Story:
Building Collaboration Networks

When we first started creating these networks, we rallied groups around strategic initiatives that the Executive Committee had identified as those most likely to generate value for the company in the long term, and that had their executive support. These networks were formed with a formal leadership structure, which would pre-select and gather suggestions for network members and invite them to join the community and collaborate. They focus on topics that CEMEX considers strategic and with potential to generate significant value from the company. In fact, CEMEX executives expect breakthroughs from each one of them. They were the networks that would get this great experiment going.

At the same time, we opened the platform to everyone in the company, and they in turn started creating their own “organic” networks, around interests, and common issues. The way these communities were formed was from the ground up, where people with particular interests would create a community and share it with people they thought would be interested. Those who joined would share it with their networks, and so on. This way interest-based networks grew and prospered.  These are the two kinds of networks that we started with - – Global Innovation Initiatives (formal, executive-led, and created) and Interest based.

We then started moving towards the creation of Functional networks, where experts on a single topic or function could get together and exchange ideas and best practices. The Innovation team started grouping all the Logistics people, and all the Human Resources people, etc. Although their functions were to some degree very local, they could lean on their colleagues across the globe for guidance and support, knowing that they all face similar challenges at their own posts. These communities were created through invitations and also through network member recommendations. In some cases, some headway had been made organically, in others, it was a blank slate, but the desired state is that all functional areas, and in fact all work should have a space at Shift. Working in networks makes sense in every area.  For more information on the evolution of our Shift platform click here.

Members of these networks connect in several different ways, depending on location, work style, and community leadership. Some communities, which are highly disparate, work strictly online in the Shift platform through discussion boards, wikis, document sharing, etc. many others start out with a lot of videoconferences and move to the virtual space, ending up working mostly on the platform. Others make heavy use of web meetings, where several people are connected through voice and also share a screen to follow presentations and other visual aids on. Webcasts are largely used for formal presentations to large audiences, or even the whole company, these are Global Webcasts. Finally, most communities hold a reunion each year with 100-150 of their most active members discuss strategy, next steps, and other topics in a city that is most convenient for everyone. The beauty of these networks is that each member or each community has a vast array of options for connecting and is free to select the set of options that best adapts to their particular needs and work style.

All of these networks collaborate and share constantly, and this is how we ensure that the best practices being carried out in one operation do not remain isolated and unknown for long. These practices are documented and shared so others can replicate them. The networks develop toolkits (simple guides to get started) and are in constant contact with their colleagues. This is a powerful combination of instructions and access to experts in case questions or comments should arise.

A good example of this kind of collaboration is the Cement Operations Safety Community. Benito Flores and other colleagues who saw the value of sharing best practices to improve plant safety created it. They received guidance and onboarding from the Innovation team and from there grew the community to more than 900 in one month. The network quickly started sharing best practices to increase security and reduce job site accidents. Although most of the users did not spend their time in front of a computer, they used the time they got at the shared computer in the plant´s office to connect with colleagues and put what they learned into practice. In a year, accidents were reduced by 50%. The fact that peers could share their suggestions (without much intervention from management) and leave them for others to review at their own time, led to more people being able to replicate these best practices without the need for lengthy or standardized safety seminars of the past.

The Alternative Fuels community worked in a similar way. It was created as a Global Innovation Initiative, with formal leadership and invitational membership. However, as in the above organic example, the leaders of the community and the managers of those who were a part of it quickly saw the value in letting peers talk to peers and make suggestions without intervention of management “middle men”. They started sharing best practices on the use of Alternative Fuels across the globe and implementing them without the need to wait for a lengthy visit or a standardized directive from above. They could simply take from the community what they considered more appropriate for their particular needs and put it in practice. Soon the company became one of the leaders in the use of Alternative fuels, going from a substitution rate of around 5% to over 27% in just a few years.

The Cement Commercial Community noticed that the resources dedicated to IT were not being used efficiently, since each country had its own priorities and challenges that needed to be addresses and solved. They were basically solving the same problem in several different ways. They suggested that the company could extract the priority topics from the network to invest capital where it was most likely to maximize resources, with a single solution for global problems. This was not only very difficult to do without the network structure that is now in place, but also, this topic was traditionally outside of the scope of the Commercial Community, but with the new collaboration practices, openness and voice for everyone, the suggestion was taken seriously even though it did not come from the area in charge of this topic, breaking down functional boundaries.

Now we have no more need for lengthy visits and formal project teams to move all initiatives along. These networks will set things in motion to achieve the goals they set themselves to, while continuing to complete their regular tasks and with minimal investment in time and money. In fact, these networks were created to complement our organizational structure, without removing accountability on results away from the Business Units. These teams are just more agile and don´t have to be permanent or co-located to function. By letting them collaborate on a peer to peer basis, the networks have put more best practices in place, more quickly, and more successfully, than in the past.

After 5 years of working in an open, collaborative manner, we are moving from informal sharing (“I think this could be useful for you, it is at your discretion to use it”) to formal sharing- where the network agrees on the best way to do something and it becomes part of the company´s standard operating procedure, or a toolkit is developed and turned into policy. These practices are shared through a wiki in CEMEXpedia, where they can be updated, improved upon, or challenged, so that they never become static paradigms.

The networks have enabled our company to improve the bottom line and generate innovation not only in terms of new products, but also in reproducing what was successful in one, or a few operations, across the company.