Share to connect: Inside Nokia's Program to Connect Customer Insight with Business Performance by Ming Kwan @mingk #sbs2011

Share to Connect is about aligning our organization, Nokia, and the way we work with what we promise as a brand, says Ming Kwan. Their objective was to maximize the brand's productivity by turning it into a conversational brand. Transparency, listening and coordination will enable the organization to gain momentum in an era of exchange.
Share to Connect consists of 3 main elements:
  • organizational optimization
  • workforce collaboration
  • customer participation
The main issue they are trying to deal with is information overload. They collect lots and lots of information. Their big issue is generating insights from all the information.

So they have this idea/pilot called Socializer. An aggregation and analysis platform connecting the streams from the (social) internet to the organization.
Socializer is a social action framework (with semantic analysis), it's internal and external, it's focused on actionable insights, it's real-time and employees can claim actions.

Objectives for Socializer are:
  • create transparency around conversations
  • build employee morale
  • provide visibility to management
  • increase adoption and use of social tools
What's the business value to Nokia? They're developing kpi's for the project based on Jeremiah Owyang's ROI pyramid. They distinguish business metrics, social media analytics and engagement data.

Success factors:
  • nudges to guide people and drive behavior change
  • social experience design: human to computer to human interaction
  • socialize data to get data in the hands for interpretation
  • transparency to empower people to act
  • measurement to track progress and measure impact on KPIs
UPDATE April 6, 2011: Corrected text, added picture and links.

Popular posts

Keep the Intranet Small

Image
This tweet by Jonathan Phillips ( @digitaljonathan ) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box. I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller? Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet  evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets. Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list: -            user requirements: users don't require large intranet -            search/navigation: searching and navigating a small ...
Read more

Enterprise 2.0 Research

Image
There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study? Goals of the study To provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia; To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy; To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business; To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers; To analyse an...
Read more

Innovation in Turbulent Times

Image
I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them. This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson." They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship. I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as...
Read more