I’ll use my next few posts to dig further into the key attributes of Social Business Design, the tools, the strategies. However, let me first set the groundwork for how I define Social Business Design. I will repurpose my definition of Social CRM (the mislabeled framework), and state:
Social Business Design (SBD) is a framework for incorporating social solutions (the combination of strategies and tools) into your overall business strategy. SBD is focused on people first, processes second, tools third.
The incorporation of SBD into businesses is in its early stages and I feel it is important to discuss how companies might progress from social novices into social gurus within their niches. This is based upon my opinions and I would love to hear your feedback as we can further shape this definition collectively.
-
SBD Model 1: The business has a defined strategy for how social processes will be leveraged to achieve business goals.
-
SBD Model 2: Defined social processes in use. Social communications are often controlled centrally with limited employee participation outside of “approved” social communicators.
-
SBD Model 3: Analysis of the results (ROI) of your social activities. Social strategy adjusted as a result of analysis.
-
SBD Model 4: Wide-scale employee participation in social channels. Have moved beyond the “approved” list of communicators. Policies may be in place to control/limit communications.
The tools being used are unimportant as they are simply used as reflections of your strategy, ways to automate and refine what you are already buying into manually. The models are focused upon the level of corporate social engagement and the formal nature of the processes being used.
What do you think?
John
November 2, 2009 at 1:43 pm
A good start, but you should have a Model 0 for companies that are trying to find out how to link social to strategy.
Maybe even Model -1 for companies that haven’t even thought about it!
November 2, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I agree Simon. This model needs more love after the great feedback I’ve received from people. While I feel the steps are right there are surely more steps before (and possibly after) the ones I have listed.
Thanks for stopping in and leaving a comment, it is always appreciated.
John
October 28, 2009 at 1:04 am
[...] Design, Social Business Strategy, SSC | As I continue to think about the framework that is Social Business Design I continue to grapple with how companies will practically manage the various social streams that [...]
October 15, 2009 at 1:00 am
[...] Models for Social Business Design [...]
October 13, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Laughing in the face of danger, I’m going to disagree with Graham. I don’t believe “corporate control is an illusion.” I believe it’s a reality (in many organizations). The illusion is that it’s effective, especially as it relates to the world of social media and #scrm.
There are those in organizations who fear the loss of control and that’s a major roadblock. That, obviously, inhibits cultural change and change management.
October 12, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Hi John
Corporate control has always been an illusion. Otherwise so many companies wouldn’t be at the mercy of volatile markets; they would manage the markets instead. That they can’t is ample evidence of the illusory qualities of control.
I understand the point you are making about large, bureaucratic, cautious companies. The kind that as Ross Perot said about GM, form committees on snakes rather than kill them when they see them. But if their strategy formulation approach follows an annual planning cycle, their SocXYZ strategy is going to be very quickly out of date in such a volatile, fast-moving. emergent market. Companies need to adapt their strategy formulation approach to the situations in which they find themselves. There is no one size that fits all.
I use the 3Vs approach with all my clients — telcos, banks, automakers, airlines, etc — 90% of which are giant companies with tens or even hundreds of thousands of staff. It works fine for companies of all sizes. It works fine for SocXYZ in the too.
Graham Hill
@grahamhill
October 12, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Great feedback, the illusion of control is valid but perception is reality and companies will make decisions based upon their view of reality, not ours.
Great thoughts though Graham, still thinking about your feedback.
John
October 12, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Hi John
Much of SocXYZ is still work in progress. As companies try things out for themselves and as staff try to engage customers, the best solutions will ‘emerge’ from the interactions of the various partners involved in the big SocXYZ experiment.
The first step is engaging more staff to see what works. The difficulty is we don’t know what will work yet. We have to try things out and observe to learn. That means engaging staff to converse with social customers. And don’t forget that staff are also customers of other companies too. That means they probably have a better view of what is already working and what might work in the future, than management does. Step No4 is the new Step No1.
Once you start trying things out for yourself together with staff and customers, you are in a position to measure early results. I have written elsewhere about the need to base early projects on the 3Vs of Vision, Value and Venturing. Measurement plays a big role in this. Step No3 is the New Step No2.
Now we are motoring. It is time to standardise just those core processes that experience has shown produce the best results. And that don’t need to vary a great deal. We can then use Kaizen to improve the processes. Non-core processes are probably don’t need to be standardised yet as we are still note sure what works best. This approach is what makes Toyota one of the most innovative companies in the world. Step No2 is the New Step No3.
As we discover more about what works for customers, what we need to do and what produces the best results, we can start to formulate a proper strategy. Initially, this will be based on defining a portfolio of options that represents what we know, what we don’t and what we need to find out. This approach to strategy is tailor-made to the emergent market in which SocXYZ finds itself. Step No1 is the new Step No4.
Four steps to SocXYZ success based on the fact that we still do not know what works best. So let’s use the steps to go find out.
Graham Hill
@grahamhill
October 12, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Graham,
That is definitely an approach and possibly even the approach many companies will follow. I am thinking through your points and there is a lot of sense to it….
My concern with flipping the order is the lack of corporate control in the process. This lack of control will keep Enteprises out of the game longer as they worry about brand impact and legal ramifications. That is why I recommend thinking about the pathway in the order that I have.
However, and this is a big however, Glenn shared his thoughts that there might possibly be multiple pathways, and that is what you are both getting to. Reversing the order, at least from the perspective of how many people jump into the social pool, could make sense in a lot of small and medium businesses in markets that are less regulated with less legal concerns.
Thank you, Graham, I definitely appreciated your response… Will be curious what others might think.
John
October 12, 2009 at 2:45 pm
John, How about you substitute the word, “Model” where you have the word “Level?” While some orgs may progress thru this, others may stay in one without having progressed through the others.
Then there are probably other models out there as well.
It’s a start.
October 12, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I think you’re right Glenn that not all companies will flow through in exactly the same way. This is intended as a starting point only, a way of thinking about how to progres into Social Business Design without worry about technology.
I’ll change Levels to Models, per your suggestion, see if that works more clearly for folks or not.
Thanks for the discussion, always appreciated.
John
October 12, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Hi John
The steps you outline are probably right for a Web 1.0 CRM world, but probably the wrong way round for an emergent Web 2.0 Social CRM world.
Graham Hill
@grahamhill
October 12, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Thanks for weighing in Graham. While I disagree you could be onto something, could you share more of your thinking, would love to discuss.
John
October 11, 2009 at 9:55 pm
[...] [...]