1

My digest of the Enterprise 2.0 Summit, Paris (February 2015) #e20s #enterprise20 #socbiz #socialbusiness #digitalworkplace

Summary: I’ve spent the last 1.5 days with Digital Workplace practitioners and thought leaders discussing the connected enterprise and social media inspired ways of working. Once again I have left the venue inspired and with a lot of food for thought. However, I have to admit that there is a struggle with the transition to the next phase. Various conversations at the conference have confirmed this impression. We have definitely left the age of “technology driven” change (was there one…like ever?). Now we seem to be stuck in the phase of “awareness for the real drivers” of management buy-in, business value and strong business logic integration. Don’t get me wrong: there is momentum and the whole things feels like getting out of a really really tight jumper…you’re just waiting to finally pull it over your head and go: YEAH! AIR TO BREATHE!

My last two days were full of inspiration. A lot of it. In addition to the joy of listening to another of Jane McConnel’s (@netjmc) inspirational talks and her insight from her Digital Workplace research I finally had the honour of listening to one of Dion Hinchcliff’s (@dhinchcliffe) keynote. The two field (knowledge) heavy weights were complemented by practice and vendor presentations. Bayer Material Science’s CIO Laurie Miller’s (@lauriemiller44) presentation definitely stood out and her angle on connected experts has provided a new and strong value proposition to me that will come in handy in future conversations.

So let me start with this new value proposition as one of my key take aways:

The Personal Brand. Inside an Organization. Built on Expertise & Experience.

This one has struck me in a way that it’s quite annoying because it’s so obvious. Any industry that is in its core driven by IP (intellectual property) lives (sometimes even exclusively) of its talent. Looking back into my past in advertising in marketing I remember that client’s moved with their creative counterparts from agency to agency. About professional service firms (aka consultancies) we say that it’s “people business”. If expertise counts you don’t hire the firm, you hire (or rather borrow) the person and you will move the firm if the person moves, too From a corporate HR angle I really agree to the statement that “you don’t leave companies, you leave managers” – and they become known if it starts being a trend.

Athletes are brands due to their physical capabilities and performance. From a recent conversation I know that those brands are worth billions and nurture entire industries.

With the introduction of “social” to the mechanics of communication, collaboration & information flow within organizations we have changed the perspective from “outside” to “inside”. From a branding perspective we could – or actually should! – do the same thing when it comes to people brands.

As much as I believe that companies should measure collaborative success and joint value creation I also think (since today) that it would make sense to lead people towards creating their personal brand. Leading in terms of creating awareness, enablement and formal measurement, if we want to put the real beef to the bone.

If companies and their people managers are able to drive the profiling of high performers or subject matter wizards, we solve so many issues at the same time:

  • Capturing of intellectual assets and exposure to the organisation
  • Refinement and sharpening of people profiles as the foundation for relevance based delivery of information & communication
  • Improved retrieval of expert profiles (automated or manually)

My journey to find stakeholders and ambassadors for the “personal branding” business case starts today!

Social vs. Enterprise Collaboration

To be honest: I haven’t put much thought towards trying to actually separate the two. My strong belief is, that the fundamental business case (the organisational one) lies in the enablement of individuals and teams to successfully execute on core business processes and navigate through the company’s business logic. Well… with reference to the above I actually see the case for Social Collaboration as a separate thing. It derives from Enterprise Collaboration (EC) and is some kind of “spin off”. However, it’s not a layer but rather the glue between the protagonists of EC (and I am explicitly not calling it “foam” for the ones that were in Paris…).

Social Collaboration (SC) is a subject that has to be handled carefully because it’s not the free pass for the corporate Facebook (I’m not too keen to see it “at work” by the way) or the “social context will connect the dots” wild card. It will be the real art to make SC less “business” and more “people” but still have it sit on the same strong foundation (aka IA/taxonomy) and have a strong connection to the EC side of things in order to use assets that derive from SC in the context of the core business logic with ease (aka without media or UX break). Furthermore it has to be ensured that actual assets (e.g. documents) aren’t suddenly stored all over the place. This thought is definitely inspired by the slide @lauriemiller44 put up but maybe not 100% in-line with the content…

Anyway, this angle is food for thought for me…and I wanted to share it even though I haven’t digested it completely. Maybe someone else has something to share here as well.

Collaboration needs a meaning

@dhinchcliffe’s keynote was really inspiring and I could see so many things in there that I have stumbled across myself. What stood out for me was his recommendation to connect initiatives to business functions that can find value in the new ways of working quickly. (Right side of the following slide)

Essentially because the new opportunities that social and enterprise collaboration provide suddenly enable us to capture and enable things digitally that so far only existed outside of office, ERP and BPM.

To some extend this goes hand in hand with the search for purpose when it comes to “less formal” collaboration in the virtual space. @Judith_Will from BNP/Paribas Cardiff already said it in Berlin in 2014 at the INTRAnet.Reloaded conference: “What’s the project of your community?” I share her opinion that collaboration just for the collaboration’s sake doesn’t have much future in organisations that want to see some beef to the bone and ROI on their business productivity investments.

Another slide that Dion put up showed the potential evolution of collaboration (services) along the people or protagonist perspective:

Dion Hinchcliffe Evolution

It reminded me of one of my core (evangelizing) messages of the past few years. Because I believe that a lot of companies have jumped the stage of enabling “people with shared goals” in their approach towards the new ways of working. Inspired by impact and performance of Social Media in the outside world a lot of companies kicked of their enterprise 2.0 endeavors by connecting “people with shared interest & passion”.

evolution_along_people

That “interest & passion” however, weren’t the primary drivers for the majority’s work day was kind of forgotten in the process. I believe that this has been one of the reasons that enterprise 2.0 or social business initiatives haven’t delivered the substance in business impact.

A more general reflection on the content

Common denominators of almost all presentations – practitioner’s as well as vendor’s – were the following subjects:

  • Without executive buy-in enterprise 2.0 will be going nowhere.
  • We need change agents and ambassadors to drive and implement change.
  • Enterprise 2.0 isn’t a technology discussion. (Uhm…reality check: yes it is. In the end it always is. We just have to make sure that we have clarified the “why” and “what” before the CTO lets the “how” out of the box…pun intended).
  • We need to nurture conversation and exchange across silos and we need to break up closed space thinking.

So this leaves me with a major question:

What is preventing the actual digital transformation?

It was @dhinchcliffe again who might have put one essential piece to the puzzle on the screen: the transformation of business functions (and their processes) processes is essential in the enablement of the connected enterprises we’re so desperately seeking for.

In a recent article by McKinsey on “The seven traits of effective digital enterprises” the firm’s experts set out a guideline for the digital transformation of companies and seven essential building blocks. I’ve started to resonate on the article from an “inside the organization” perspective here. The seven building blocks are:

  • Be unreasonably inspirational
  • Acquire new capabilities
  • Ring fence and cultivate talent
  • Be quick and data driven
  • Challenge everything
  • Follow the money
  • Be obsessed with the customer

A lot of the guidance is more or less “disruptive” to the old world. It could definitely create tension, competition and awareness for change. So my question is: who is the actual stakeholder group that we have to form a coalition with in order to drive the internal transformation and introduce disruption to what we know as “established and working”?

So I am closing this article with a simple proposal:

With social collaboration and enterprise 2.0 initiatives we intend to nurture the corporate dialogue and connect experts and expertise more effectively. Let’s find a way to get the stakeholders of the actual digital transformation into a conversation to speed up the process until the next conference…

0

Wrapping up 2014; no #predictions from my side, just sharing some #learning & #insight; #enterprise20 #e20 #socbiz

Another year has passed and it’s been an exciting one – what else. It would be weird to say that nothing has happened and that it has been rather dull. If nothing had happened on the professional front I could at least have reported that I have given up my Munich home base after 39 years to relocate to Switzerland.

But of course stuff has happened…

Over the past 12 months I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with people from various functions, industries, countries and age groups. In pure figures it looks a little like this:

My 2014 Year in Pictures

My key learning from all the conversations, thought exchange and conceptual work in a nut shell.

1. Awareness for business productivity & effectiveness

Intranet and Digital Workspace are finally on their way (not there yet though) to be as important to companies as the digital tools connected to their actual business logic. The times where only ERP, CRM & Co. get executive attention seem to be over. Business productivity and effectiveness have moved much higher on the leadership and management agenda. However, the level of investment (aka long term commitment) in information and knowledge work isn’t yet matching the one for enforcing, standardising and improving process & task based work. It’s definitely on the right way but it’s still easier to bump the 120 Million to 135 for an SAP installation than to get 200 grand for a fully functioning prototype of an application that will affect people’s work every single day.

2. IT departments have acquired new terminology

For years IT and management publications have been writing about the re-positioning of the IT departments. It had been predicted that IT will move much closer to the business side of things and argue their value through contribution instead of cost reduction. In many instances I have experienced customer and user centric thinking, which had not just been fluffy marketing talk. The awareness that functionality and up-time don’t really cut it anymore is definitely there. A lot of IT managers have changed from “here is it all, pick what you want” to “we can do almost anything if you let us explicitly know what you are trying to achieve with what you’re asking from us”. Requirements engineering isn’t “feature evaluation” anymore. It’s become the “seeking to understand before seeking to be understood” in business IT.

3. The internal Facebook isn’t the strongest competitor to e-mail anymore

Not ONE single client I have worked for had the “social intranet” vision anymore. It’s now about stealing with pride from all the successful services in the commercial world. The “conversation stream” has moved into the 2nd row on a lot of concept designs appreciated by business stakeholders.

The strongest competitor to e-mail is now a comprehensive and coherent concept for sending and receiving information. It’s less about “connecting the organisation” than about “enabling the individual to keep track of importance, urgency and interdependence”.

Concepts for notification, indication & orientation are becoming more and more important in order to make sure that users will find their way through the increasing jungle of communication & data.

4. The “enabling” intranet seems to be the one that might turn it into something work critical

When I am asked what my vision is for the future of intranets and the Digital Workplace my answer is usually:

The modern intranet or Digital Workplace has to be something that is work critical. It has to cause turmoil if you turn it off. It has to enable individuals to do their job with substantially less effort in order to unleash their potential for collaborative contribution. The modern intranet will make it easy to navigate through the continuously increasing complexity of today’s organisations. It will help people to overcome functional, geographical and hierarchical borders. It will create clarity, comfort and confidence for the every day work and become a motivating factor. It will be valuable.

“Enabling” people to do their job in confidence is an essential part of that vision. Have everything at hand that is required to create a proper foundation for individual success will be an important corner stone for collaborative contribution to corporate progress.

5. If you’re looking for the right anchor for the Digital Workplace…look out for a Lean Management initiative

One of my clients has directly connected the Digital Workplace with an initiative to introduce “Lean” to their organisation (aka continuous streamlining by everyone being in charge to identify areas for improvement). Another business contact has managed to connect the Digital Workplace to tightly to their business logic that parts of the business won’t be able to operate during a down time. I personally think that “Lean” is the right place for modern intranets and Digital Workplaces. It bridges individual enablement and collaborative exchange. It nurtures “us” thinking and creates awareness for the value that everyone can generate by just going through the work day with open eyes. The Digital Workplace can be the channel to collect, distribute, refine and implement everything that is required to be more “Lean”. I like the idea and I will pursue this more explicitly in 2015.

Now I am really curious what 2015 will bring…


Everybody take cover! Here’s an ad:

Even though I might be annoying my followers I would like to use this opportunity to (again) advertise the Digital Workplace Gold Dust white paper in which I have shared a lot of my insight an learning of the past years. If you can be dared please visit my employer’s website and request your personal copy…and sorry again…

Digital Workplace Gold Dust

0

Driving #ChangeManagement; thoughts on #McKinsey #change platform article http://goo.gl/2UbUaL #socbiz #e20 #enterprise20

With a lot of interest I’ve read Gary Hamel’s and Michele Zanini’s article on change published on McKinsey.com in October 2015 (http://goo.gl/2UbUaL). As part of their recommendation to establish a change platform instead of a change program they suggest to replace the old paradigms of change

  • Change starts at the top
  • Change is rolled out
  • Change is engineered

with a more state of the art framework:

  • From top-down to activist-out
  • From managed to organic

Part of this framework is a platform inspired (not copied from, I like that!) by social media technology. They don’t put the technology in the front row. They advise a change of mind on the executive floor. From change agent in chief to change enabler in chief. This new role is supposed to create the right environment and provide the right coaching for the organisation to speak up.

No matter how much I like the idea and no matter how much I would like to see large organisations change organically, the past years have made me re-think my belief that change can be solely driven from within. I’ve been an active part of change – in various roles – and I’ve worked and am still working with (in some cases pretty large) companies that want to drive change. From within.

I would like to share two perspectives that I would like to see as an addition to the article mentioned above:


#1 the biggest hurdle sits in the middle

Companies have managed to design a way of steering themselves that works on multiple levels of abstraction. The higher managers sit in the food chain the more abstract they look onto their share of responsibility. They way they are managed and measured is sometime even more disconnected from reality than the objectives set of the c-suite. They are the ones that always have to deliver the impossible.

Now change is nurtured and coached from above and activists are encourage to apply disruptive and innovative thinking. Everyone is allowed to work out loud and to form alliances for the greater good.

I would like to recommend that someone comes up with the model for “middle management change”. How can we turn them into activists? How do we enable them to not just rely on dashboards, punctual human interaction and brushed up reports? How to we turn them into coaches, guides, enablers, network facilitators and talent spotters?

I believe that without them in the front row change from inside-out will end up in the same spot as from top-down: a cul-de-sac.


#2 the right environment comes with the right set of KPI

Let’s not kid ourselves. We are talking about companies – in a lot of instances we are talking about public ones. As long as the executive floor and their direct lines do not turn organisations in collaboratively driven powerhouses nothing will change. As long as goals can be achieved individually (aka: alone), something’s wrong. Swarm intelligence in a company has to be nurtured and motivated…and evaluated and measured.

“What is the project of your community?”

This was one of my favourite statements at the 2014 Social Business Collaboration Conference in Berlin. It stands for something that has been seen separately over the past years: collective exchange and concrete measures and objectives.

I truly believe that our communities need projects. No matter if we call them change, innovation, research, development or thought leadership communities. They need a project because they happen in companies and they have to deliver their share of the deal.


This might sound all very harsh and black and white but I am intentionally trying to provoke here.

I am an evangelist for the future of information work. I am am fighter for the social media inspired workspace. I am an encourager of cross-functional and cross-border thinking and work. However, I don’t think that we will be able to do all this without the right measures and frameworks in place. Just unleashing the activists in an environment of freedom and thought leadership is not enough.

0

A little bit of #SelfPromotion… The Digital Workplace Gold Dust is available; #digitalworkplace #GoldDust #socbiz #e20 #enterprise20

I’ve been careful with promoting business related stuff on my personal blog. I will make an exception in this case because I have finally succeeded in collecting my past year’s experience in one place: the Digital Workplace Gold Dust. And I am proud of it (*BAM there, I said it)

It’s the follow up of Infocentric’s Digital Workplace Report and focuses on a fully practice based angle on the subject of Advanced Intranets and Digital Workplaces. It’s full of models, conceptual perspectives and references that I and we have used frequently and refined over the past years. I didn’t do this completely by myself of course. A lot of inspiration and input comes from my work for clients, the collaboration with valued colleagues and companions in the field.

Digital Workplace Gold Dust

Maybe you would enjoy the read 🙂 You can request a copy of the Digital Workplace Gold Dust on Infocentric’s website

0

My write-up of the Social Business Collaboration 2014 (#wcsocbiz) on the @infocentric blog

On September 29/30 I’ve attended the Social Business Collaboration conference in Berlin. I believe it’s one of the best gatherings of the intl. and European advanced intranet and digital workplace community. It was a pleasure to meet so many friends and new folks that shared valuable insight and learning from the past year in the field. The level of honesty and candid talking is so impressive. I can only recommend to join that community if you want to meet people that share your challenges and might be able to (in the culture of social collaboration) develop ideas together.

I’ve produced a little write-up of my conference impressions. It can be found on our corporate blog here: http://www.infocentric.ch/en/blog/2014/sbc2014-digest

I will be creating a little summary of the World Café sessions as well later next week.

2

artikel im #wissensmanagement magazin; quo vadis #wissensarbeit (German); #socbiz #socialbusiness #enterprise20


Social Business

Quo vadis Wissensarbeit?

von Philipp Rosenthal

Wissensmanagement 3.2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Web 2.0, Cloud Computing, Software as a Service – die Liste von Begriffen, die die Arbeitswelt revolutionieren, ließe sich noch lange fortsetzen. Einige gehören bereits zum Büro-Alltag, andere verschwinden wieder. Das derzeit viel diskutierte Thema „Enterprise 2.0“ oder „Social Business“ steht am Scheideweg. Doch das Arbeiten nach dem Vorbild der sozialen Medien – Teilen, Beteiligen, Mitmachen – ist auf Erfolgskurs.

PDF zum Artikel gibt’s hier

Erschienen in: Wissensmanagement (März 2013) | Büro für Medien (Oliver Lehnert e.K.)

 

 

0

Four Angles on #WorkingFromHome in the Context of the #FutureOfWork; #WFH #e20 #socbiz #enterprise20 #socialbusiness

Summary: There has been a lot of discussion and controversy around Yahoo! raising the working-from-home subject in their struggle for a new “one Yahoo!” culture. Surprisingly enough even close allies of mine in the field of social business started re-considering if WFH actually is beneficial for corporate culture and creativity. After digesting my thoughts and perspective on the subject for a while I’ve decided to join the ring. I want to approach the subject from four angels: enablement, leadership, flexibility and globalisation. I believe that the larger picture of “working from home” is important to really judge if a company wants to allow or deny their workforce to adopt styles of “remote work”.

Preamble
Not everyone is made for working from home. Not every role can be performed out of a home office. That’s how it is. Manufacturing industrial products will never happen in the living room. Expert hands-on mechanical support can hardly be provided through a video chat. If you want to look at it in a very strict way WFH creates a two class society to some extend. Not even all information worker roles can adopt WFH or full flexibility for time & place. However, there is a certain segment in information work that can and should have the opportunity to take advantage from the new opportunities business ICT provides. Simply because it’s beneficial for results, quality and eventually the entire organisation.

If we deny the difference in work types and respective ways of executing it we are denying diversity and should (today!) cancel all the perks of busy top managers as well. Simply get back in line and fly Southwest in economy class…because: you can!

Four Angles on “Working from Home”

  1. Enablement
  2. Leadership
  3. Flexibility
  4. Globalisation

1. What WFH models actually enable on a larger scale…

If you ask me, working from home isn’t just about moms or getting people on board for which commuting/re-locating isn’t a valid option. It’s about establishing a way of working that enables people to work whenever and from wherever. This way of working covers all factors:

  • technology infrastructure
  • people leadership
  • performance management
  • collaboration culture
  • work discipline

It means that establishing a proper model for remote work actually impacts all neuralgic points of an organisation. Mastering remote work means that your foundation for individual and collaborative productivity as well as objective based people management is properly in place. My hypothesis is that a company, which is able to execute the portion of information work of its core business in any constellation – on site or completely distributed – must be a high performing one.

2. Leadership for a distributed workforce

Change in management and work culture are key subjects in all discussions around the future of information work. My two cents: WFH can only work if

  • People are led by example and objectives
  • It’s crystal clear that everything I decide as a remote worker has immediate impact on others. Absence may not be the cause for disruption. If one’s absence is actually in the way of others – preventing their performance and success – then something is wrong in the system. Creating a sense for that is a management job.

One ‘radical’ view: people that take personal advantage of “not being under direct supervision” have to get fired. Breaking trust and letting others down is the worst information workers can do. So far I haven’t come across many companies that consequently remove laggards from their workforce that not just under perform but actually block others. That is part of management/leadership duty.

3. Flexibility for individuals, teams and networking

Establishing a cultural and technological WFH infrastructure basically means that people are enabled to create value at any time from anywhere. So…even if “working from home” isn’t really the goal people can still choose the environment in which they (individually or collaboratively) can create the most value.

I’ve just recently been forwarded an article in which it was discussed that agencies – or creative teams in general – cannot work from home. People have to work and interact in real time and in person. For that companies introduce perks like free lunch and dinner and whatever else services you can think of. This is meant to keep people from going home and stay with the tribe.

For my taste this is going agains work/life balance. Don’t get me wrong: I am a very big fan of American companies and the way they are able to establish a kind of “brotherhood” (or in a more negative fashion “sect”) feeling. Too many European companies are lacking that kind of drive.

Anyway: I don’t think it’s necessary to lock creative tribe in one room at all times. It’s necessary to establish a certain level of team spirit, a common foundation and dedication(!). If that’s solved creative people need their freedom to BE creative. I cannot remember one excellent idea actually being created in a meeting room. The best stuff was brought back to work from home, the gym or bed. In today’s world people have different and so much better means to collaborate and be creative when they are not sharing a physical room. I believe that the right balance of sharing physical and virtual space is the key to outstanding and extremely quick results.

4. Working in a global economy

Let me keep this one short and crisp: companies and their teams are becoming more and more distributed across the globe. Networks slowly but steadily start taking over from large “all on one” tankers. Talents are required and willing to overcome geographical and cultural distance to learn, contribute and grow.

And we want to lock them in an office?

Oh, come on…

0

#socialbusiness could drive ‘dual value creation’ + connect bureaucratic and chaotic people; #socbiz #enterprise20

Summary: I’ve found this post on my laptop…and the content is still valid. It’s a thought around how social business could connect the structured (bureaucratic) with the unstructured (creative) people in an organisation to drive exchange, enrichment and dialogue.

Inspired by a book (1)  by Gerhard Wohland and Matthias Wiemeyer and based on my perspective on how social business or enterprise 2.0 could be the glue of currently disconnected parts of organizations I’ve decided to blog about a new perspective on the subject.

The authors Wohland & Wiemeyer (W&W) elaborate on companies that perform at an absolute maximum. To achieve this level of maximum performance the company has to be as complex as its market (ref. to W&W’s book p. 141/142). Companies that count into that category create market dynamics and thereby significant pressure for their competition. Their performance is based on abilities, not skills.

Part of the concept is the so called ‘dual value creation’ (ref. to W&W’s book1 p. 248/249). Dual value creation is based on the strict separation of but strong link between tayloristic2 (industrial) value creation based on standards and processes (e.g. production, management) and dynamic value creation in business operations that are close to markets (e.g. sales, marketing). Already due to the fact that they look at each other as bureaucratic and chaotic the part of a separation makes sense. However, to succeed in the companies overall endeavor both sides of the coin have to be strongly interlinked.

Now comes the challenge: how do you connect chaos to structure? On what basis will the dynamic part of the organization collaborate with their structure and efficiency focused counterparts? I truly believe that socialized business operations (ref. to the Tieto Future Office® blog: http://bit.ly/rqQonk; Illustration 3) could play an essential role here.

dualvallue

(Illustration based on Thinking tools for dynamic markets1, p. 249)

To be blunt: the process and standard driven tools (let’s call them ERP) aren’t very appealing to the creative folks out there. Social media lookalikes aren’t really what the process and efficiency focused employees are seeking for either. Socialized business IT – inspired, not copied from social and commercial media – would be the solution to that dead lock.

Structuring the unstructured close to the market dynamics

Social media inspired communication and data distribution techniques have the side effect that unstructured data doesn’t stay that unstructured anymore. It is turned into information by adding contextual information (e.g. the commentary in a post alongside a file) and identification markers (yes, our beloved tags). Thereby data can be distributed to unspecified target groups and become structured enough to attach itself to processes. Market intelligence – even though initiated by very dynamic market interaction – can be transformed into decision support material for the strategic and planning core of the corporation.

Sneaking structure into the chaos

This concept works the other way around as well. To reach the more dynamic affine part of the organization structured data and information as well as process requirements should be blended with the dynamic flow of operations. Thereby tayloristic requirements become an integrative part of dynamic value creation – they are no longer perceived as interference.

‘Consumerisation’ of business IT is essential in this context. Process orientated software with a ‘must use’ approach isn’t a fit to nowadays benchmark of social and commercial digital services. Delivering on formal duties does not have to completely be in contrast to a positive perception of the digital workplace as a supporting tool. The same goes for the distribution of information to larger if not vast target groups, which today tend to jam e-mailboxes and mobile email clients. There’s nothing more disturbing than administrative notifications that add onto the operational avalanche of information that employees are confronted with already.

Dual value creation becomes reality

Social business can be a connector of many parts of an organization. It will connect new and existing talent to combine agility with experience. It will connect business operations to the corporate DNA of solution knowledge and a ‘we help each other’ culture. Connecting market dynamics close to customers with structure, planning and strategy is adding another attractive factor to the game. I might even be bold enough to say that maximum performers that create market dynamics instead of being driven by them have to be an enterprise 2.0.


(1) Denkwerkzeuge für Höchstleister (Thinking tools for dynamic markets), Gerhard Wohland, Matthias Wiemeyer, 1. Auflage 2007, Muhrmann Verlag

(2) Taylorism (Frederick Taylor, 1856 – 1915); ref. to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorism