> > #4. Our current goal is to help people to find "influencers" and > > "connectors" within a community. ( The Tipping Point, anyone? ) The > > whole internet could be one community, this google group could be one, > > a 300-employee company or a 150,000-people corporation all can be > > treated as a community. As long as there are people, there are needs > > to find each other, to connect. > > so who needs to find "connectors" and how badly do they need it? >
Think about a consulting firm like PwC that discovers an audit client needs help setting up a share option scheme, which is an expertise buried in another division. As the organisation is so big, the chances of organisational networking is capped and so if the lead partner of this audit client doesn't know PwC has someone or can do work on share options, this means opportunity cost. The cross-selling of services is what all professional services firms think about as a way of growth - you get a client and you try to make as much marginal dollars on them as possible from the initial relationship. It's a easier way for growth than tendering for a new client. As a firm, PwC "can do anything" to quote one of the head partners when I chatted with him once, but the problem is trying to locate the expertise when it's needed because it's such a big firm. That's why there is an entire database where you can look up someone's expertise...but despite being involved when this thing rolled out (and knowing the versions before it), I can speak for it and say it's not really that effective. No doubt this has influenced Tim as he was PwC's leading IT architect. It's a real problem, where approaches to solving it haven't really worked. And if it's such an obvious issue, and the current solutions don't work, why isn't it a fixed problem with more money and attention? Because it needs innovation. And this problem is a classic case where innovation can't happen. My perspective at PwC is that you had the IT guys who got tech but not business needs (or rather, the ability to fund innovative solutions as they need the revenue-generating staff to demand it); and the practice staff who had pain points but didn't know of ways to fix it or how (it's hard to demand something that you don't know exists). So there is a dead lock of innovation in big companies like PwC, which has technology being dictated on a roadmap defined by major vendors like IBM, as they are formalised relationships. And there are plenty of smart people at Microsoft and IBM, but...I can't say it matches with what the start-up community can come up with, as they don't have the same restraints. There are however other needs to extend the need for finding connectors - Marketers and PR professionals: So they can get into the Word of Mouth circles - Journalists: to find additional leads or people that can get them to it - HR: to understand the informal networks that rule the company outside of the formal hierarchy - Knowledge management: to find the people that have the 'soft knowledge' But the first one, is enough. Think of any law firm, accounting firm, consulting firm, or any "people-centric" organisation that makes money from selling expertise. Once you hit Dunbar's number, you've a need for expertise location in that organisation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Guidelines on discussion: http://tr.im/ujKF No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself: http://tr.im/ujMm To post to this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to silicon-beach-australia+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en
