Archives For socialbusiness

Emanuele Scotti, Rosario Sica, Emanuele Quintarelli

“Markets are conversations”
Cluetrain Manifesto, March 1999

Collaborative mechanisms are radically changing the way in which markets function and the way in which organizations create value. Consumer behaviour is becoming ever more conditioned by the reputation of companies among consumers and influence among peers, often leaving businesses themselves out of the conversation. How does marketing, advertising or CRM re-establish itself in the new millennium?

The method previously relied upon to organize work – born during the manufacturing industry era in order to segment and control industrial production, a method which has reached the present day almost intact – appears inadequate and clumsy in managing the need for reactivity, innovation and agility in today’s organizations. How can we regain efficiency and speed? How can we free the great potential of intelligence, creativity and energy that is exploding onto the business network but which is still trapped in the bureaucracy of modern organizations? These questions go beyond popular phenomena or trends and critically examine business and management practices and convictions in today’s society.

This is a reflection that dates far back and that has re-emerged over recent years in a devastating manner, taking the name of Social Business. Social Business is how a business operates in the era of interconnectivity. Social Business is a new way of organizing work and relationships with a business ecosystem.

Management disciplines have developed great capacities to make stable and repetitive processes efficient over time. Businesses are now being asked to be more agile, to continually redefine themselves, to provide a relevance to service and customer experience, and more. This makes those capacities no longer sufficient and, in some cases, even dangerous.

In this context, the emerging models of Social Business, both inside and outside an organization, are starting to show their value.

If we really want to create something entirely new, we need to start looking around in a new way, otherwise we will continue to behave as we always have. To create new things, we need to look at creating a newer version of ourselves. Let’s consider another period of great transformation, that of the transition from the medieval era to the modern day. The person who best represents this change is Christopher Columbus. Discovering America is in itself an intriguing story for those who study innovation. When we look at great moments of change, we often risk making the mistake of seeing things in a linear manner: some have thought that to do a certain thing, you need to plan the journey and then you will arrive at the destination. However, when you are on the journey of change it is nothing like this. It wasn’t like this in 1492. The story behind the discovery of America is full of errors; Christopher Columbus was convinced up until his death that he had shown the way to the West Indies and not that he had discovered a new continent. It took twenty years to correct this mistake. In order for people to understand that an unknown continent had indeed been discovered, Western Europeans had to change their own opinions and create new maps.

In times of great change things like this happen: you discover things which you never expected to discover. And in turn your convictions, identity, and cognitive processes change.

So why this introduction? Because today we find ourselves in a time very similar to the end of the medieval era, a time of great confusion. And for those of us who work in the world of organizations, it’s easy to see that in all of this confusion, traditional values and managerial models are heavily involved.

The first point to consider is that we need to change some of our convictions. The current management models for our companies no longer work. We have made management a science; we have tried to transform people into machines; we have divided work tasks into segments, taking significance away from the things we do whilst we work; we have depersonalized things in order to try to control the work place; we have tried to standardize work to guarantee the possibility of repeating services without unforeseen events.

This type of organization worked well when the theme of the business was repetition. It becomes a model that works far less well when the nature of the business is knowledge-based, striving for constant innovation, within an intangible environment.

We don’t have the organization and the appropriate technology for the era that we are living in.

Just as at the time of Christopher Columbus, even we need new maps, especially because it is very difficult to manage things that we are not capable of seeing. These new maps are obliged to work with a technological infrastructure that has only been created in the last few years – the Web, more specifically, Social Media – which is interesting not only in itself, but also for the social behaviour it allows.


The dynamic that emerges by collaborating with other people online can be represented by a curve showing increasing marginal returns (Fig. 1): the overall growth corresponds to overall input. If we learn to harness the power of patrimonial intelligence and the energy of group work the value that is generated grows exponentially. For a long time we have been used to performance curves which in general have decreasing marginal returns, such as the typical curve of experience. (Fig. 2)


This comparison is very interesting, as it opens up possibilities for us of radical innovation which we don’t even know how to see using our current cognitive processes. We are in a time of great changes, but we think of change in an old way, as something linear, where we have to say where we should go, what the expected ROI is, what the benchmark of reference is, and what the plan of action is in order to reach the goal. But we will never get anywhere if we do not change our way of observing things. We could discover, for example, that – as happens on the internet – if organisations also moved their attention from codifying content (archiving documents, procedures, rules) to protecting connections they would have improved efficiency spaces in front of them. Controlling communication flows among individuals is becoming more important today than controlling the content of the communication itself.

This adjustment must be made quickly, because the world is moving faster than ever. As the Queen of Hearts says in Alice in Wonderland, we must run, but we must run just to stay in the same place. There are emerging countries that are running much more than us; the phenomena that we have already mentioned are creating markets with different rules. The customer is now social (“social customer”) and much more efficient in making the most of the information on companies and products than the companies are themselves. The same thing is happening in some way within companies, with the birth and self-organization of communities and spontaneous networks favoured by technologies, often operating consistently with the organization’s project, but sometimes not.

This tendency has grown from a new generation of young people, who bring with them a completely different culture from that of the organisations that we have created. In this generation, there are completely new
concepts of belonging, of boundaries, of mine and yours, and of collaboration. Businesses must therefore act and act fast. Many of them are already doing so, while others are trying.

Many of them are aware that they have lost control of their own brand, which is passing into the hands of the people who are online – people who discuss their experiences, leave comments, and give criticism in more far-reaching, and more appreciated ways than traditional communication initiatives and campaigns. As Chris Anderson says, we are no longer what we say we are but what Google says we are. The voice of the consumer has gradually become more important in the creation of the image and the reputation of the brand.

A lot needs to be done to create an organisation and infrastructure which are more in line with today’s economy and social context.


First and foremost, we must create infrastructures of emerging collaboration, i.e. infrastructures which have increasing returns. People have to be able to build trust and resources, they have to be able to organize themselves, they have to be able to solve their problems collaboratively (Fig. 3). This must be done through the integration of two worlds: that of traditional organization (which nevertheless remains necessary for defining responsibilities, plans and tasks) and that of new forms of organization and the emerging collaborative network, which are necessary for dealing with unforeseen circumstances. There is also a lot to be done on the external front – engaging with the client (fig 4).


We need to talk to clients. We need to stop shouting; we have to listen and understand how they use products and what they want. Companies can carry out “social marketing” activities, letting enthusiastic clients “infect” others. They can use social networks to generate sales, and provide customer care and innovation together with clients. There are also plenty of examples of this.

We have to look at innovation from a new perspective, a less linear, less planned and exploratory perspective (Fig. 5). Networks are much more efficient at this than hierarchically organised groups, because when we explore something new we need to believe it, we need to have different points of view, we need to organize ourselves each time in line with the task at hand, and networks are much more efficient at this. Today is no longer about evangelization; that was the case years ago, when we started our project and launched the Enterprise 2.0 Forum in 2008. Today this has become mainstream. So what kind of company do we imagine? It’s an open, emerging and collaborative organisation, in which we need to talk to people outside the company with feedback flows precisely because we are organised inside the company with similar flows. The organisation can therefore do social media marketing, innovation/crowdsourcing, collaborative support with clients, and more.


We need courage, energy and faith in order to make this journey. But above all, we need to wear the right glasses, and look at new phenomena with new eyes. Only at that point will we discover that we have reached a new land of opportunities.

  1. Chaos is simplicity that we cannot  see yet
  2. Organisations are conversations
  3. Entropy is born from trying to use new tools to do old things, or from using old tools to do new things
  4. E-mail has been overtaken by more open and emerging exchange platforms. Organizations should abolish their internal use of e-mail
  5. When faced with ever more complex and inter-connected problems, decision-making architecture – represented by modern business and governance models anchored in a hierarchical command-control principle – shows all its inadequacy
  6. The road must be the culture of risk: new perspectives do not open up without risks
  7. Clients know the products much better than the companies that produce them
  8. Those who work expect in some way to be able to participate in the organizational project; malaise is generated by the impossibility of this participation
  9. In order to see new phenomena we need to build new tools of analysis and measurement
  10. Organisations are living organisms. Even before generating products they generate and transform knowledge
  11. The ability to generate and transform knowledge makes organizations emerge or decline in the knowledge economy
  12. Knowledge is generated and transformed in conversations among employees, among clients and between clients and employees
  13. Conversations go beyond walls and roles and favour relationships of trust that are difficult to condition
  14. The weak point of knowledge management is the management
  15. Collaboration is the challenge for modern organizations. We have only just begun to deal with this; the management tools currently available are inadequate for the purpose, as they were born in another era and for opposite objectives.
  16. Collaboration does not (only) mean coordination, planning, and role management. Collaboration means putting collective intelligence to good use
  17. Today we need to come together, create stories and common meanings, involve personal feelings, find ways to engage with people
  18. Organizations that are inflexible risk extinction
  19. High-performance organizations have disorganization and weak links as their strong point
  20. There is much more intelligence in our organizations than management is willing to recognize
  21. The intelligence in organizations today is trapped in procedures, customs and roles
  22. It is difficult to direct a conversation; it is easier to feed it or silence it for good
  23. An economic crisis is also a crisis of management models and work organization models
  24. Today, man’s great works are born from conversations, and often they don’t need governance
  25. The knowledge of organizations today lies more in connections than in company databases
  26. Teamwork, integration, collaboration: organizations are cramming themselves full of concepts that are ever further from their own practices
  27. The market today has a faster and more articulate intelligence than the intelligence of organizations
  28. Organizations react to stimuli in their market with a speed that is inversely
    proportional to their size
  29. HR’s plans hide the fear of freeing the energy and intelligence found within the organization
  30. Clients, like employees, are looking for a contact and a dialogue but instead find rubber walls with high-sounding names: call centres, customer care, direct lines
  31. Consultants strengthen the status quo: they try to bring complexity to the pre-established order but by doing this they increase entropy as they simply move the disorder to another level
  32. Disruptive innovation does not occur in  R&D departments: it occurs by mixing points of view and knowledge in new and open connections
  33. One-way intranets are useless; Social Intranets can today become the nervous system that allows an organism to feel and act as a unit: they allow the exchange of stimuli, the accumulation of memory, the formation of identity and the coordination of actions
  34. Today there is a need to come together: to connect the dots (vision) but also to connect people and create autopoietic (self-creation) systems
  35. Reputation is the key
  36. Centre and outskirts are concepts of the last century. Online, centrality is a function of authority and visibility
  37. Listen, listen, listen: it’s the client who tells you who you are
  38. In the knowledge economy you don’t have to know everything but you do have to be well connected
  39. From the knowledge economy to the gift economy…
  40. The business process emerges bottom up, learns constantly and adapts itself according to feedback from employees and clients
  41. Think in a new way: abandon slideshows and restructure work spaces.
  42. Listening to conversations is not enough. We need to draw meaning from them and direct change
  43. Your employees come first. Without their involvement your Marketing department will never be able to engage customers
  44. Consulting firms are not needed to build new organisations.
  45. Ideas from clients, employees and suppliers are just as good as those from management
  46. Social Business is not a new technology, it’s a new type of company
  47. Looking at the market through the eyes of the product and socio-demographic segments has lost its value. Let’s seek out passions, needs, tribes
  48. A company is centred on the client when it is able to look at itself from the outside, knocking down barriers both internally and externally
  49. Bottom-up innovation does not mean carrying out everything that the clients ask for. It means understanding the problem that the clients want solved and helping them to solve it
  50. Socializing processes does not mean creating new silos, even if they are social. It means breaking down traditional and social silos.
  51. Only working for a wage never makes the difference. People today are looking for a common mission
  52. Opening a Facebook page is easy. Opening the doors of a company and welcoming clients is difficult
  53. Companies hardly ever know what the client wants because they have always been afraid to listen
  54. Communities of people are not created and managed. Communities attract members and are cultivated by them
  55. The new management model is closer to cultivating a community than to leading a flock
  56. Change starts from the early adopters, but sustainable change reaches everyone else
  57. Customer service is the new marketing
  58. The only way to balance the excess of information in which we are drowning is by adding more information that acts as a filter
  59. A group of kids has created more innovation in the last 15 years than IBM, Microsoft and Oracle put together

Social Business Manifesto is proudly written by OpenKnowledge team. Learn more on –

George Siemens, Rosario Sica, Stefano Besana

A theoretical framework

We begin with a fundamental premise: Social Learning is not a new trend. Learning models such as those of corporations, guilds and apprenticeships invoked long ago what we now call Social Learning. Going back further in time, the first philosophers practised Social Learning almost exclusively, as the stories which are still told about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle remind us.

What is really innovative, today, is the scale on which we can be involved in a process of social learning. Web-based technologies greatly reduce the barriers that learners were forced to face in the past (time and geography are just two of many possible variables that can be used as an example): the development of social networks and tools such as Skype, Google Talk and mobile devices, the level and scale at which we can be “social” has increased consistently and substantially. In this sense, Social Learning is a return to our more natural way to learn and interact with others.

As regards the relationship between Connectivism1 and Social Learning activities we can see Social Learning as part of Connectivism. Both concepts refer to how knowledge is distributed and emphasize how complex problems can be solved by assuming a network and systemic perspective.

The point at which Connectivism differs from Social Learning is the access to resources and sources including non-social ones. For example, new ideas, very often, are simply reworkings of ideas that followed one another in past centuries. William Rosen in his bookThe Most Powerful Idea in the World, highlights exactly this point, i.e., the way in which people connect to each other’s ideas is not always Social.  Furthermore, the way in which organizations create their managerial structure influences the way in which information flows within the organization itself. Connectivism is linked to (the question of) how this information, these techniques and social structures have an effect on and contribute to innovation, invention and dynamic adaptation of the individual and the company. The biggest developments in the near future – in terms of emerging learning systems – will above all be in the domain of analysing knowledge: in fact, we produce huge flows of data in almost everything we do (a process amplified greatly by mobile technology). Our ideas, our positions, what we read, with whom we interact. Everything is captured forever on Facebook, Foursquare, Twitter and our blogs. Many companies are fumbling in the dark in terms of knowledge and organizational learning.

Recognizing and using wisely the huge amount of data and flows of information that are produced is the first step to moving towards an analytical approach as regards the goals and objectives of a company, as well as being a good way to build competence. Through the analysis of information flows companies can understand how knowledge moves in networks, how people work together, which people should be working together based on the activities they have previously performed and how to deal effectively with complex problems (such as entry into a new market, acquiring a new company, or launching a new product). Analyses of these data – in essence – can help companies better understand themselves.

Most experts and consultants emphasize the social dimension and the way new technologies – Facebook, Twitter and blogs – contribute to making people “social”. They deal with the social aspect as the most critical element within the internal process of learning. We instead believe that people are motivated primarily by information. We constantly process information. From childhood, we try to make sense of the world by attempting to think about it, to evaluate it, to connect the pieces of information we encounter. It is an evolutionary trait: we are living beings based on information. We develop in relation to the information around us.

Looking back at the time when man was a hunter-gatherer, those that survived were those who were able to make sense of the information in the context in which they lived: which plants to collect, which animals to avoid, what to eat and so on.

Our starting assumption is that the dominant trait of humanity is the acquisition, processing and creation of information. We employ social approaches that allow us to manage information better. Too many  people discussing  Social Learning see the social dimension as its final goal. We see it rather in the search for meaning and a way whose primary purpose is to use social approaches to assist us in personal evolution and survival.

In the early ‘90s Lave and Wenger had already intuited the pivotal role of communities of practice and informal exchanges between people in organizations. After more than twenty years from their early work, the organizational landscape has evolved considerably, but the importance of the role of informal communities in building knowledge has not only remained unchanged but also benefited and been strengthened by the great evolutions – both technical and cultural – of all that vast sea that may be labelled as Enterprise 2.0, where the role of the community has become dominant and paramount.

In this sense, Social Learning fits into the organizational dimension connected to learning, the exchange of knowledge, training and the management of human resources that has become fundamental important in all businesses, both more or less complex.

The diagram shown in Figure 1 summarizes well the evolution from the ‘90s to the present of the conceptions of training in terms of the technologies they employed, from simple systems and approaches to basic distance learning up to blended learning and building environments that allow a degree of interaction and an ever-increasing number of functions.


In trying to give a concrete definition of Social Learning, however, we could argue that it is an emergent phenomenon (not predetermined or planned) that originates from knowledge networks and information flows, both formal and informal, within organizations. Social Learning is, moreover, the reliance on social networks and interactions for help in our own search to give meaning to the information around us. Today “knowing” means to be connected: knowledge is moving too quickly because learning can be considered simply a product that comes at the end of a process. We need to connect to networks of information and “deposit” knowledge in relationships rather than in our heads or in knowledge management systems.

We are not dealing, therefore, with the simple application of social technologies (or 2.0, according to by-now dated label) to the context of learning, trying to evolve the classic logic of LMSs (Learning Management Systems) towards models similar to those of well-known social networks. Rather, we need to rethink training and learning development in a way that integrates more with the flow of operating activities. We need to think of the learning organization as a living organism that is constantly evolving.

Let us understand better the context of referral and the principles of Social Learning through the analysis of a case study.

Applying Social Learning: a case study

We will try to explain the basic concepts of Social Learning with a practical example related to a situation in which many organizations may find themselves: a large multinational company needs to review
their Learning Management System, which is becoming obsolete. The portal that delivers training content was based on a platform whose functionality is rapidly declining. In addition, the company also needs to move towards a system with lower maintenance and management costs and that can be maintained independently, without relying on external vendors for every need, even a small one. The project, then, started with the aim of porting all the historical data and SCORM/WBT packets so as to be able to continue to offer the training program to all the company’s. (We are talking about a population / user base of more than 5,000 people).

This is a classic use of this platform, based on precise and concrete learning objects in which the e-learning part is used in a very traditional way, as a simple static content provider and file repository. In essence, the mode of learning underlying the platform is based on a very simple concept: users of the platform access training courses they are assigned to and training is performed in a passive manner, limited to observing the explanation shown on the monitor and completing a comprehension test at the end of the trail.

The challenge in this project was therefore to provide customers not only a mere porting content from one platform to another, but integrate the four dimensions of learning, which we consider indispensable in the design of a Social Learning environment:

Training & LCMS (Learning Content Management System): a company – small, medium or large – needs to provide courses for which tracking is required (we are only looking at those required by law: 626, Privacy, etc.) and a tool that will be a classic LMS must be present in a Social Learning environment.

Creating a Social Learning project doesn’t mean throwing away years of experience and knowledge about the e-learning world, but rather means to valorize these experiences in a changed context. Another topic to cover is assessment and reporting which very often need to be produced and cannot be left uncovered.  Introducing a platform which covers these needs within the context is certainly important and useful in order to deliver more traditional training.

The Content Management System: This deals with content management and its delivery/presentation in an as user-friendly way as possible, with appealing graphics and meeting the classic user-experience principles: it is not uncommon to find company training management platforms and learning courses provided with interfaces which are not in line with these considerations: user-unfriendly and complicated environments with a very bad user experience are unfortunately quite common. It’s better not to underestimate the way contents are delivered, because learning can only be effective in an environment provided with good cognitive affordance. Moreover – considering the basic project idea – a CSM is aimed at allowing an easy upload and sharing of contents and – secondary but equally important – at supporting an extremely wide range of formats. Here’s what makes things much easier for people dealing with training: creating modular and specific learning paths.

Self Learning: companies’ repositories abound with contents that can enrich and integrate training paths. When planning new learning platforms it is necessary to expect the integration of more sources – both internal and external – in a self-service way. Moreover, being fully consistent with the lessons of the previously mentioned 2.0: relying on folksonomies, on modular and customizable paths and focusing on the single user’s needs today more than ever form the winning keys in a learning process/path.

Community & Social Network: communities – the “social” aspect – are the real cultural, social and technological revolution that has involved us over these years. Being able to valorize practice communities and related networks is a distinguishing crucial point when it comes to creating a learning environment which can generate value for the whole business ecosystem.

New formats: wiki, social bookmarking, storytelling, gaming and micro-video are just some of the tools that users should use in order to generate contents to feed the platform in a bottom-up way. The goal should be to feed a repository to create a Youtube, a company Slideshare or something else, and provide learners with all the necessary tools to share learning-related contents quickly and easily.


To make a comparison, the environment should be able to allow the maximum level of presence3 inside, at least. Only in this way will the users really be free to experiment with new formats and get a true benefit from them in terms of significant learning.

For example, for the project we talked about initially, the four dimensions (fig. 2) have been integrated by using OpenSource technologies which covered different themes and needs. With regard to LCMS management they chose to use Moodle which has become a point of reference, especially over recent years, in the LCMS field. It just takes a look at the statistics on the official website to realize that. Nevertheless Moodle is still bound – by choice and by necessity – to a classic view of learning and is missing most of the functions found in more social tools (just think about the tool that manages learning, Schoology ( So how can we meet these limits and customize the Moodle interface more effectively? An integration process with CSM and Social components has started. Now all that is needed is to define an environmental integration process, most of which we have discovered to be already provided for and implementable through a plug-in.

Yet we still haven’t dealt with the management of informal aspects, which we have covered also in this case by a special plug-in to create internal communities in Joomla: this plug-in is JomSocial ( By integrating this plug-in all the development areas have been covered. The case above is meant to be a starting point to understand how to build up an as rich and stimulating learning environment as possible with a few simple tools, which could take into consideration all the needs of the actors involved.

The technical difficulty of creating an environment like this is modest. Besides the planning, the real challenge lies in the maintenance and involvement of learners. In any case the idea remains that a Social Learning project – and, generally speaking, every Social Business project – is to be planned as a tailor-made project based on the different and specific needs for each context and case.

By forcing ourselves to try to extend what we learned from the example above to a general context, we underline how social technologies can guarantee the possibility to create wide and articulate training and learning paths. The application of social technologies to training in classes can later evolve the mature considerations made about blended learning so far by taking it to a new level which can valorize different contents. In this sense in fig. 3 we have included the diagram shown in Scotti and Sica (Community Management, 2007-2010). It clearly shows how the planned and catalogue training is only able to cover a part of the mare magnum where learning takes place.


In this sense the creation of communities that support knowledge is a fundamental requirement in order to facilitate those silent aspects that couldn’t be valorized otherwise.

Assessing Social Learning

Even when assessing learning it is necessary to review and rethink methodologies and technologies: it is clear that old logics cannot be used and applied to new paradigms, but the whole framework of learning processes, of the individual and – more in general – of the company, must be reviewed. A large amount of research is heading in the direction of using Social Network Analysis (SNA) to assess training and learning.

In the early 2000s, we used a Social Network Analysis project involving a department of a large University in the US to assess over 100 people. We tried to understand how these people collaborated with one another, where they would go to ask for help and how they used social networks to solve their everyday problems.

Understanding the essential nodes of the department network was an important starting point on the path to an organizational change. In a very similar way, today’s companies need to take in consideration new analytics and innovative assessment models to reconfigure their structure. The knowledge lying in most companies is not properly connected. Very often certain people work on some problems without knowing what others are doing, without any awareness. When analyzing the results of learning on both an individual and organizational level, we need to rethink the way in which we identify and analyze the results of the training interventions. Analysis tools play an important role in the mapping of organizational knowledge. In this sense, the analyses provide us with a model to start from to reconfigure our company. In the past, leaders have sometimes taken decisions blindly. For example, the joining of two departments was carried out because it made sense financially.

Very little attention has therefore ever been paid to knowledge and to how learning and the building of knowledge could be influenced. With this type of analysis we can better understand these “blind spots” and eliminate the risks in reconfiguring the departments in our company.

In this sense the Kirkpatrick model (based on an individual assessment of the impacts of training) – well-known to those in charge of assessing learning – can be revisited and evolved into a wider assessment approach extending the analysis levels to a larger and “network” dimension, also able to assess the most widespread organizational impacts that involve the communities found within the company (see fig. 4). Specifically we ask ourselves: in what way are collaborative networks emerging? At the end of the training course, which networks have been improved and what new cores have been born? How is knowledge moving inside the company? Have internal affinities towards the course themes changed? How should work teams be organized to improve company efficacy and efficiency?


We can therefore identify four other dimensions to support those initially provided for by the model, in order to better assess the impacts that the training course has on the working network:

  • Affinities: at the end of the course has the level of affinity of the participants changed towards to the themes dealt with and the more general goals?
  • Social Knowledge: through the training course was knowledge spread inside the company by taking advantage of informal networks?
  • Network Creation: have collaborative groups and new links within the course been created that can then be extended to the rest of the company?
  • Network Development: have we developed the creative cores already present?

The integration of these “new” assessment methodologies and processes within the classic models that are already well-known to those in charge of training allows us to have a complete assessment framework of the company and fully understand the formal and informal exchanges within the company.


  1. For references to the Connectivist approach please consult the George Siemens volume: Knowing Knowledge
  2. SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) means a reference model which allows the independent exchange of contents on the platform. A WBT (Web Based Training) is a training package supplied on the web.
  3. At the level of psychology of new media (Riva, 2008) we define the concept of presence as the feeling of being inside a digital environment given by the possibility of putting into practice our own intentions.

original post made by Emanuele Quintarelli for Social Business Forum official blog –

With over 1650 registrations, 65 speakers and 25 partners, The Social Business Forum 2012 has represented another meaningful step both in the growth of our conference and of the european social business domain. During the event we have collected an amazing quantity of valuable insights, contributions and ideas from some of the most active and inspirational thought leaders in the social business arena.


We want to share this value with you and for free! 

 While one thousand of you have had the opportunity to listen and interact personally with our speakers, we hope that many others will have the chance to see what they missed and to join this common journey. Starting from today we are posting all of the videos for the sessions of the Social Business Forum 2012, together with some notes about why you cannot miss them. Both the videos and the presentations (where available and shared by the speakers) will be also linked from the agenda. Here we go with the first bunch:

  • A dialogue on Social Business Manifesto where Emanuele Scotti and Rosario Sica (co-founders of OpenKnowledge) picked up some of the theses of the Social Business Manifesto to critically examine both the huge potential and the tricky resistances companies meet everyday when trying to adopt social media as a business accelerator. Each of these theses is a major opportunity to make your organization more adapt to compete in a new, consumer-controlled, community-empowered market.
  • In From Stress to Success – Pragmatic pathways for Social Business, John Hagel (Co-Chairman Center for the Edge at Deloitte Touche) by many considered one of the most relevant business thinkers of our times, leveraged the research conducted for the Shift Index to help us frame Social Business into the broader economical forces impacting our companies:
  • In Enterprise gamification to drive engagement, Constellation Research’s CEO Ray Wang gave one of the most vibrant and appreciated speeches of the entire conference providing pragmatical suggestions on how to embed gamification into everything a company does for building motivation, engagement, participation:
  • With Embracing social. Why Europe’s ahead of the curve, Tibco President for Social Computing Ram Menon shared the vision of one of the global leaders in Enterprise Application Integration now helping client companies to adopt collaboration as the social glue to connect people, processes and applications:
  • While the social revolution is touching many processes, customer service is probably at the fore-front of them. We were lucky enough to have one of the most visible pioneers in social media for support. Mixing customer experience, passion,  marketing, in @YourService. The business world has flipped and small business can capitalize, Frank Eliason (SVP of Social Media at Citibank) talked about the formula to build a more customer oriented organization
  • Applying people participation, by involving employees, customers and partners, requires way more than some social layer on top of traditional organizations. With its Engage or lose! Socialize, mobilize, conversify: engage your employees to improve business performance, Oracle’s Senior Director and WebCenter evangelist Christian Finn provided very concrete steps and first-hand examples on how to socialize content repositories, processes and the intranet without forgetting a careful focus on business value
  • Interested to learn how to distinguish yourself from all of your customers and thrive even in this though economic climate? The amazing talk Stephen Denning gave, titled Transforming the workplace with radical management, provides the answer by covering the major management shift organizations are facing to become agile and delight their customers together with the perils towards becoming more open and social. Believe me. Don’t miss this one!
  • May the future organizations be built in a totally new way by giving priority seats to the very persons composing it, first of all customers and employees ? Esteban Koslky, principal Thinkjar gives some direction on how this social, collaborative and connect enterprise could work:

Hope you enjoyed the keynotes of the Social Business Forum 2012. These videos are provided for free so that you can use them in your own work with colleagues, friends and customers. Keep following us for the many other videos we’ll be publishing this week and please let us know any feedback or comment you want to share.

Si è conclusa settimana scorsa la due giorni – estremamente interessante e ricca di spunti – del Social Business Forum 2012 – .
Personalmente, visto dal lato di chi lo ha organizzato, con non poca fatica e impegno, posso dire di ritenermi estremamente soddisfatto sia per la qualità dei contributi che sono stati messi in tavola sia per il livello mostrato e per l’immagine che ne è emersa.

Come si legge nel comunicato stampa di chiusura dell’evento:

Il grande successo dell’evento testimonia la crescente attenzione da parte di manager e aziende – hacommentato Rosario Sica, Amministratore Delegato di OpenKnowledge – verso modalità di lavoro piùaperte, trasparenti, flessibili, capaci al contempo di motivare i dipendenti a dare il massimo e diinnescare relazioni più durature e profittevoli con i clienti. Negli ultimi 5 anni, il Social Business Forum ha accompagnato e facilitato una presa di coscienza nelmercato europeo – ha commentato Emanuele Scotti, Amministratore Delegato di OpenKnowledge – sulla necessità di rifondare il modello prevalente di impresa facendo leva su nuovi costrutti di management,leadership, incentivazione, misurazione dei risultati necessari a costruire un vantaggio competitivo difronte ad un mercato sempre più turbolento, imprevedibile e competitivo.


Il Social Business Forum è stato, in Italia, prima di tutto un’occasione formativa, un mezzo per arrivare a diffondere anche nel nostro paese una cultura del fare, dell’innovare e del rendere le nostre organizzazioni più preparate, resilienti, efficaci ed efficienti nell’affrontare i tempi che corrono.

In questo senso il Social Business è stato anche un’ottima occasione per presentare all’esterno il lavoro che ormai da 2 anni e mezzo porto avanti assieme ad OpenKnowledge e che – con passione e fatica – proviamo a trasmettere ai nostri clienti.

Offering di OpenKnowledge:


I molti speaker che si sono alternati sul palco (qui trovate tutte le slide che è stato possibile condividere – hanno sottolineato alcuni temi di grande interesse:

  • Il cambiamento necessario di cultura e di modalità di lavorare ancor prima che di cambiamento tecnologico
  • La necessità, ormai non più secondaria, di evolversi verso un Social Business e di portare l’organizzazione verso un nuovo orizzonte
  • La consapevolezza di un nuovo potere che hanno in mano i nostri consumatori, dipendenti, partner e clienti
  • La necessità di utilizzare strumenti nuovi per comprendere nuovi fenomeni e nuove metodologie che siano in grado di rispondere agli scenari mutati
  • L’importanza e la centralità del coinvolgimento come leva strategica
  • L’efficacia e il ROI delle iniziative basate sul Social Business
  • La consapevolezza dell’importanza di una strategia di coinvolgimento dei consumatori come dei dipendenti: verso l’esterno dell’azienda come verso l’interno.
  • La necessità di utilizzare ed esplorare nuovi scenari (come la Gamification)

Queste e molte altre tematiche sono state approfondite nel Social Business Manifesto (un altro dei temi centrali di questo Forum) che trovate disponibile all’indirizzo: in lingua inglese.
Alcune tesi rappresentate visualmente:

Personalmente ho sfruttato l’occasione del SBF di quest’anno per mettere assieme e presentare alcune riflessioni che ho condiviso nei mesi e negli anni passati proprio sul Social Learning. Qui la mia presentazione:

Concludo con un ultimo pensiero che riprende il tema di quest’anno del Social Business Forum (“From Social to Business”). E’ tempo di passare dal parlare al fare. Dalle teorie alla pratica. Dalla Strategia alla Tattica. Il mercato e le tecnologie sono pronte: noi lo siamo altrettanto?

Sarà in edicola nei prossimi giorni il numero di Giugno di Harvard Business Review: prestigiosa rivista internazionale di altissimo livello. In allegato a questo numero un manifesto un po’ particolare, dedicato al Social Business che ho contribuito a scrivere nei giorni scorsi con alcuni miei colleghi.

I partecipanti alla 5a edizione del Social Business Forum saranno inoltre omaggiati con una copia gratuita –

Ma che cos’è esattamente il Social Business?
Come scrive correttamente Emanuele Quintarelli:

Un’organizzazione che ha messo in campo le strategie, le tecnologie ed i processi atti a coinvolgere sistematicamente tutti gli individui che compongono il proprio ecosistema (dipendenti, clienti, partner, fornitori) nella massimizzazione del valore scambiato

Questa definizione sottolinea che:

  • Viene a perdere importanza la separazione storica e manichea tra dentro dell’azienda e fuori dell’azienda, avente come corollario un ruolo privilegiato per quelle idee e quelle decisioni che dall’organizzazione vanno verso il mercato (inside-out) rispetto al flusso inverso che dal mercato trasferisce indicazioni verso l’azienda (outside-in)
  • Gli attori che acquisiscono il ruolo di co-decision maker e di agenti del cambiamento dell’azienda non sono più i manager, ma neanche i soli clienti (come prescritto invece dal Social CRM). Oltre che dai manager, l’evoluzione organizzativa può essere guidata indistintamente dai clienti, dai dipendenti, dai partner e dai fornitori. Tutte queste categorie passano dal ruolo di comprimari a quello di co-protagonisti
  • Il processo di scambio tra interno ed esterno viene reso possibile da un approccio di coinvolgimento non di comunicazione. Coinvolgere significa accogliere una pluralità di esigenze nell’informare il percorso di crescita e cambiamento organizzativo
  • Il motivo ultimo di esistenza dell’organizzazione non è più la sola generazione di valore a beneficio degli stakeholder tradizionali dell’impresa, ma lo scambio di valore tra l’azienda e l’intero ecosistema. E’ come se improvvisamente il gruppo degli stakeholder si fosse ampliato e l’ecosistema fosse entrato in l’azienda. E’ opportuno notare come questo scambio miri ad amplificare, in un’ottica di network e proprio grazie all’ecosistema, il valore generato per i vecchi stakeholder. Il Social Business è quindi un efficientamento del concetto storico di impresa rispetto alle nuove dinamiche del mercato ed ai nuovi comportamenti del consumatore.

In estrema sintesi allora, un Social Business è un’azienda che decide consapevolmente di porsi in una relazione osmotica con il proprio ambiente e che è capace di ricalibrare costantemente se stessa rispetto agli stimoli intercettati:

  1. Il caos è una semplicità che non siamo ancora riusciti a vedere
  2. Le organizzazioni sono conversazioni
  3. L’entropia nasce dal cercare di usare strumenti nuovi per fare cose vecchie, o dall’usare strumenti vecchi per fare cose nuove
  4. La mail è superata da piattaforme di scambio più aperte ed emergenti. Le organizzazioni dovrebbero abolire l’utilizzo della mail al proprio interno
  5. Davanti a problemi sempre più complessi e interconnessi, l’architettura decisionale rappresentata dai modelli di impresa e di governance contemporanei – ancorati ad un principio di tipo gerarchico e di comando-controllo – mostra tutta la sua inadeguatezza
  6. La strada deve essere la cultura del rischio: senza rischi non si aprono nuove prospettive
  7. I clienti conoscono i prodotti molto più delle imprese che li producono
  8. Chi lavora si aspetta in qualche modo di poter partecipare al progetto organizzativo; il malessere è frutto dell’impossibilità di questa partecipazione
  9. Per vedere fenomeni nuovi bisogna costruire strumenti nuovi di analisi e misurazione
  10. Le organizzazioni sono organismi viventi. Prima ancora di generare prodotti generano e trasformano conoscenza
  11. Questa capacità di generare e trasformare conoscenza le fa emergere o declinare nell’economia della conoscenza
  12. La conoscenza viene generata e trasformata nelle conversazioni tra dipendenti, tra clienti e tra clienti e dipendenti
  13. Le conversazioni superano i muri e i ruoli e privilegiano relazioni di fiducia difficili da condizionare
  14. Il punto debole del knowledge management è il management
  15. La collaborazione è la sfida delle organizzazioni contemporanee. Abbiamo solo iniziato ad occuparcene; gli strumenti di gestione e di management attualmente disponibili sono inadeguati allo scopo in quanto nati in un’altra epoca e per obiettivi opposti
  16. Collaborazione non significa (solo) coordinamento, pianificazione, gestione dei ruoli. Collaborazione significa mettere a frutto l’intelligenza collettiva
  17. Oggi abbiamo bisogno di unire, di creare storie e significati comuni, di coinvolgere le sensibilità personali, di trovare l’ingaggio delle persone
  18. Le organizzazioni troppo ordinate rischiano l’estinzione
  19. Le organizzazioni ad alta performance hanno come punti di forza la disorganizzazione e i legami deboli
  20. Nelle nostre organizzazioni c’è molta più intelligenza di quella che il management è disposto a riconoscere
  21. L’intelligenza presente nelle organizzazioni rimane oggi intrappolata nelle procedure, nei riti, nei ruoli
  22. È difficile guidare una conversazione, è più facile alimentarla o farla tacere per sempre
  23. Una crisi economica è anche una crisi di modelli di management e di organizzazione del lavoro
  24. Oggi grandi opere dell’uomo nascono dalle conversazioni, e spesso non hanno bisogno di manager
  25. Il sapere delle organizzazioni oggi sta più nelle connessioni che nei data base aziendali
  26. Teamwork, integrazione, collaborazione: le organizzazioni si riempiono la bocca dei concetti più lontani dalla propria pratica
  27. Il mercato ha oggi una intelligenza più rapida e articolata di quella delle organizzazioni
  28. Le organizzazioni reagiscono agli stimoli del loro mercato con una velocità inversamente proporzionale alla propria dimensione
  29. I piani della Direzione Personale servono a coprire la paura di liberare l’energia e l’intelligenza presenti all’interno dell’organizzazione
  30. I clienti, come i dipendenti, cercano un contatto e un dialogo ma trovano muri di gomma con titoli altisonanti: call center, customer care, direct line
  31. I consulenti rafforzano lo status quo: cercano di riportare la complessità all’ordine
    prestabilito ma così facendo aumentano solo l’entropia poiché spostano il disordine ad un altro livello
  32. L’innovazione disruptive non avviene nei dipartimenti di Ricerca e Sviluppo: avviene mescolando punti di vista e saperi in connessioni nuove e aperte
  33. Le Intranet a senso unico sono inutili; le Social Intranet oggi possono diventare il sistema nervoso che permette a un organismo
    di sentire e di agire come un’unità: permette lo scambio degli stimoli, l’accumularsi della memoria, il formarsi dell’identità, il coordinamento delle azioni
  34. Oggi c’è bisogno di unire: collegare i punti (vision) ma anche collegare le persone e creare sistemi autopoietici
  35. Reputation: è tutto qui
  36. Centro e periferia sono concetti del secolo scorso: nella rete la centralità è funzione dell’autorevolezza e della visibilità
  37. Ascoltare, ascoltare, ascoltare: è il cliente che ti dice chi sei
  38. Nell’economia della conoscenza puoi non sapere tutto ma devi essere ben connesso
  39. Dall’economia della conoscenza all’economia del dono…
  40. Il processo di business emerge dal basso, apprende continuamente, si adatta a partire dai feedback di dipendenti e clienti
  41. Per pensare in un modo nuovo: abbandoniamo le slide e ristrutturiamo gli spazi di lavoro
  42. Ascoltare le conversazioni non basta. Bisogna estrarne senso e guidare il cambiamento
  43. I tuoi dipendenti vengono prima. Senza il loro coinvolgimento il tuo Marketing non sarà mai capace di coinvolgere
  44. Per costruire nuove organizzazioni non c’è bisogno di società di consulenza
  45. Le idee di clienti, dipendenti e fornitori sono buone quanto quelle del management
  46. Il Social Business non è una nuova tecnologia, è una nuova azienda
  47. Guardare al mercato tramite lenti del prodotto e segmenti sociodemografici ha perso di valore. Andiamo a caccia di passioni, bisogni, tribù
  48. Un’azienda è centrata sul cliente quando riesce a guardarsi da fuori, abbattendo le barriere sia all’interno che all’esterno
  49. Innovazione dal basso non significa realizzare tutto quello che i clienti chiedono. Innovazione dal basso significa capire qual è il problema che i clienti vogliono sia risolto e aiutarli nel risolverlo
  50. Socializzare i processi non significa creare altri silos, seppure sociali. Socializzare i processi significa abbattere i silos tradizionali e sociali
  51. Lavorare per uno stipendio non fa mai la differenza. Le persone oggi cercano una missione comune
  52. Aprire una pagina Facebook è facile. Aprire le porte dell’azienda ed accogliere i clienti è difficile
  53. Le aziende non sanno quasi mai cosa il cliente desidera perché hanno sempre avuto paura di ascoltare
  54. Le community di persone non si creano e non si gestiscono. Le community si attraggono e si coltivano
  55. Il nuovo management è più vicino alla coltivazione di una community che alla guida di un gregge
  56. Il cambiamento parte dagli early adopters, ma il cambiamento sostenibile arriva a tutti gli altri
  57. Il servizio al cliente è il nuovo marketing
  58. L’unico modo per bilanciare l’eccesso di informazione da cui siamo sommersi è aggiungere ulteriore informazione che agisca da filtro
  59. Ha fatto più innovazione negli ultimi 15 anni un gruppo di ragazzini che IBM, Microsoft e Oracle messi insieme.

Ho avuto modo – sempre in occasione del Social Business Forum 2012 ( ) di fare quattro chiacchiere con un amico e collega: Fabrizio Martire (@betone) e abbiamo assieme discusso di quali siano i punti fondamentali per cotruire uan presenza sociale consapevole dei brand online.

Chi è Fabrizio?

Fabrizio è co-founder di Gummy Industries, team che si occupa di strumenti collaborativi, branding, marketing e social media. È stato docente di web marketing e social network presso il master “Nuovi Media Nuove Persone” di Accademia Santa Giulia. Co-organizza “Pane Web e Salame” evento dedicato alle case history di comunicazione di successo. Condivide esperienze e casi studio sul blog


Di recente hai provato a spiegare ai tuoi genitori (vedi video su Wired –… ) quale lavoro fai. Prima di tutto mi sento di ringraziarti a nome di tutta la categoria per essere finalmente riuscito a spiegare a tutti quello che facciamo. Mi aggancio a questo per farti quindi una domanda. Non pensi che questo sia parte del nostro problema maggiore con i clienti? Mi riferisco alla mancanza di consapevolezza circa le potenzialità che hanno i social media. Cosa ne pensi ? Sono pessimista?

No, non sei pessimista, sono assolutamente d’accordo: comunicare le potenzialità di un brand sui social non è mai semplice.
La comunicazione attraverso i social network richiede alle aziende uno sforzo maggiore, un impegno che poche hanno mai affrontato prima.
I canali di comunicazione tradizionale (uno a molti) permettono all’impresa di decidere cosa comunicare, come e quando. Scelto il migliore partner e decisa la creatività, il messaggio veicolato (per radio o tv) bombarda direttamente il target. Al contrario i social media portano il rapporto tra azienda e clienti a un livello successivo, un livello in cui la comunicazione non basta più, dove ciò che conta è il dialogo. Oggi le leve del “come”, “quando” e “cosa” sono in mano ai clienti e ai nostri prospect. La vera sfida, per noi, è proprio questa: far percepire al mercato le potenzialità di canali molti a molti, delle community, dello storytelling, del social crm e di molto altro ancora.

In passato – ma ancora oggi in realtà – mi sono occupato di Web Reputation e di Social Media Monitoring per alcuni grossi brand italiani e internazionali. Sono convinto – e così lo sono i miei colleghi in OpenKnowledge – che qualunque azione sui social media non possa prescindere dall’ascolto e dall’attento monitoraggio delle conversazioni online. Tu cosa ne pensi? L’ascolto in rete è uno step fondamentale?

L’ascolto, il monitoring delle conversazioni è il punto di partenza. Per le ragioni esposte prima le aziende devono aspettarsi consumatori attivi, che trovano naturale condividere pareri, idee, critiche su prodotti e servizi. Ascoltare è un valore davvero importante: non agevola solo la presenza di un brand online, aiuta a sviluppare nuovi prodotti, nuovi mercati, nuovi business. Quando oggi parliamo di social business ci riferiamo proprio a questo: a un’azienda che sa ascoltare, sa dialogare e cogliere le occasioni che i propri “fan” e “follower” offrono all’interno delle community.

A tua avviso quali sono le cose che non possono assolutamente mancare nella realizzazione di una Social Media Strategy e quali consigli ti senti di dare a chi volesse realizzarne una?

Dipende molto dalle dimensioni aziendali e del tipo di brand. Sono convinto che i piccoli (PMI) abbiano molto da guadagnare anche semplicemente impegnandosi a raccontare la loro storia, la qualità e l’unicità del proprio prodotto in modo naturale e senza filtri (ne ho parlato l’anno scorso al Social Business Forum ). Al contrario per aziende nazionali/internazionali che già da anni investono in pubblicità e marketing forse l’elemento davvero necessario prima di qualsiasi scelta è proprio l’ascolto è un buon assessment del brand sul digital.

Che rapporto c’è a tuo avviso tra la Social Media Strategy, la Governance a la Policy che un’azienda deve realizzare per potersi proporre come Social Business? Sono tre pilastri fondamentali tutti connessi? O li vedi piuttosto come step differenti?

Il social business è forse la somma di tutte le possibilità e i vantaggi che i nuovi media offrono. Questo, però, richiede un totale cambio di mentalità e una capacità di adattamento non indifferente. Social Media Strategy, la Governance a la Policy sono, come dici, i pilastri di un business di questo tipo ma per esperienza ho capito che è difficile approcciare un progetto proponendo subito tutto il “trittico” :) Credo sia meglio disegnare un percorso che mostri il punto d’arrivo ma che introduca uno alla volta i tre elementi.

Di cosa ti stai occupando di recente? Raccontaci anche del tuo progetto con Gummy Industries che stai lanciando proprio in questi giorni.

Gummy industries è un progetto che mi vede coinvolto in prima persona assieme a Alessandro –!/alekone e Xenesys – Le industrie gommose (ci serviva un nome che connotasse la nostra provenienza: le grande industria pesante bresciana e che ci distaccasse dalla formalità di un’azienda di comunicazione classica) sono state aperte per aiutare le aziende a entrare sui social media, a strutturare i loro business e a valorizzare i propri brand. Oggi mi occupo di tutte queste cose oltre che di organizzare Pane Web e Salame –, un evento alla sua terza edizione, che in modo semplice e diretto, intende far discutere di social media e business. A proposito, il 20 Giugno sarai dei nostri? 

E infine – ma non meno importante – di cosa parlerai al Social Business Forum 2012?

Questa è la domanda più difficile di tutte dato che il social business forum è uno degli eventi più importanti in Italia preparare un talk all’altezza è una bella sfida! Vorrei proporre un talk che evidenzi le nuove tendenze: i nuovi social network e come alcune aziende si stanno muovendo.

[Original version (english) follows]

Eletto da Gamification of Work come il numero uno dei guru sulla gamification (Febbraio 2012 – ) Ray Wang è un personaggio eccezionale che ho avuto modo di intervistare in occasione della sua partecipazione al Social Business Forum 2012

Nell’intervista considerazioni sulla Gamification e su come questa possa essere sposata in modo efficace al Social Business generando valore per l’intero ecosistema aziendale e massimizzando la partecipazione e la collaborazione all’interno delle iniziative di Business.
Un leader inspirato e un influencer di fama mondiale Ray Wang è un esperto di tecnologie disruptive e ha tenuto speech in tutto il mondo nelle più importanti conferenze internazionali. Il suo Blog “A Software Insider’s Point of View” con milioni di pagine visualizzate all’anno indaga i nuovi modelli di business e i nuovi trend nel mondo della tecnologia.

Maggiori informazioni su di lui qui:


Al Social Business Forum 2012 parlerai di Enterprise Gamification. Qual è la tua personale definizione di Gamification? Concordi con il whitepaper di Bunchball che la definisce come l’integrazione delle dinamiche di gioco all’interno di un servizio, sito o community per aumentare il coinvolgimento e la partecipazione degli utenti? Oppure la situazione è un po’ più complessa?

La Gamification descrive una serie di principi di design, di processi e di sistemi che sono usati per influenzare le persone, i gruppi e le community al fine di realizzare dei comportamenti e degli effetti desiderati. Ha avuto origine dall’industria dei videogame e molti di questi concetti pionieristici ora giocano un ruolo assolutamente cruciale nell’incentivare e nel gestire i comportamenti delle organizzazioni sia all’interno dei loro rapporti con i consumatori esterni sia all’interno delle aziende.
Nello specifico l’Enterprise Gamification è sia User Experience (UX) sia “consumerizzazione” dell’IT (CoIT) un trend che spopolerà nel mercato del 2012. Constellation è convinta che entro il 2013 oltre il 50% di tutte le iniziative di Social Business conterranno una componente di Gamification.

Qual è – secondo la tua opinione – il legame e la relazione tra l’enterprise gamification e il social business?

La Gamification coinvolge uno dei fattori chiave del social business: l’engagement, il coinvolgimento. Più gli utenti vengono desensibilizzati dalle dinamiche dei social media più le organizzazioni avranno bisogno di nuove strategie e nuove meccaniche per coinvolgerli, per influenzarne i comportamenti e massimizzare i risultati

Cosa ne pensi dei vari speech di Jane McGonigal contro la gamification? Credi che sia davvero necessario concentrarsi sul Gameful Design, maggiormente connesso alle emozioni e ai sentimenti che alle badge e alle reward? E qual è la tua opinione sul futuro della Gamification? E? la “next big thing”? Oppure solo qualcosa di temporaneo destinato a svanire?

Jane fa davvero un grande lavoro nel trasmettere la passione per il gameful design che rappresenta la chiave per condurre all’engagement. A livello di enterprise gamification  dobbiamo andare ancora più in profondità per capire le dinamiche di comportamento. Attualmente commettiamo sette peccati mortali nell’utilizzare i nostri approcci di gamification.

Al fine di massimizzare il ritorno e condurre a risultati, l’enterprise gamification richiede l’applicazione di concetti di psicologia e di economia. Poiché la Gamification all’interno delle organizzazioni fa appello ai comportamenti umani più naturali, potrebbe essere utile seguire la guida e le best practice di Constellation basata sui “Sette Peccati Mortali” del game design:

  1. Lussuria (generazione di interessi): descrive la mancanza di autocontrollo e attrattiva. Coinvolge e ingaggia gli utenti attraverso intrighi. Scopre ciò che appassiona gli utenti attraverso gli incentivi. Coglie la loro immediata attenzione e li coinvolge a un basso livello.
  2. Gola (accumulo delle meccaniche): si riferisce all’eccesso, all’esagerazione del consumo e alla troppa indulgenza. Si focalizza sul desiderio di accumulare, di acquisire e di contribuire.
  3. Avarizia (scarsità di meccaniche): fa riferimento al desiderio di potere, status e benessere. Utilizzare incentivi non monetari come immediato riconoscimento per generare coinvolgimento. Scarsità nelle ricompense.
  4. Pigrizia (ottimizzazione della user experience): fa riferimento all’indifferenza. Progettare sistemi oltremodo convenienti per l’utente. La privacy si fa da parte quando la convenienza entra in gioco.
  5. Rabbia (desiderio di ritorni immediati): fa entrare in gioco la rabbia, l’impazienza il desiderio e la violenza. E’ disegnata sul desiderio di immediatezza e sulle ricompense istantanee per la rapidità di azione.
  6. Invidia: è riempita di un desiderio verso quello che possiedono gli altri. Sottolinea il successo degli altri. E’ necessario – in questo senso – migliorare il sistema di trasparenza e di attribuzione delle reward.
  7. Orgoglio (ego personale e senso di sé): riguarda la vanità e il narcisismo. E’ necessario foraggiare competizioni salutari. Incentivare comportamenti di fare meglio e fare ancora di più. Il setting degli obiettivi porta gli utenti a fissare aspettative maggiori.

La Gamification è molto di più della “next big thing” o di una moda. E’ con noi dalla notte dei tempi. Ora abbiamo però gli strumenti per metterla in pratica in modo più significativo e personale.

Il mio interesse di ricerca principale è il Social Learning (credo che possa essere definito sommariamente come un fenomeno emergente che genera a partire dai flussi di conoscenza formali e informali), credi che la Gamification possa essere utilizzata al fine di migliorare i processi di apprendimento e di portare all’organizzazione risultati sempre più significativi? 

Assolutamente! La Gamification funziona sia per l’interno che per l’esterno.
Quali temi tratterai al Social Business Forum 2012?
Storie concrete e valore di business.


English Version

Here’s the original version of the interview made with Ray Wang.

Known as number 1 among Gamification Gurus (February 2012 – ). A highly sought after thought leader focused on enterprise strategy and disruptive technologies, R “Ray” Wang has advised organizations and spoken to audiences around the world. His dynamic presentation style brings life and energy to technology and business topics such as business process transformation, next generation software, SaaS/Cloud solutions, social CRM, analytics, and ERP. He is the author of the popular enterprise software blog “A Software Insider’s Point of View.” With viewership in the millions of page views a year, his blog provides insight into how disruptive technologies and business models impact the CXO, enterprise apps strategy, and emerging business and technology trends.

I had the honour to interview Ray Wang and I asked him some questions about the relationship between Gamification and Social Business in order to anticipate some of his thoughts that he will share at the fifth edition of Social Business Forum –

More info on Ray here:


At the Social Business Forum 2012 you will give a speech on Enterprise Gamification. What is your personal definition of Gamification? Do you agree with Bunchball white paper (integrating game dynamics into your site, service, community, content or campaign, in order to drive participation)? Or the situation is quite more complex?

Gamification describes a series of design principles, processes and systems used to influence, engage and motivate individuals, groups and communities to drive behaviors and effect desired outcomes. Originating from the video game industry, many of these pioneering concepts now play a key role in driving incentive and behavior management for both brands in the consumer world and internal scenarios in the workplace. Enterprise gamification is a user experience (UX) and consumerization of IT (CoIT) trend that will take the market by storm in 2012. Constellation believes that by 2013, more than 50 percent of all social business initiatives will include an enterprise gamification component.

What is – in your opinion – the connections and the relationship between enterprise gamification and social business?

Gamification addresses a key component in social business – engagement.  As users get desensitized by social channels, organizations will need a mechanism to influence behaviors and incentivize outcomes.

What do you think about Jane McGonigal speeches against gamification? Do we really need to focus on Gameful Design, more connected to emotions instead of points and badges? And what is in your opinion the future of Gamification? It’s the “next big thing”? Or just something temporary?

Jane does a great job conveying the passion of gameful design which is key to driving engagement. At the enterprise and brand level, we have to go deeper to understanding behavioral dynamics.  We actually apply the seven deadly sins of gamification to this approach.

Enterprise gamification requires an application of psychology and behavioral economics to incentivize outcomes. Because enterprise gamification maps closely to human behavior, organizations will want to follow Constellation’s best practices in appealing to the “Seven Deadly Sins” for gamification design:

  1. Lust (interest generation) describes the lack of self-control and attraction. Engage the user through intrigue. Find what attracts the user through incentives. Grab their immediate attention and engage in land and expand initiatives.
  2. Gluttony (accumulation mechanics) refers to excess, over-consumption, and over-indulgence. Focus on the desire to accumulate, acquire and contribute. Craft pleasurable experiences.
  3. Greed (scarcity mechanics) calls on the desire for power, status, and wealth. Use non-monetary incentives such as immediate recognition to drive engagement. Provide scarcity in rewards.
  4. Sloth (user experience optimization) references laziness, indifference and complacency. Keep designing the system to be uber convenient for the user. Privacy falls aside when convenience wins out.
  5. Wrath (immediacy demand generation) calls out anger, impatience, revenge and rage. Draw on the desire for immediacy. Reward for rapidity. Provide opportunities to avenge one’s honor.
  6. Envy (aspirational demand) fuels a need to desire what others have. Highlight the success of others. Improve transparency on the spoils and rewards. Drive aspirational envy.
  7. Pride (sense of self and ego) draws out vanity and narcissism. Foster healthy competition. Incentivize the pursuit of excellence to “do more” and “do better.” The goal – drive behaviors and rewards towards higher expectations.

Gamification is more than a fad or the next big thing.  Gamification has been w/ us from the dawn of time.  Now we have the tools to put it to use in a meaningful and personal way.

My main research focus is Social Learning (I believe that could be roughly defined as an emerging phenomenon that originates from knowledge networks and value streams whether formal or informal), do you think that Gamification could also help to improve learning processes in order to drive more significant results to the whole organization? If yes how?

Yes. Gamification works for both internal and external audiences!
Which themes you will address in your speech at Social Business Forum 2012?
Real stories and business value.