I had a great meeting with my leaders and team to talk through the deck I prepared to introduce the idea of a Social Collaboration Center. You can read more about the setup to this in Part 1 and Part 2.
We talked a lot about what should be the vision and, importantly, keeping it simple. Our goal is to help people work together more authentically, more transparently, with clear accountabilities, to bring deeper value to the organization from our networks. The technology is a facilitator of this, not the key factor.
Therefore, we settled on a simple, clear vision:
Advancing the knowledge, skills and behaviours enabling employees to successfully drive business value from social collaboration.
I like it - it gets away from tools and technology first approach. It means it's about relationships and collaboration. To me, it's also about performance and value, not training. And, of course, it means we can focus on small groups, small wins, and affect environmental/cultural issues at the same time. It also leads to a simple elevator pitch, as we wondered "how can we explain the benefits in thirty seconds?":
To enable the organization to become more agile and networked through social collaboration - bridging silos and geographical barriers, connecting employees to each other and information, and developing the knowledge, skills and behaviours in our employees.
As we all know, all collaboration is social. And most workplace technology is social - telephones, email, IM, ESNs all require human interaction. That means this is as much about helping people work together as it is helping them choose a useful tool to enable success in that work. The concept fits well with Dion Hinchcliffe's latest table.
If we live in perpetual beta (thanks Harold), then we should keep things simple. No need to over-complicate (something IT, HR and - to be honest - most other departments in organizations are very successful at doing). How does this land with you?