. I’m up for that challenge.

The Learning Space at companies large and small is often caught between the fence posts of IT and HR. Sometimes, it’s a vortex. Regardless, I’ve come up with five personal opinions (without links to the thoughts or research of others) why I believe IT and HR could  merge in spite of any learning function’s prowess. This posting focuses on organizations that are revenue generating only.

They are, in no particular order:

• Internal Call Center & Support Duplication
• Capital Spend
• Enterprise 2.0 = Work 2.0 = Learning 2.0
• Collaborative Work Styles
• Revenue Supporting Simplicity

Internal Call Center & Support Duplication

Whether outsourced, in-house, or both, the HR and IT functions normally possess call center teams. Furthermore, through various wikis, intranet sites, job aids, videos, etc. there are myriad different general support tools and opportunities available to employees. If HR & IT were to merge, the employee does not have to distinguish whether they require technology related, process related, human related or job related questions answered. The function becomes united, and even more so, there becomes an osmotic blend such that support related inquiries are seamless to the employee. There would be obvious support related synergies as well, from the team structure through to processes and end-user support tools.

Capital Spend

IT and HR are in the business of supporting the company to increase revenue and profitability. Thus, most of their time should be spent developing ways in which to invest in people and technology practices to increase overall revenue and profitability. If such is the case, having HR and IT together now creates a power business unit that can singularly align capital investments based on the union of both people and technology practices. It’s no longer myopically about technology considerations solely, or the opposite in terms of people practices. Capital spend would now equally consider the short and long-term requirements of both technology and people to therefore increase company results.

Enterprise 2.0 = Work 2.0 = Learning 2.0

The heart of this blog often centers round the hypothesis that Enterprise 2.0 without Work 2.0 without Learning 2.0 type of thinking is fruitless. With a merged IT and HR super business unit, we now have an entity that can achieve this vision effortlessly. Learning is shifting towards a combined formal, informal and social structure but it requires Enterprise 2.0 technologies to be successful. Work 2.0 (the shift to a more collaborative business model, inclusive to mobile work styles) needs the premise of Learning 2.0 to be successful, as well as Enterprise 2.0 technologies and processes. Enterprise 2.0 itself, really isn’t going to be successful unless the people practices of Work 2.0 and Learning 2.0 are specifically embedded into the change plan. Therefore, merging IT and HR, in my opinion, may help both mitigate the rollout issues for any of the three dimensions, and it should allow for easier enhancements short and long-term.

Collaborative Work Styles (also Work 2.0 related)

Ironic that I suggest to merge IT and HR with one of the actual reasons entitled “Collaborative Work Styles”? Perhaps. Business units are in the ‘business’ of working together with one another. This should be a given. With a combined IT and HR business unit, however, there will still be a number of groups and teams working on their specific areas of expertise. Under the super business unit banner, this group can act as the enterprise-wide example of how collaborative work styles can actually prosper. Through mobile working arrangements, to cross-functional team makeup, to collective intelligence idea factories, the merged HR and IT business unit can kick-start an organization’s foray into a more collaborative enterprise itself. The pundits and naysayers may suggest that this should not require a merged business unit to occur. While I do agree with the argument, I think in order to really drive an organization to becoming even more collaborative across all business units, a demonstrable example needs to be showcased, and this ‘may’ be easier by merging HR and IT.

Revenue Supporting Simplicity

There are plenty of examples demonstrating that both HR and IT have capabilities within their group to generate revenue for the company. The general rule of thumb, however, is that HR and IT are costs to the organization, and are established to support the organization drive revenue, and thus profitability. A singular super group that combines the functions of HR and IT to support the business to drive revenue, to me, has a lot of merit. For those in R&D, Product Group, Sales, Pre-Sales, Consulting amongst others that simply are trying to do their jobs in a more efficient and effective manner, imagine having one less hurdle to overcome in terms of processes, queries, discussions, etc. If you can reduce in half the number of internal touch-points by the revenue generating business units into the supporting business units (ie. merging IT and HR) that should, in theory, free up the time of executives, directors, managers and individual contributors to focus on the core of their role; to generate revenue.

Final Thoughts

I’ll keep thinking about this, and follow up this post later on in 2010 or early 2011 with the thoughts of others. I purposely have not discussed Finance, Marketing or Legal as I believe they need to remain separate, or in the case of Marketing, embedded with Sales. I’ve never liked the terms HR or IT and therefore, would suggest renaming it. In the spirit of a more connected and collaborative super business unit, I’d likely have the combined entity come up with the name. If I had a suggestion to offer, however, it would be CPI: Collaboration, People & Information.

Whether or not it was a rhetorical challenge, I’m taking Henry Mintzberg up on his ask, somewhat, in his book Managing and recommending an adaption or perhaps an enhancement to his “Model of Managing”.

Perhaps he will utilize it in an updated book release. Perhaps.

First to Mintzberg and the “Model of Managing”. In principle, I agree with the archetype and the following definition:

“managing takes place on three planes, from the conceptual to the concrete: with information, through people, and to action directly”.

I do however believe that it’s the separation of information, people and action into the three planes that causes some issues.

Mintzberg goes on to state that:

“It is this dynamic balance that renders futile the teaching of management in a classroom, especially one role or competency at a time. Even mastering all the competencies do not a competent manager make, because the key to this work is the blending of all of its aspects into this dynamic balance.”

What’s missing, however, is the relatively new managing behaviour that I will refer to simply as collaboration. I’ll probably have to write a book about this soon, but for purposes of this blog posting I’ll juxtapose Mintzberg’s model with my own adaptation of his work.

Mintzberg’s model segregates 3 key planes: information, people and action. I believe there are two key planes (collaboration and action) and that these are bound by information and people. That is, managers must collaborate and take action with information and people.

Collaboration is the practice of linking, leading, communicating, connecting, scheduling and framing people and information each and every day through action.

Action is taking those same people and pieces of information and deciding whether to do, delegate, demonstrate or deal.

Collaboration occurs in formal, informal and social ways utilizing face-to-face interactions as well as virtual/asynchronous means to act, be it with people or information.

Action also can occur in formal, informal and/or social ways; the key tenet being it happens with people and information.

Do you agree? Disagree?

Bloggers Note: I normally try to blog weekly, but in the months of July and August, you’ll have to bear with me as I’ll be posting only once per month.

Dream dreams

Then write them

Aye, but live them first

                                            Samuel Eliot Morison

While in Boston recently I took the opportunity to walk through the Commonwealth Avenue Mall; a sublime 32 acre park designed with French boulevards in mind.

Throughout the Mall lay several statues. Although I hadn’t a clue as to who Samuel Eliot Morison was, the quote above stuck with me as I strolled onward and eventually meandering enough to take in a Red Sox game.

The relative success of Learning 2.0 & Enterprise 2.0 in your organization can be mapped back to this quotation. We all can dream the dream of a successful Learning 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 environment, and we all should be writing down what it looks like with appropriate benchmarking, metrics, cost/benefit analyses, etc. 

The aforementioned ensures you are following the tried and tested hierarchical processes that dominate organizations of today. In summary, you most likely will be tied to existing ways in which your organization operates when rolling out any Learning 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0 initiative across your entire organization.

But, in the spirit of Mr. Morison, you could and perhaps should live those written dreams first by way of pilots, test audiences, trial runs, alpha/beta instances and the like in order to prove your dreams, get them into circulation earlier, and demonstrate that both Learning 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 are not only for real, but can benefit the organization quickly and effectively.

Prove your dreams by way of any of the following:

• Start a micro-blogging service using any of the free tools out there today
• Append wikis & blogs to some of your ILT classroom courses
• Prove that coaching or mentoring sessions can be equally as good in Second Life as face-to-face
• When at a conference (attending and/or speaking) utilize the Twitter back channel and report back how it enhanced your experience
• Use private features of YouTube or Google Video to boost the learning experience with video blogging

Of course there are many other examples we could illustrate but in the end, you easily can demonstrate small wins or beta examples of Learning 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 prior to rolling out the final and perhaps perfect panacea of your dream.

As day 3 of the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston comes to a close, I’m left with an empty feeling.

I don’t belong.

Not so much at the conference, per se, but in the spectrum of organizational ideologies.

When I attend conferences, meetings, etc. that are Human Resources, Learning or Organizational Behaviour in nature … I stick out as the individual pushing the ‘culture of collaboration’ tenet through a need for more connected, collaborative and continuously federated technologies.

I end up clashing with the ‘old way’ … in this case, the tried and true practices of how organizations were (or are) run.

When I attend conferences, meetings, etc. that are more technology-focused (Enterprise 2.0 being one of a few) … I stick out as the individual pushing the ‘culture of collaboration’ tenet through the lens of engagement, culture, business performance improvement, etc.

Bottom line is that I see a niche world developing; a bridge between the IT and HR worlds.

There are several bridge builders out there, including but not limited to recent conversations at the conference with Andrew McAfee, John Ambrose, Jon Ingham, Marcia Conner, Nick Howe, amongst others.

Like I’ve written about before, we need to keep an open mind about how technology can aid culture, and how the culture can help shape the utilization and benefit of the technology.

I wonder if that niche world deserves a brand, a title, a definition?

What would it be?

Have you ever read the book Power of 2 by Wagner and Muller?

In summary, whether personally or professionally, we should seek out partners that fill in specific elements, due mostly to the fact we (the human race) will both overestimate our weaknesses and underestimate our strengths.

“Your strengths are stronger and your weaknesses weaker than you realize. You need help. You are also precisely the help someone else needs.”

Marcia Conner has now teamed up with the Altimeter Group. What a pair. What a match. What a testament to how learnerprise is actually coming to fruition.

How you ask?

Marcia (twitter @marciamarcia) is someone I have looked up to for many years. I’ve always viewed myself as a bit of a learning renegade, pushing the envelope of the old establishment, but Marcia has always been one step ahead of me.

Back in 2004, she defined a formal/informal/intentional/unexpected diagram (see here) that was years ahead of its time. Even today, the old training establishment is coming to grips with this piece of prescient thinking. In particular, however, was the ‘unexpected’ side of the quadrant which had to deal with many of the concepts we refer to today in the Web and Enterprise 2.0 spaces.

Marcia gets it. I may call it ‘learnerprise’, but in essence she is the original definition of this thinking.

Which brings me to the Altimeter Group. I read today that Marcia is joining this team … which if you think about it, makes an inordinate amount of sense. Altimeter Group, through the guidance of Charlene Li, have built up a brilliant practice over the past two years providing “thought leadership, research, and advisory on digital strategies, with a core focus on how companies can leverage disruptive technologies.”

A natural evolution or extension was to enhance its reach by adding Marcia to the mix.

Marcia brings her background in Enterprise 2.0, collaborative culture, and of course all-things Learning 2.0 to the table … clearly, this is an example of the Power of 2.

More info via Altimeter Group here.

The title doesn’t sound very 2.0-esque, now does it? It’s dripping with irony.

How can one ‘mandate’ something in a world whereby we’re striving to be flatter, more connected, less hierarchical and ostensibly more socially aware of our brethren?

If I were a CEO, I’d mandate Enterprise 2.0 tools, technologies and most importantly ‘culture’ across the organization as quickly as I could. Intrinsically, it’s the right thing to do. For those that are looking for a little more proof, I present to you three studies/surveys (of many) that can help one in their understanding of why Enterprise 2.0 is so critical for the organization.

One facet of Enterprise 2.0, of course, is social networks.

The theory has been, the larger your network, the easier your job can be in terms of access to intellect as well as personal productivity/performance and ultimately, organizational profit.

In 2009, the likes of Lynn Wu (IBM Research and MIT Sloan Management School), Ching-Yung Lin (IBM Watson Research Center) Sinan Aral (NYU Stern Business School and MIT Sloan Management School) and Erik Brynjolfsson (MIT Sloan Management School) produced a study entitled “Value of Social Network — A Large-Scale Analysis on Network Structure Impact to Financial Revenue of Information Technology Consultants” and set out to prove this hypothesis. In a nutshell, they prove the following:

• Network size is positively correlated with performance
• Each person in your address book at work is associated with $948 dollars in annual revenue
• Betweenness is actually negatively correlated. (ie. being a bridge between a lot of people is not helpful, thus having diverse friends or networked colleagues is more helpful)
• The number of people reachable in 3 steps is positively correlated with higher performance
• Having too many strong links — the same set of people one communicates frequently is negatively correlated with performance. (ie. frequent communication to the same person may imply redundant information exchange)

In a comment to a blog post entitled “The Holy Trinity: Leadership Framework, Learning 2.0 & Enterprise 2.0“ I stated “Networks don’t need org charts, but org charts need networks”. The research points outlined above accurately correlates my comment.

Next up, is Enterprise 2.0 providing any other correlated benefits inside the organization? According to a Melcrum global study with over 2,000 participants gauging use and benefit of such tools as wikis, blogs, micro-blogging and collaboration in general, users responded as follows:

• improved levels of employee engagement (21%)
• better communication with remote workers (16%)
• knowledge management and collaboration (25%)
• improving employee feedback (20%)
• making business leaders more visible and accessible (14%)

The grand-daddy example of all things collaboration has been Cisco, and in particular the transformation they’ve undertaken over many years, spearheaded by their prescient CEO, John Chambers. (watch this video clip for a small taste of his E2.0 & ‘cultivate and coordinate’ passion)

Taken directly from their report entitled “Creating a Collaborative Enterprise”:

Cisco saved US$691 million and increased productivity 4.9 percent in fiscal year 2008 by using collaboration and Web 2.0 technologies. The technology investments, which cost US$81 million to deploy, provided a 900 percent return on investment (ROI)

Cisco is not only fostering a collaborative culture across their organization, they are investing in it, rolling it out as quickly as they can, and ultimately improving productivity, performance and profitability.

As we begin to scratch the surface of Enterprise 2.0 in terms of showcasing correlated benefit (be it quantitative or qualitative) I’m certain Enterprise 2.0 concepts, technologies and the philosophy itself will gain further traction over time.

But, if I were CEO, I’d mandate it today in almost every facet of the organization that I was running, and live with the justified irony of the edict. I just wouldn’t wait to prove its benefit.

Sometimes, one has to trust that intuition trumps ROI. (despite ROI being proven above)

And if American spies are on the E2.0 bus, isn’t that enough proof to shift now?

Related link: “The Return on Collaboration: Assessing the Value of Today’s Collaboration Solutions” – study produced by Cisco.

Regular readers know that I’m passionate about three key areas: leadership; learning & enterprise 2.0.

As a lifelong educator, married to one as well, and possessing a young brood already immersed in a 2.0 world, we strongly believe in raising our children to be collaborative, transparent, honest and innovative.

But, alas, I’ve recently developed petulance for one of the world’s finest creations … Facebook.

Mr. Mark Zuckerberg has arguably founded one of the most collaborative and people connecting applications in recent history. According to CheckFacebook.com there are well over 450 million registered users worldwide. According to Google, Facebook now occupies the #1 visited website with 540 million unique visits in April, 2010 (after removing Google itself from the research).

Aside from the recent Facebook privacy flak, there is not a burning platform for Mr. Zuckerberg, Ms. Lori Goler (VP of Human Resources and Recruiting) and Mr. Elliot Schrage (VP of Global Communications, Marketing and Public Policy) to deal with, there is a raging inferno.

Bullying and Facebook.

It needs to be addressed … by Facebook.

With such a commanding head start as the platform in which people are sharing, collaborating and connecting, it is appalling (given countless examples) that Facebook does not take the stance to ensure its users (particularly those in the 10-18 year old range) are more educated and aware of cyber-bullying.

Recent examples involving Facebook & bullying, from 3 different countries include, but are not limited to:

• Facebook Bullying Case Goes to Court – Nova Scotia, Canada – May 25, 2010
• ‘Facebook Bully Probe’ After Death – Birmingham, UK – May 22, 2010
• Mom Has Strong Words About School Bullying – Florida, USA – May 26, 2010

A review of Facebook Principles makes no mention, whatsoever, of ethics or social expectations but it does state:

Achieving these principles should be constrained only by limitations of law, technology, and evolving social norms.

What, may I ask, is ‘evolving social norms’ and how can something that is evolving be the definition of your Facebook Principles?

There is, however, a “Defined Statement of Rights & Responsibilities” for which I applaud Section 3 (Safety) Subsection 6:

You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.

Frankly, both the Facebook Principles and Defined Statement of Rights & Responsibilities do not fit the task at hand. More must be done by Facebook to help the 10-18 year old age bracket be aware of the dire consequences of bullying, particularly cyber-bullying and particularly due to the fact Facebook has, more or less, become the de facto place for these assaults to occur.

Mark, Lori, Elliot … I implore you to get in front of this inferno. Do not leave it solely to local school boards, local governments or community/N-F-P organizations to fight the blaze.

Our kids do not yet possess the cognitive ability to distinguish social 2.0 norms in a 2.0 world; they need guidance, assistance, best practice and collaborative education to do so. Proven by Leslie Sabbagh with her piece entitled The Teen Brain, Hard at Work; (August/September 2006; Scientific American Mind), the prefrontal cortex is one of the last areas of the brain to mature. Thus, an immature prefrontal cortex is thought to be the explanation for why adolescents show poor judgment, an inability to think before they act, and as a consequence, bad decisions being made.

This phenomenon is all the more exacerbated in the Facebook era. This is why cyber-bullying on Facebook is occurring; we need to rethink the plan.

Steps to take, if I were Mark, Lori and Elliot:

• Lead: get in front of this issue and begin leading – make it a part of the Facebook DNA
• Educate: you not only have a collaborative platform, you have a learning platform. Begin educating your users specifically related to Facebook bullying, consequences, etc.
• Collaborate: work with your millions of 10-18 year old users on the right strategies to implement

In the meantime, and until proven otherwise, my 7, 4 and 3 year old won’t be setting foot on the Facebook platform.

But Mark, Lori and Elliot, I offer my hand in assistance.

Perhaps prescient Churchill was not only referring to Russia, but the pending organizational cultural shift that beckons today’s companies and institutions.

Perhaps the riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma can be thought of as the relationship between leadership, org structure, learning and Enterprise 2.0. The riddle is that the components are inextricably linked.

Grow up. Deal with it.

Those of you on the learning side of the house need to embrace and understand the technology and leadership implications. Those of you solely focusing on leadership, need to see how learning and technology are key to the puzzle. And those that think it’s only a technology solution, fail to see that it’s the leadership, learning and org structure components that make the technology useable in the first place.

On May 8, 2010, I wrote about “The Holy Trinity: Leadership Framework, Learning 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0“. There was also some great dialogue between myself, Harold Jarche, Jon Husband and Thomas Stone.

I’ve recently realized, however, that in addition to my professional network (Harold, Jon, Thomas and many more) there are/were four books that helped me unravel the riddle, mystery and the enigma. Perhaps they too could help you in your quest for an organizational culture shift; an org that becomes more efficient and effective in the many facets of operating in the year 2010 and beyond, and that includes the contrivances I point out above.

I share with you now the four books (when put together) that could assist you in your thinking; how, when you combine the new org structure, leadership practice, Learning 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 components, you will create a more productive, engaging and connected workforce:

Clearly there are other books out there, but when combining the four I describe above together, I believe you have a very solid recipe and start towards unravelling your riddle, mystery and enigma.