Updates from January, 2014 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Denisse Caballero 9:00 am on January 13, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , ,   

    Team Management vs. Leadership 

    Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

    liderazgo vs team managementFirst things first: What does it really mean to direct a work team and how does it differentiate with leadership? John P Kotter explains that leaders are people who do the right things, while the directors/managers are people who do things correctly. This does not mean that one is better than the other; in fact, these two roles are complementary to each other and to operate a team at work to be successful, you need to meet both requirements.

    We understand that  the basis of leadership is founded on the vision of the future, how to communicate that vision and helping people to understand and achieve. On the other hand, directors are those responsible for making this vision to be implemented effectively and successfully, in other words “create plans” to achieve that. That said we clarify that a leader is not necessarily a manager and not the opposite, but it is possible that they can be.

    On one hand, a real manager will provide order, therefore organize and promote compliance with the company’s plans, this will do it by making decisions and delegating functions using a formal structure to generate stability and avoid poor performance. A leader will establish a communication process and will push his/her team together utilizing informal relationships to establish bonds, of which will motivate the workers to transmit said energy to the rest of the team.

    (More …)

  • Matthieu Pinauldt 9:00 am on October 15, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ,   

    The Differences between Facebook and a Private Social Network 

    Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

    The companies willing to start social communication channels with their clients look for the value of social tools to create commitment or entailment with their brand or product. The diffusion of innovations, promotions, clients attention, etc. through Public Social Networks are good in order to improve the brand image or sales. However, there is an area where public social networks demonstrate their limits: the creation of a community around a related area of interest with their company.

    We often hear that Private Social Networks  are like a ‘tailored Facebook’. But Private Social Networks are much more than that and they add various possibilities to your business.

    Besides the issues of security and confidentiality, a private social network can offer a company the necessary features to create a personalized community where its clients, current or potential, can be grouped around a specific topic in which they all share interest.

    It is important to know the differences between a public social environment like Facebook, and a space like a Private Social Network. The following table displays the differences between public social networks and private social networks.

    Facebook Company Pages Private Social Network
    Personalized Design MEDIUM. Depending on Facebook design codes. COMPLETE. It is important to create an exclusive customization using the codes from the company.
    Retention Views LOW. In Facebook the users are not only exposed to main content, but also advertising, recommendations, third party sponsored links, etc., that distracts attention and increases indifference. HIGH in the case of an active and vibrant community. The links can direct members to products and services.
    Attraction of New Members HIGH. Thanks to publicity and timeline interactions, Facebook allows its pages to go viral. Although, they are always limited to Facebook members. HIGH. A Private Social Network platform must be capable of interacting with main social networks. With Zyncro, for example, you can publish important messages directly to Twitter or Facebook.
    Data Confidentiality LOW. Shared information belongs to Facebook. HIGH. Data always belongs to the company, the platform is hosted in a cloud or on site.
    Member Information VARIABLE. Depending on the level of privacy.  Sometimes, rather than seeking real interactions, users snoop or browse around. SPECIFIC. The community members can determine their profile and privacy depending on the use they want to give to the private network.
    Interactions between members of the community MEDIUM. In general, comments between members are reduced and interactions are closely related to members’ private lives. STRONG. The members are more engaged as they are grouped around specific common interests. The private sphere is not part of the community.
    Interactions between members of the company Low participation.  To connect with colleagues on Facebook is perceived as an invasion of privacy. The conversations between members are not usually about company issues. VARIABLE. The company can decide whether or not to include its employees in the conversations and answers with clients.
    Privileged access to the community LOW. Any Facebook user can set up a company page. Those groups constructed in Facebook are not appropriate for professional communities. STRONG. The communities are only open to company clients, subscribers, etc.
    Loyalty and retention capacity of the public HIGH. A Facebook page is an activation leverage of undeniable communication. VERY HIGH. A private community is high value service offered by a company to its clients that allows interaction with other consumers and members of the company.
    Analysis HIGH. Facebook can fully evaluate the impact of each message and the generation of social actions (likes, comments, actions) HIGH. Private Social Networks allow you to know everything about your community: what the most active groups are, who are the ambassadors of your brand, how to increase membership, what is the impact of each piece of news published, etc.

    Facebook and Private Social Networks are not in competition. The role of Private Social Networks  makes sense from the point that public networks are inadequate. Together they can form a great team to help you shape your community: Facebook will help you attract your Private Social Network members, a Private social Network will help you develop a close relationship with them.

    If after revising this information, you are convinced of the benefits a Private Social Network can have for you clients, we still have more data to show you. And if you are already convinced, try Zyncro now for free or request a demonstration and let us show you everything that you can do with your community.

    Matthieu Pinauldt (@mattpinauldt) is the Marketing Manager at Zyncro France. After various experience in big companies and converting into a businessman,  he joined Zyncro’s team in order to help develop Zyncro at an international level.  He has a Master in Innovation Management from the University París Dauphine, ENS Cachan and Mines Paritech. He is an expert in Social Networks and issues related to innovation.


  • Billie Lou Sastre 9:00 am on November 8, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: , ,   

    Social business, the change lies with the people 

    Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

    Editor’s note: Today we’d like to introduce a new Zyncro Blog author, Billie Lou Sastre; we’re really delighted to have her on the team… Billie specializes in social media and in implementing 2.0 strategies. During her career in MRW as Social Media Manager among other responsibilities, she decided to create her own project, Par de Dos, a consultancy that helps companies to develop social media strategies integrated with their existing marketing plan. Welcome onboard, Billie 😉

    The social revolution started some years ago with more evolved businesses adapting to the social business model, defined as:

    “An organization that has put in place the strategy, technology and processes to systematically engage all individuals of its ecosystem (employees, customers, partners, suppliers) to maximize the co-created value”

    An organizational change in the social media is essentially a challenge of leadership and business management, and not just about implementing technology; technology is the medium. To order to make a company social, you need to create mass collaboration processes that bring value to all stakeholders.

    But are we truly prepared to be social companies? To be one, we need to:


    1. Serve the individual (internal and external). In others, really be aware of all the people who have contact with our company when preparing our strategic plan.
    2. Listen (inside and out). It is not enough to just remember them when defining our strategic plan, we need to learn to listen on all levels. To do that, social tools are extremely useful.
    3. Respond. It is another step forward; if we know how to listen, we gather all our stakeholders’ concerns, ideas, and contributions, we reply to them and start dialog, we can generate more value.
    4. Learn and evolve. Through active dialog with individuals, we can get important feedback on where we are and what we can do to improve. We need to demonstrate that active listening can be used to innovate.
    5. Become social. This entire process is optimized when we learn to become social companies, collaborate and co-create.

    “A change that must be led by the company’s director and supported by all the managers”

    Until now, many directors didnt understand the power of social media. They know that the company needs to be there, but they don’t know why, they don’t incorporate it into their business strategies.

    We often hear of businesspeople who aren’t on the social networks through fear of expressing themselves openly. Others see them more as a sales and communication tool (generally unidirectional) in which they transfer their offline communication to online without any guide and with the sole purpose to increase sales or brand presence. Most of these companies do not have internal social structures and I can tell you that there is no one who has a social profile among the executive positions

    Evolution towards a social business model is a long path. Few companies have adopted it fully as we go from an industrial culture to a post-industrial one. However, it is the future. When companies know how to feed off the enormous value of their contributors, employees, providers and customers, they will find themselves at a stage capable of generating inmeasurable value.

    “Running a social company has a much deeper meaning. It requires a fundamental cultural change throughout the organization.

    To be a social business, a business must be sincerely interested in listening to customers and empowering employees to have an open conversation with them. In this new business model, strict hierarchies are no longer valid. We cannot avoid “innovative spirits” and attitudes in all aspects of the organization, and of course, knowledge must flow in all directions and be driven by all people in this new company.

    Social networks are only tools to interact with individuals, tools with an infinite power to transform relationships with customers, providers, employees and stakeholders, but if the company is not culturally prepared and does not incorporate this new philosophy within its business strategies, it is unlikely that these tools can be used for innovation and creating business value.

  • Mari Carmen Martin 9:00 am on October 25, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ,   

    Some confusion over the Enterprise 2.0 

    Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

    Many years and events have passed since Tim O’Reilly set the bases for the Web 2.0 at a conference in 2005, where he and other speakers outlined the key features of the Web 2.0.

    At that time, the Web 2.0 was defined as a series of Internet applications and pages that used collective intelligence to provide online interactive services.

    The Web 2.0, among many other features, continues to be characterized by:

    • It enables collective intelligence
    • The effects of the network are highly visible
    • Information is the next revolution
    • It marks the end of software obsolescence
    • Lightweight and easy programming and business models are key features
    • Software has gone to being a device
    • Users seek rich experiences
    • The whole is greater than the parts
    • The value of a group created on the networks increases exponentially, and therefore its implications are profound.

    When the Web 2.0 started to be considered a serious phenomenon, the US business schools came on the scene and started to perform some case studies, and in 2009 the term Enterprise 2.0 was coined with the publication of Andrew McAfee’s book. McAfee, Harvard University professor, defines the Enterprise 2.0 as the use of emergent software social platforms within companies, or between businesses and their partners, using social technologies (social software or social computing) in order to enhance collaboration and make business processes and flows more productive. These tools are part of a platform that can be understood by anyone in the company and last over time. They convert the task of knowledge into a wider, permanently visible experience.

    In some cases, it has been understood as a way of experimenting with new applications. The Enterprise 2.0 concept is much wider, as it deals with managing the company in collaboration, resolving business problems through collaboration, and achieving business results through collaboration. In his book Enterprise 2.0, McAfee makes it clear that new technologies are much more than a socializing part of the organization and that when they are applied intelligently to solve business problems, they help capture information that is scattered within the organization, converting it into knowledge that transforms quickly, generates and refines ideas, and finally brings the wisdom of the community.

    Many organizations confuse this term and often label themselves as Enterprises 2.0 when really they are experiencing evolutionary changes in their business models. For example, the sales of a company reached a higher call percentage via a call center. Due to the evolution of the markets, the changes in the customer behavior, and the implementation of a powerful online platform, the organization then started to change its business model towards online commerce. In this case, the evolution towards an e-commerce model can result in the implementation of collaborative technology and organization 2.0 models, but not the opposite.

    Mari Carmen Martín is a trained Industrial Psychologist and expert in HR. Currently she works for Cloudtalent, a company of the Humannova group, where she is responsible for creating personal branding programs for executives and professionals.


  • Patricia Fernandez Carrelo 9:00 am on July 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ebanking, mobile banking, , social banking   

    What is Social Banking? 

    Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

    Social Banking is a recent buzz word with many interpretations according to the sector where it is used. The term can refer to concepts associated with financial institutions that have objectives that are not related with speculation (i.e. seeking to make ethical contribution to social and environment aspects) or to those concepts related with the digital environment.

    If we focus on that second interpretation, linked with the digital perspective, and trace back technology innovation in banking, we can talk about three major milestones:

    1. eBanking (1995): the growth of the internet has opened a new access channel for customers to financial products and services.
    2. Mobile banking (2007): with the appearance of the iPhone, a change has slowly taken place, not only in terms of channel but also in terms of devices, with financial products and services being adapted to a mobile environment.
    3. Social banking (2010): the “socialization” of the relationship between financial institutions and their customers using communities and social channels. It is no longer a question of products or banking services and the channel or device by which they are transmitted, but it transcends the connection established between institutions and their customers.
    Social banking is an innovative trend that is breaking onto the European front and seeks to build a new relationship model between banks and customers. This new approach is captured in different ways:
    • Relationships through general and public social channels (Facebook, Twitter, Google+, corporate blogs, etc.): social strategies to involve, create loyalty and connect customers with the financial sector, the new social consumer, in the channels mentioned previously. Leaders in this area in Spain are Banc Sabadell, BBVA or Banca Cívica.
    • Creating private communities for customers by banking institutions, that seek to improve their relationship with the customer and offer added value to the financial product.
    A great example of this model is the Club Ahora from La Caixa: a community for the over 65s that includes a collection of financial solutions and advantages (discounts on travel, leisure, technology…) which are accompanied by access to an online community for exchanging ideas, experiences, photographs… enabling the institution to establish a direct relationship with its customers in a private and secure manner, without depending on third party technology (and their privacy policies) and connecting with its customers directly, using data on the community usage for the customers’ benefit.

    In fact, the social banking trend is the subject of several courses and seminars “Social Media in financial institutions

    At Zyncro, we have been watching and helping to develop this trend as a true evolution in the way of managing the relationship between customers and entities, providing support with our Zyncro sales model of a “Private Social Network”.

    If you would like to find out more, get in touch. We would be happy to share our experience and knowledge on social banking with you.

    Write to us at sales (@) zyncro.com or call us on +34 93 187 03 22! We’ll be delighted to look after you :-)


  • Franco Scavuzzo 10:47 am on November 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Everything you wanted to know about the Cloud but were too afraid to ask II: SaaS, IaaS, PaaS 

    Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

    I dont care if my cloud computing architecture is powered by a grid, a mainframe, my neighbours desktop or an army of monkeys, so long as its fast, cheap and secure (Sam Johnston)

    This is the second part of the post on Cloud Computing on ZyncroBlog, explaining the tree basic concepts in the Cloud: SaaS, PaaS and IaaS.

    Software as a Service (SaaS)

    SaaS is the service based on the idea of having a software that you pay a provider for in installments, instead of buying it outright, and that is not installed in the customer’s machines. The software is hosted in central servers so that its operation is available over the internet. Also know as “on-demand software ”, it currently is the most popular form of cloud computing, due to its high flexibility, quality and scalability, offering lower maintenance costs. The SaaS provider is responsible for hosting the application and the data, while the end user is free to use the service from anywhere, at any time. SaaS is very effective in reducing costs as it provides access to applications normally at a much lower price than purchasing a software license, thanks to an installment payment model (monthly, quarterly, yearly…). With SaaS, users can forget about having to  install and update the software.

    Some examples of SaaS providers are: CRM Salesforce.com, Marketo, Akamai, Taleo or Zyncro of course.

    Platform as a service (PaaS)

    PaaS refers to a development platform for programmers. End users write their own code and the PaaS provider loads this code and presents it on the Web. PaaS providers offer services to develop, test, implement, deploy and maintain applications on a single integrated development environment. They also provide a certain level of support in designing and developing applications. PaaS offers a quick, cost-efficient model for developing and rolling out applications. The PaaS provider manages updates, patches and other routine system maintenance tasks. PaaS is based on a subscription model where users only pay for what they use. Users can use the resources they need without having to worry about the complexity of the platform where they are developing.

    Some PaaS providers are: Windows Azure, Google App Engine, Force.com, GigaSpaces

    Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)

    IaaS delivers computer infrastructure as a fully externalized service. Users can buy the infrastructure according to requirements at a specific point in time, instead of purchasing the planned infrastructure to be used in a couple of months. IaaS operates using the same model as the previous “pay on-demand” services to ensure that users only pay for what they are using.

    The idea of “machine virtualization enables IaaS providers to offer almost unlimited servers to customers and optimize storage machines. IaaS users can have access to a high level of infrastructure and IT resources that would be extremely costly if they were acquired outright.

    The benefits of IaaS include:

    • dynamic scaling
    • usage-based pricing
    • reduced costs
    • and access to superior IT resources.

    IaaS is also occasionally called Hardware as a Service (HaaS). For a SME or a start-up, one of the most difficult things to achieve is to keep capital spending under control. Moving their infrastructure to the Cloud enables them to scale as if they actually owned their own hardware and datacenters.

    Some IaaS providers are: Amazon EC2/S3, Cloud Scaling, Rackspace

    Much of the information presented here was taken from http://www.cloudtweaks.com, a web that I fully recommend for learning more about these concepts.


compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc