I wrote in my last Convergence post that I was going to spend some time examining the concept of Convergence in more detail -- and, by the way, we are going to stop calling it Convergence and switch to its proper name: Social Business (in lieu of Business, that would just be too confusing -- right?)

There are four questions that any new business concept must answer in the minds of C-level executives to be understood and adopted.

1. They want to know in simple, business terms, what it is.
2. What are the benefits for the business.
3. What are the costs.
4. How do they implement it.

Although we can debate these questions for a long time (and some people already started), it is useful to remember that these questions must be answered succinctly, and with sufficient credibility to make the business case in a very, very short time.  I will try to lay the cornerstone for this foundation questions and I am hoping you can help me complete the answers.

My lofty goal is to have four posts, with your comments amending them, that will answer the four foundational questions above, which can help us have better conversations to grow adoption.  Let's start with the hardest part: what is Social Business? (this is not a definition post, trust me)

You can give a simple definition of it, saying that it a framework that allows workers and customers to collaborate and build better and more valuable products, services, or solutions.  Easy to say, fairly simple to understand (a framework involves tools, technologies, and systems and people using them), and gets to the result of it.  

Alas, if you use this in today's conversations the invariable retorts are that they are already doing it, they don't see why it is necessary, how this "social thing" is not going to last (or their twin sister, we will wait to see how others do it first), and many of the same answers we have used for as close as I can remember when trying to discourage a new model that would bring with it massive changes.

I always believed that simple concepts require complex explanations, and complex concepts require simple explanations.  

It is indeed the most complex concepts that we can explain simply since not all questions would need to be answered.  You would start with a high-level explanation and work into the details as you go along: the simpler the top-level explanation, the easier it is to go down to the next level.  For simple concepts, a top-level explanation won't work since there are not as many angles or nuances to work through -- thus, a complex explanation is easier to close discussions on the matters.

As I was thinking about this a few days ago I came across this link to a video that corroborates what I was saying: simple concepts have answers, complex concepts have questions.  Brilliant point, really, but it got me thinking how to present the concept of the social business -- and more important, how to explain it.  Is it a simple concept? or a very complex one?

I believe it is a very complex concept and it requires more questions than answers.

Why? There are so many nuances to the actual convergence of SCRM and E20 (the Social Business) -- just think about the three top-level categories of technology, people, and process only -- that it would be virtually impossible to cover them all in a single explanation.  Make that not virtually -- actually impossible.  No description, definition, or explanation we can use would cover all aspects of it. Mike Boysen, one of the smartest pragmatists I know on CRM, wrote on his blog (Effective CRM) when talking about explaining the concept of Social CRM:

"In fact, I've seen prospects and customers nearly revolt when a complex series of bars, triangles, zooming clouds and exploding pie charts jammed onto a single screen — all in an attempt to explain a simple concept."

His statement fully addresses two issues in this current market:

First, we can never get agreement on a definition for -- well, anything since we are all coming at it from different perspectives.  What I consider to be the key issues to deal with in this convergence, someone else would discard as being too "technology-centric" or too "politically-focused".  Similarly, what others consider to be a simple definition, looks too biased to me (side note, this is what led me to argue with Brian Solis a couple of weeks ago via Twitter -- I now understand how I was wrong and will make amends;  Brian, if you are reading this -- sorry for saying you were wrong -- we just disagree).

Second, we will never manage to get C-level people to buy into the idea of Social Business  if we have to use "... complex series bars, triangles, zooming clouds and exploding pie charts jammed onto a single screen..." as Mike says above.  We will need to come up with the highest-level and most simple explanation that we can muster to have the right conversations at the right level.

Which way to go -- asking questions or a simple explanation? let's take a look at both.

What is that simple definition that addresses the business problem and provides a value-based solution for both parties?  Let's break it down into the two parts of it: the business problem and the value-based solution.

The business problem we are trying to solve is the lack of collaboration between customers and organizations.  This collaboration is what theories like design-thinking and collaborative-design are based on; if customers don't collaborate with the organization, the result won't be used by customers.  If customers' don't use the processes or experiences created by the company, there is no customer retention possible, and no loyalty that will evolve over time.  In other words, we can count on customers' that are going to churn at the first sign that a competitor can provide an easiest, better, faster experience -- or that they are willing to work with them.

The single proposition that SCRM can retain customers and build long-term emotional loyalty falls apart without the two-sided collaboration.  

In similar fashion, the statement that Enterprise 2.0 (in the improper definition of internal collaboration only) requires working towards a customer-centric organization falls apart if the customer is not involved in the center of everything done by the organization.  In other words, the collaboration is essential for both initiatives to be successful.  And at the convergence of both these initiatives is where the Social Business resides.

Thus, as any procurement officer will be happy to point out in the first minute of the first meeting, if you need to perform the same function with the same stakeholders, in roughly the same processes -- why would you use two different systems to do it?

Social Business requires one set of solutions, not two (SCRM and E2.0).

As for the second part of the equation, providing a value-based solution, let's explore that in some detail as well.

I wrote before how impractical it is to use value-based anything as a measurement of success since Value is constantly changing in the minds of the receiver, and it would have to be equal in just a precise moment of time to be equally valuable to both.  Now, without knowing what the other party would call valuable at the time a transaction is taking place, which is often the case, value cannot be equal to both sides of the equation.  Although I still maintain that view, I am going to simplify that statement for the purpose of this discussion.  Let's define value as a "close-enough approximation in which two parties to a transaction compromise their expected end-result sufficiently to find a common, middle ground in which they can transact".  In other words, they get something they want and give something they consider to be "close enough" in value.

Now, with this definition  of value we can look at the concept mentioned above of co-creation and expected value to be received (actually Wim Rampen did a marvelous job a few weeks back at answering both question of what is co-creation and how does it provide value, worth reading and bookmarking).

In the sense of the definition we are seeing for social business -- what is co-created value?

It is what happens when the customers' expectations for job completion are met with effective interactions that deliver what was previously created by the customer in collaboration with the business.  In other words, the customers' expectations are fully met before they even begin the interaction since they already took the time to work the details of the interaction.  To use an example, if you go to the supermarket in search of olive oil and before you even leave your house you already know precisely:

• how to get to the supermarket
• in what section or aisle you can find the olive oil
• that they have your preferred brand available and ready
• how it compares to all the other oils
• how it benefits you
• how much it costs
• the exact process you will use to check out, and
• how you will pay for it (maybe they don't take checks or cash, just credit cards)

If you can do that without even thinking, and it becomes second-nature -- then you have successfully co-created the process of purchasing olive oil.  If there are questions as to how to get it, how much it would cost, how long will it take to check-out, etc. then you are still using an outdated inside-out model for that interaction.

Summarizing the definition then, using both the problem proposition and the value-driven solution, is where we find the definition we can use with the C-level executives to explain what is a social business.

A social Business leverages collaboration tools and methods to find out their customers' expectations and build processes to exceed them, thus creating an excess value for the customer, who in turn would match the value received with a bigger perception of the business translated into a higher-level of loyalty.

Yes, no mention of Social Media, SCRM, E2.0, or Social Customers.  Plain and simple, it is about collaborating with the customer to build the better experiences that will fulfill their expectations, and reduce the cost of each transaction.

I am going to say that you are either not there anymore, confused, or tired.  We will leave the exploration of the other part (the questions to ask) for the next post.  We will also cover in more details the other three sine-qua-non concepts: costs, benefits, and implementation in further posts.  It is going to be a busy few months...

What do you think?  Does it make sense? Does it help you define the concept -- or does it make it worse?

Would love to hear your thoughts... and the comments section is wide open.

Esteban Kolsky is the Principal and Founder of thinkJar, a CRM and Social Business think-tank and advisory services firm.  You can read more of his writings at his blog, crm intelligence & strategy