• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании9
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы2
Atos Origin
Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
12 июля 2016, 20:16

Why Atos Origin Is Striving To Be A Zero-Email Company

Could you imagine banning email entirely from your business?

08 июня 2016, 18:00

Some Companies Are Banning Email and Getting More Done

HBR STAFF We have a love-hate relationship with email. On one hand, we send over 108 billion email messages every day. On the other hand, most of us hate working our way through our inbox. Email takes up 23 percent of the average employee’s workday, and that average employee sends or receives 112 emails per day. When you look at these statistics, you begin to see email as a new form of knowledge pollution. In fact, that exact conclusion is one that Thierry Breton, CEO of the France-based information technology services firm Atos Origin, arrived at several years ago. Breton noticed that his employees seemed constantly distracted by the stream of emails they received each day. So, he took steps to eliminate what he believed were negative effects on company productivity. In February 2011, Breton announced that he was banning email. In three years’ time, he wanted Atos to be a “zero-email” company. “We are producing data on a massive scale that is fast polluting our working environments and also encroaching into our personal lives,” Breton said in a public statement released through Atos’s website. “We are taking action now to reverse this trend, just as organizations took measures to reduce environmental pollution after the industrial revolution.” That statement seems surprising coming from the CEO of a technology company employing over 70,000 people in more than forty offices around the world. But perhaps it shouldn’t be so surprising. As I write about in my new book, Under New Management, an increasing number of company leaders are outlawing or at least restricting email. And as a result, they’re getting more done. Breton himself had being using a zero-email philosophy well before he announced led Atos to ban it. He’d stopped using internal email nearly five years earlier because he found it hampered his productivity. Despite his seemingly radical thinking about email, Breton isn’t exactly the model of a rogue start-up founder testing out wild new ways to work. He’s a middle-aged former minister of finance for France and a former professor at Harvard Business School. Atos’s massive size would seem to preclude the banning of email, but in reality it was the size of the company that Breton saw as the reason for the communication bottleneck. Of course, Atos didn’t ban electronic communication outright. Instead, the company built a social network for the entire enterprise. They organized the network around 7,500 open communities representing the various projects that required collaboration. However, conversations are not automatically interrupting employees by pinging their inbox. Instead, employees can choose to enter the discussion on their terms and their schedule. While Atos still hasn’t hit 0% email, the reduction efforts are working. The company has reduced overall email by 60 percent, going from an average of 100 email messages per week per employee to less than 40. Atos’s operating margin increased from 6.5 percent to 7.5 percent in 2013, earnings per share rose by more than 50 percent, and administrative costs declined from 13 percent to 10 percent. Obviously, not all of these improvements were the result of banning email, but the correlation is certainly strong. So is a growing body of research on the effects of email. Banning or putting restrictions on email, the research suggests, can dramatically increase individual productivity and reduce stress. Researchers from the University of California, Irvine and the U.S. Army cut off email usage for thirteen civilian office workers and measured the effects on productivity and stress. The researchers first took participants through a three-day baseline period in which they were interviewed and observed both visually and with computer monitoring software (to see how which programs they used, how often, and how much their work was interrupted). They even measured the participants’ heart rates (as a proxy for stress levels). Then they pulled the plug on email, installing a filter on the participants’ email program—which would file away all incoming messages for later reading and remove all notifications. They continued the “no-email” condition for five days, continued to observe the participants, track their computer usage, and measure their heart rates. Participants began to communicate face-to-face and over the telephone more frequently. Most participants also spent significantly more time in each computer program that they used, suggesting that they were much less distracted. Judging by heart rates, participants also experienced significantly less stress when blocked from email. The participants even noticed this effect themselves. They consistently reported feeling more relaxed and focused, as well as more productive, with their email shut off than under normal working conditions. Further studies suggest that just limiting email checking to a certain number of times per day or only checking the inbox at particular times can have almost as dramatic an effect. Taken together, Atos’ experience and the results of these studies suggest we need to have a conversation about when and how we email. Clearing out your email inbox can make you feel like you’re ultra-productive, but unless your job description is solely to delete emails, you’re likely just fooling yourself.

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
19 июня 2014, 23:13

What Moves You To Open An Internal Email?

Research by Atos Origin, a multinational IT services company, found that the average employee spends 40% of the working week “dealing with internal emails which add no value to the business.”

Выбор редакции
30 августа 2012, 03:18

Paralympics opening ceremony brings Britain back to life

A fortnight after the end of the Olympics, a Games that will do more than simply extend our enjoyment of sporting spectacleA nation that suffered a petite mort at the end of the Olympic Games less than a fortnight ago took the opportunity to come back to life on Wednesday night and pick up exactly where it left off as the Paralympic Games opened with another opening ceremony taking its text from The Tempest while surveying the sweep of British history.Prefacing 11 days of competition, the theme of the gala was enlightenment. That turned out to involve anything from Handel's Eternal Source of Light Divine to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and from the apple falling in Isaac Newton's Lincolnshire garden to Stephen Hawking's celebration of the Higgs particle. The great astrophysicist and Sir Ian McKellen, in the guise of Prospero, shared the MC duties, with Nicola Miles-Wildin, as Miranda, intoning Shakespeare's key lines: "O wonder! / How many goodly creatures are there here! / How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, / That has such people in't!"This time all the Queen had to do was turn up and make a short speech. Nobody invited her to follow her scene-stealing role alongside James Bond by joining Pan's People or singing a duet with Beverley Knight. Like the rest of the 80,000 in the Stratford stadium, she sat and watched a Paralympic opening ceremony that cast the spotlight on the role of science in helping to change social attitudes and culminated in the lighting of the 205 new petals of Thomas Heatherwick's long-stemmed cauldron, the flame swooping down from the top of Anish Kapoor's adjacent tower, carried on the last stage of its journey by an athlete attached to a zip wire."Prepare to be inspired, prepare to be dazzled, prepare to be moved," Sebastian Coe told the spectators. He was talking about the 503 events in which medals will be won, but he could have been describing the uncompromising climax of a four-hour gala, which came with a performance of Ian Dury's Spasticus Autisticus by members of the Graeae Theatre Company and the appearance of a giant version of Marc Quinn's Alison Lapper Pregnant, the sculpture of the limbless woman that once looked down from the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. They left no doubt about why we were here – and about how far we have come since Ludwig Guttmann, the Silesian neurosurgeon who arrived in England as a refugee from Hitler, identified the possibility of using sport to aid the recovery of paralysed servicemen and women who had previously been considered beyond salvation.Facing the world's media this week, the South African runner Oscar Pistorius, whose legs were amputated in infancy, made the point that Paralympic athletes want to be judged not on disability but on ability. In other words, the 4,200 competitors from 164 countries would rather you enjoyed their skills than felt pity for their missing limbs. The fact remains, however, that this bunch of inhabitants of the London 2012 athletes' village come with more voluminous baggage than the former occupants. They simply have more gripping stories. If they didn't, they wouldn't be here.It is thanks to them that we now know something about the implications of being born without a fibula in either leg (Pistorius), with arthrogryposis multiplex congenita (Lee Pearson, the flamboyant holder of nine equestrian gold medals from Sydney, Athens and Beijing), or without hands or feet (the Brazilian swimmer Daniel Dias). We have learned to recognise the possibilities for achievement that remain despite jumping into a swimming pool and breaking your neck (female wheelchair rugby player Kylie Grimes), losing a leg to infantile meningitis (teenage 100m prodigy Jonnie Peacock), or losing both legs under a railway train (javelin thrower Nathan Stephens) or on a Circle Line train on 7/7 (sitting volleyball player Martine Wright).We have been nudged, most of all, towards a deeper understanding of the word "transformation", as employed so tellingly by Guttmann, whose intention in founding the Stoke Mandeville Games for the Paralysed, he said, was "to transform a severely disabled patient into a taxpayer".There was no sentimentality about Guttmann. A black-and-white film clip shows him responding to a bedridden patient who confesses to a loss of belief in his recovery. "Now cut that out, will you," the doctor snaps, the crispness of his delivery perhaps only marginally exaggerated for the camera. His reward, before his death in 1980, was to see the start of the transformation of his modest concept into the Paralympics, and thereby a transformation in the public perception not just of disabled athletes but of disability in general.Pistorius talked this week of his personal experience of that process. In supermarkets, he said, parents still sometimes turned their children away from the sight of his prosthetic legs. But once he gets a chance to talk to the children, perhaps telling them that his original legs dropped off because he failed to eat his vegetables, the sense of shock and otherness disappears quickly and for good.He noted with approval that the young people who turned up for the Paralympic day in Trafalgar Square a year ago "didn't have the normal reactions that people show to disabled athletes – they were friendly and excited." The United Kingdom, he added, had dealt with disabled people "in a very amazing way – a lot of people around the world will be forced to see the Paralympics through the eyes of people in the UK, and that's a fantastic thing."These Games are the real thing, all right, mirroring the Olympics in all sorts of ways. They have their own rows over illegal performance enhancement, in the form of blood-boosting achieved through various methods of self-torture unsuitable for description in a family newspaper. A Paralympics sponsor – Atos, which tests the fitness for work of disabled people on behalf of the government – is accused of using its association with the event to launder its image. And there is a dispute over the ability of the Paralympics to create a meaningful legacy at a time when disabled people in the UK are suffering from severe cuts to the employment and support allowance. Part of the real world, indeed, sharing and sometimes highlighting its real and intractable problems. But, for the next 11 days, as we learn the rules of boccia and sitting volleyball, enjoy the visceral thrill of the wheelchair races and watch blind people playing football by ear and touch, we too will be playing a full part in squeezing the last drops of enjoyment from a £9.3bn investment that seems to have delivered the goods.• This article was amended on 30 August 2012. The original said that the nation suffered a petit mort , rather than a petite mort , at the end of the Olympic Games. This has been corrected.Paralympics 2012LondonStephen HawkingIan McKellenRichard Williamsguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

09 августа 2012, 16:44

Финансовые секреты Олимпиады

Мэр Лондона Борис Джонсон и глава Оргкомитета Олимпийских и Паралимпиийских игр в Лондоне Себастьян Коу Скандально известная организация, управляющая Олимпиадами с 1896 г., планирует получить в завершающийся четырехлетний цикл прибыль в размере $8 млрд, что на 47% больше, чем в предыдущий период. 109 членов Международного олимпийского комитета (МОК) встречают по всему миру, как членов королевской семьи. Они останавливаются в самых дорогих отелях, обедают в лучших ресторанах, а руководители транснациональных корпораций стараются ублажить их любыми средствами для получения спонсорских контрактов. Несколько членов МОК уже были обвинены в получения взяток. Но, как правило, все, что происходит в Швейцарии, а именно там находится штаб-квартира комитета, остается в Швейцарии, иронизирует Business Insider.МОК базируется в стране "налогового рая"Швейцарский адрес позволяет некоммерческому олимпийскому комитету не платить налог в 20%. "Освобождение от уплаты налогов – очень важная вещь. У меня нет точных цифр, сколько точно мы экономим на этом. Но налоговая льгота означает, что мы можем тратить больше денег на нашу олимпийскую работу", - разъяснил в интервью датской газете Information член МОК Гехард Хайберг. Следует отметить, что до недавнего времени взятки в Швейцарии были, в принципе, законны. Однако жесткий антикоррупционный закон был принят после очередного громкого скандала в МОК и ФИФА.Граф Жак Рогге руководит группой в 109 человекСемидесятилетний бельгиец Жак Рогге (доктор, рыцарь, граф и трехкратный олимпийский чемпион в парусном спорте) - идеальный президент МОК. Комитет состоит из реальных членов королевских семей Европы и Азии, дворян, глав корпораций и олимпийцев. С тех пор как Рогге в 2001 г. был избран президентом, МОК стал активнее привлекать в свои ряды олимпийцев. Тем не менее методы отбора в организацию вызывают много критики и сделали ее, по сути, элитным клубом. Члены получают много льгот, иногда слишком многоЧлены МОК не получают зарплату, но их угощают дорогим вином и ужином в городах-кандидатах. Во время Олимпиады они также получают VIP-обслуживание, останавливаясь в пятизвездочных отелях, разъезжая на лимузинах, наслаждаясь Hennessy за $30 тыс. и наблюдая за спортивными состязаниями в первых рядах. Несколько раз подобное обслуживание превышало все разумные меры. Все помнят Солт-Лейк-Сити, получивший право на проведение Зимней Олимпиада в 2002 г. благодаря взяткам. Как выяснилось, члены МОК получили многомиллионные подарки, бесплатные путешествия, стипендии, пластические операции и работу для членов семьи. Скандал привел к отставке двух руководителей олимпийского комитета Солт-Лейк-Сити и нескольких членов МОК. Продажа прав на ТВ трансляцию принесло $3,91 млрд Прибыль от продажи аудиовизуальных прав увеличилась на 52% в последние четыре года. Согласно данным Sportcal острая конкуренция на американском рынке заставила телеканал NBC выложить за единоличные права $2 млрд. Все больше стали платить и развивающиеся страны, в первую очередь Китай, который за телевизионные трансляции с Лондонской Олимпиады заплатил $99,5 млн. Выросла цена и на права в интернете и мобильных телефонах. Летние Игры обычно в 2 раза дороже, чем Зимние, но две Олимпиады продаются в одном пакете. Прибыль от международного спонсорства составила $957 млнВ период с 2009 по 2012 гг. спонсоры Олимпиады заплатили МОК $957 млн. В число 11 официальных спонсоров входят McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Proctor & Gamble, Ator, Atos Origin, Dow Chemical Company, General Electric, Omega, Panasonic, Samsung Electronics и Visa. Все эти корпорации получили эксклюзивные права поставлять продукцию с олимпийской символикой и рекламировать себя на Играх. Организаторы Летних и Зимних Игр получили около $3,1 млрдОргкомитет Лондонской Олимпиады заработал $2,14 млрд, в том числе $1,1 млрд от местных спонсоров, $931 млн от продажи билетов и $125 млн от выдачи лицензий. Олимпийский оргкомитет Ванкувера заработал в 2010 г. $989 млн. Оба оргкомитета использовали эти деньги, а также выделенные государством средства, для проведения Игр. Прибыль за 4 года составила $8 млрд. Куда все эти деньги потрачены?Примерно 10% ($800 млн) направлены на операционные расходы МОК. Около 70% ($5,56 млрд) пошли в олимпийские оргкомитеты Зимних и Летних Игр. Оргкомитеты получили примерно половину суммы от телевизионных прав, спонсорства, продажи билетов и лицензирования. Оставшиеся $2,6 млрд направляются в спортивные организацииНациональные олимпийские комитеты получают наибольшую часть денег, так как занимаются подготовкой спортсменов. Олимпийскому комитету США выделяется самая значительная квота. Это связано с тем, что американские СМИ платят больше всех за аудиовизуальные права. Бедным национальным олимпийским комитетам дают дополнительные деньги по программе "Олимпийская солидарность". Средства также выделяются таким организациям, как Международный паралимпийский комитет и Международное антидопинговое агентство. Спортсмены получают малоМОК не выплачивает спортсменам. Однако большинство атлетов получают денежное вознаграждение за медали от Национальных олимпийских комитетов. Так, американцы выплачивают своим победителям за золото $25 тыс., за серебро - $15 тыс. и бронзу - $10 тыс. Малайзия обещает своему золотому медалисту $600 тыс., но с 1956 г. ни один малазийский спортсмен не выиграл ни одну медаль высшей пробы. Между тем настоящие деньги атлеты получают, рекламируя ту или иную компанию. Американский пловец Лохте заработал во время Лондонских Игр около $2 млн. Но, к сожалению, большинство спортсменов не так популярны, чтобы иметь крупные рекламные контракты. Кому выгодна Олимпиада?Критики ставят под сомнение, что страна-хозяйка остается в выигрыше. Среди плюсов называют улучшение инфраструктуры и появление новых рабочих мест. Среди минусов – слишком высокая цена (Великобритания потратила на Олимпиаду $14,5 млрд), а также строительство ненужных после состязаний спортивных сооружений. Главный вывод: мы получаем удовольствие от Олимпиады, хотя граф Рогге и его друзья рады немного больше.