Comments (1)

By Dan Pontefract, 08/22/2010 10:43 AM

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.

Comments (1)

By Dan Pontefract, 11/15/2009 9:40 AM

Seeing as it’s been almost 3 years since I’ve been with the likes of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter (at various entry dates) I thought it would be interesting to analyze my own personal / professional network to understand if any trends might be occurring. Secondly, I’m using this analysis as a basis to personally reflect on the importance of such tools being made available inside an organization to facilitate a ‘culture of collaboration’.

First, to the data.

If you take a look at the following pie graph (click for larger view), you first need to make note of some context points:

• Total number of network connections between Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter is ~1650
• Duplicate or triplicate entries have been reflected, and thus used to collapse the N value
• Immediate family members were removed
• Mutual Twitter entries (both sides following one another) were also reflected, and used to collapse the N value
• No entries from Outlook/Blackberry contacts, Ning, Yammer or other online networks were utilized
• Individuals not a part of any online tool (neighbours, friends, colleagues not in the systems) were not reflected
• Irrelevant Twitter entries (orgs, companies, groups following me or associations that I follow) were also removed. Only industry relevant individuals were kept in the Twitter category
• Thus, total N value equals roughly 1300

Alright, what have I observed?

• Those that I’ve become more chummy with in ‘work circles’ (whether internal or external) seem to be found in both LinkedIn and Facebook
• There is a very discrete line between Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn connections
• Disappointed that only 1% of my total collapsed connections are found in all three categories
• Interesting that 16% of all connections are found in combinations of 2 or all 3 tools – will this grow in the future?
• With cross posting of ‘tweets’ now available on LinkedIn, will this be detrimental or positive in terms of the quality of my connections (as well as pure number)
• Twitter and LinkedIn seem more aligned for me professionally – Facebook is perhaps the odd ball
• New ‘industry’ or ‘circle of influence’ connections seem to start at Twitter versus LinkedIn
• I have only 1 individual on both Facebook & Twitter & not LinkedIn - do you know who you are?

Implications for the Org?

I think it’s fair to say that the sample size of ~1300 is stastically significant for purposes of juxtaposing against the organization of tomorrow.

Facebook is a place where I can share knowledge, photos, videos, a bit of lifecasting, documents and even engage in live chats, etc. This is social learning at its best from a personal perspective but throw this into the mix in the org, and you have something very powerful that’s brewing and only going to taste like a fabulous English Ale in the future if implemented and deployed properly.

LinkedIn is much better at the ‘who am I’, and ‘how can I help’ aspects of social networking … as well as the obvious network contact control mechanism. This too is something critically required in an organization through both hierarchical team structures as well as heterarchical/wirearchical teams or communities that come and go through the natural evolution of projects, ideas, and actions in the org.

Twitter (albeit relatively new versus the other two) provides a much deeper way of sharing concise pieces of knowledge, links, ideas, comments and ‘what am I up to’ that is important to have in the organization as society moves away from the physical water cooler, to the virtual water ’schooler’.

Mix in the standard practice of wikis, blogs, federated search (including formal learning assets via a hidden LMS somewhere) and voila … you have the Social Net-Work-Life Balance an organization needs to drive a ‘culture of engagement’.

In summary, we need tools like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter in the organization (not these ones specifically), but ideally (and somehow) federated with the other tools already in place, or being thought about for the future. Culturally, this is the right thing to do for tomorrow’s workforce.

Thoughts on either my data points, or the latter org points?

Comments (4)

By Dan Pontefract, 11/08/2009 12:22 PM

In the last two companies I’ve worked for (including present day), I initiated something called the Social Learning Network or SLN for short. This was a group of individuals, united across the business, formed to help push the proverbial sticks forward as it relates to the shift from an all formal model of learning, to one that incorporates formal, informal and social learning.

In hindsight, the name was right for the moment, but wrong for today and the future.

The intention of the group though remains the same, although I would argue slightly augmented due to the meteoric rise of Enterprise 2.0 concepts, cultures and applications.

We are trying to augment the current business climate to one that is less ‘command and control’ to one that is more ‘cultivate and coordinate’; one that endorses situational hierarchy amongst heterarchy. I tend to agree with Nenshad Bardoliwalla and a recent blog post entitled “Is Enterprise 2.0 a Savior or a Charlatan? How Strategy-Driven Execution can pave the path to proving legitimate business value“. (thanks Jon Husband for the link)

It is not that Enterprise 2.0 is the saviour, nor should it be separated as completely different from so-called Enterprise 1.0 — it is an evolution, and with recent social media, social networking, and social learning concepts and tools, we are bridging the gap from an all “top down” or “white ivory tower” organizational alignment model to one that encompasses flat-based communities of practice along with situational hierarchy. (see Cisco’s Chambers for a real-world example)

The 2.0 train has left the station.

That 2.0 train is culturally, technologically and organizationally superior than yesterday’s industrial model. Those on the prophetic side of the fence know intrinsically (like Chambers) that the organizational model of yesterday is currently undergoing metamorphosis, like it or not. Sure, there are issues about ROI and benefit (see Sameer Patel and Why Process Barfs on Social) but inside an organization, we all need to not only justify its rampant osmosis, we need to embrace, endorse and take action.

Hence, why I think every organization requires a cross-functional 2.0 Adoption Council.

The group needs to represent all corners of the business, all levels of the business, and all geographies of the business. The intention is to ensure the culture, systems and structure changes that are happening or about to happen in the future (see previous blog post here) are all equally being addressed at the organizational, business unit, team and individual levels of the company.

The 2.0 Adoption Council is a way for you to reach out to the organization and do it in a flat, cohesive, collaborative and (incidentally) 2.0 way.

Sure, someday there may be the need for a separate social media, social enterprise, social whatever business unit in a company as Shel Israel points out in “Time to draw a Social Media box into the org chart” but for now, I’d recommend launching a 2.0 Adoption Council within your own org.

That’s step one.

(and yes – I’m happy to be a member of the 2.0 Adoption Council – invited by Susan Scrupski - but the internal version is equally important)