CASE: HR-27
DATE: 09/11/06
RITE-SOLUTIONS: MAVERICKS
UNLEASHING THE QUIET GENIUS OF EMPLOYEES
We freely acknowledge that we are not the two smartest people in the company... . We’ve got a lot
of real world experience. We’ve got a vision of where we want this thing to be at some point in
time. But exactly how to get there, and what technologies to use, and how we should employ them,
that’s much bigger than any two people should be responsible for.
— Jim Lavoie, CEO of Rite-Solutions, speaking of himself and company President Joe
1
Marino
In July 2006, Susan Duncan attended a workshop at Rite-Solutions to learn more about an
innovative tool that the company had developed to foster innovation, and to encourage
collaboration among employees. She had read about the tool, a stock market game called
“Mutual Fun,” in an in-depth article in the New York Times. If an employee had an idea that
might help the company, either by saving money, developing a product or service, or developing
new technology, the employee could create a stock that would be listed on Mutual Fun. Other
employees could invest virtual money in the idea, provide comments, or volunteer for short
projects that would move the idea forward. The stock market tool provided an interesting
vehicle for harnessing the creativity of employees.
Rite-Solutions had created Mutual Fun for its own use, but found it to be so powerful that the
company wanted to license it as a product to others. The New York Times article generated a
tremendous amount of interest in Mutual Fun, and the Rite-Solutions put on a series of day-long
workshops for companies interested in learning more about it. Duncan was an executive with a
consumer products company, with a large portfolio of products such as soaps and detergents.
Her company was struggling to come up with new products. Duncan attended one of the RiteSolutions seminars, and learned about the stock market game. However, she quickly realized
that the game was just part of a culture of collaboration and creativity at Rite-Solutions. She
wondered whether Mutual Fun would help enhance innovation at her company, and whether she
could apply other lessons from Rite-Solutions within her company.
1
All quotations are from interviews with the author, unless otherwise specified.
David Hoyt prepared this case under the supervision of Professor Hayagreeva Rao as the basis for class discussion
rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation.
Copyright © 2006 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. To order
copies or request permission to reproduce materials, e-mail the Case Writing Office at: cwo@gsb.stanford.edu or
write: Case Writing Office, Stanford Graduate School of Business, 518 Memorial Way, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305-5015. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a
spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means –– electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise –– without the permission of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 2
RITE-SOLUTIONS
Rite-Solutions was founded in Rhode Island in 2000 by Jim Lavoie and Joe Marino. Lavoie and
Marino had been long-time executives of a software company which had gone public, and had
become a large company. They noticed a change after going public, which Lavoie described as
going from “make it happen” to “make us money.” They had talked about starting their own
business, and after their company was bought by a larger company, they soon left their positions
as executive vice presidents to strike out on their own.
The two had made a lot of money from their stock options, and had enjoyed long, successful
careers. Lavoie and Marino were well suited as partners in the new venture. Lavoie was a
creative, visionary thinker. Marino had an excellent attention to detail, and was a strong
operations manager. Equally important, they each recognized their own limitations, valued the
others’ strengths, were good friends, and had an exceptional working relationship.
They did not want to start a conventional company. Marino explained, “after leaving a company
with thousands of employees, we started the company with the idea that there’s got to be a better
way to do business in the 21st century… . [We decided that] if we’re going to do this, if we’re
going to start a business at our age, and at this point in life, then it’s going to be one big
experiment—[we’re going to] do all those things that we always wanted to do as managers of a
public company.” He continued:
It also takes a lot of pressure off of the top two guns if you freely admit to people
that this is one big experiment, and we really don’t know where it’s going. But
we do promise [to employees] that we’re not going to do anything that will
jeopardize your wellbeing. These people have families. It’s not like we’re a
bunch of cowboys. But there’s a certain liberation that goes along with saying
that we’re going to try some stuff—some things will work, some things aren’t
going to work. We actually have a model for it, things that we can’t mess around
with that might interfere with peoples’ lives. But there’s a piece of the business
that we purposely break every once in awhile to say, ‘Let’s try this, because by
trying this it isn’t going to send the company down the tubes, but it could map out
a new direction for us, and a new way of doing business.’ Our COO calls this our
‘Doctrine of Disruptive States.’
The central tenet of the company’s philosophy was trust, what Marino called “the currency of the
company…the underpinning of everything we do.” They wanted employees (“citizens”) to feel
that they were part of a community, or family. Marino explained their concept of a company
community:
Why is the business world separate from any other community that you ever are a
part of? You start off as a family—that’s your very first community. And then
you go to school. All of the communities are loving, embracing, nurturing. Then
you get into the business world, and everything you’ve ever experienced is
thrown out the window. So, the whole feeling that we want people to have when
they come in here is a continuity of ‘this is just one more community,’ not 180
degrees out from every other community [they’ve] ever belonged to. So, it’s a
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 3
nurturing community. It’s a responsible community, you have responsibilities,
you have accountability—it is, after all, a business. But, the whole idea of how
people are treated, and the relationship they should have to each other and with
the management team—why should that be different from any other community
that you belong to?
Lavoie and Marino incorporated these concepts into all aspects of the company culture through a
wide variety of techniques, some of which will be described later. By 2006, the company had
about 165 employees. The primary office was in Middletown, Rhode Island. Other offices were
in Pawcatuck, Connecticut and San Diego, California. Though no managers were given revenue
growth goals, the company had grown at an impressive rate, and was financially successful.
They had an extraordinarily dedicated and loyal workforce, virtually no employee turn-over, and
no debt.
Rite-Solutions’ Industry and Competitive Environment
Rite-Solutions was a software company with clients in both the government and commercial
sectors. Its initial clients were primarily casinos, for which it provided software for games,
management, and back-office functions. It also had some government contracts, and many of its
employees had experience working with the military, particularly with the Navy. By mid-2006,
the company offered a wide range of products and services, including Navy training curricula
and simulations, 3D situational awareness simulations, casino games and back-office software,
and a consumer game platform developed for Hasbro (discussed further below). However,
Lavoie and Marino did not think of their company in terms of the products they provided so
much as the knowledge they possessed which could be used to meet potential customer needs.
Lavoie commented, “Most companies say ‘this is what we do.’ We say, ‘what can we do with
what we know?’” Thus, Rite-Solutions was open to ideas for new products that leveraged and
extended their knowledge base.
The company’s industry competitors varied dramatically with the market, but both the military
and commercial segments contained very large and very small companies. Many of the small
companies were either niche players, or were struggling. In the military sector, the large
competitors, companies like General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman, saw
themselves as system integrators. In the commercial sector, Rite-Solutions competed with other
providers of casino software, such as IGT, Harrah’s Entertainment, GTech, Scientific Games,
and Bally’s. The large competitors were generally resistant to innovation, as they wanted to
maintain their legacy products.
New entrants were always a threat, but there were barriers to entry in the government and casino
sectors. In the government sector, developing training programs for the military or Department
of Homeland Security required a deep understanding of the subject matter (which was often
classified), as well as substantial technical competence. In the casino business, a supplier had to
be highly respected for the integrity and security of its product, as well as 24/7 support—an
unknown entrant faced the challenge of proving its dependability.
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 4
Rite-Solutions Culture
The culture that Lavoie and Marino created could be seen from the moment someone logged
onto the company Web site (www.ritesolutions.com). On each page of the site was a drawing of
an owl, with “WHO?” scrolling across its face. Clicking on the owl brought up a page with a
picture and short biography of a Rite-Solutions employee, including hobbies and other items of
personal and professional interest. For many of the pages, clicking the owl several times would
bring up profiles of different employees, each of whom had expertise in the area described on the
Web page. Thus, Web visitors could communicate directly with a large number of employees, a
signal that indicated the company trusted employees to represent it well.
The hiring process focused both on technical competence and cultural fit. The company
described its employees as “one of F.E.W (Friends Enjoying Work),” a slogan that was on each
employee’s business card. It described the hiring process as a “try-out,” to find “citizens in our
community and partners in our culture.” 2 Attributes that people looked for in new employees
included an upbeat, optimistic attitude, a collaborative nature, and “someone I would want to
share an office with.” As of mid-2006, most new employees had been referred by existing
employees.
Prior to joining the company, new employees were sent an e-mail with all the information they
would need to know, including links to Intranet pages where they could find necessary
information. On the first day of work, the new employee was given a welcoming party,
complete with cake and wrapped gifts (company mug, T-shirt, etc.). The objective, as described
by Lavoie, was to make the new employee feel that “they’re home. I want them to feel like they
belong here. As opposed to: they are employed here, or they have a job here. I really want them
to feel like they are home.”
The new employee created a “Who” page, as described above, which became part of a companywide database. When employees needed to contact people that they did not know, they could
refer to that person’s Who page, see a picture, and learn about any common interests.
Employees described this as helping them to feel more comfortable calling people that they
didn’t know. The “Who” idea had originally come from an employee playing a game called
“Mutual Fun,” (to be discussed shortly).
On the third Thursday of each month, the company had a presentation of interest to the
employees, followed by a social period. Communications were extremely easygoing, enhanced
by the openness that Lavoie and Marino demonstrated, and the personal friendships that they
cultivated with the employees, many of whom had known one another for many years. Open
communication and trust were also demonstrated in the employee newsletter, which gave
extremely detailed information about company contracts and other sensitive information—far
beyond that which was shared with employees at other companies.
The culture of openness and trust extended to relationships with customers. For instance, each
project had a “team room” on the company Intranet in which all plans, schedules, status reports,
and other documents were stored. The client had access to the team room for its project, and
2
http://www.ritesolutions.com/home.html (“Try-Outs” tab) (July 31, 2006).
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 5
could look at any document, as well as submit its own. If a client wanted to evaluate the status
of a project, that information was available. If a client wanted to check the priority of software
fixes, that information was also available—and the client could modify the priorities as
appropriate. Thus, clients were always informed of details of their projects, and if they needed to
discuss them, the discussion was a high-value-added meeting rather than a recitation of facts.
The Puzzle — Ensuring a Meaningful Relationship with Employees
Lavoie and Marino had observed that the employee-employer relationship in most companies
was transactional. The employee was hired to do a job. The questions that the employee faced
were: Can I do the job, and am I going to behave according to the company’s rules? If the
employee couldn’t do the job, or refused to behave, the relationship was terminated.
However, this was far short of the meaningful relationship that Lavoie and Marino sought with
their employees. A meaningful relationship existed when employees cared about the company
and trusted it, when they thought about the company’s future, and contributed to that future. But,
employees would only participate in that way if they believed that they were important, that they
belonged, that the company cared about them and trusted them. Employees also had to believe
that the company wanted and listened to their input. Finally, the company had to recognize and
reward the employees. Only when those pieces were in place could the employee and company
have a truly meaningful relationship, providing benefits to both parties far in excess of those
shared when the relationship was merely transactional.
Lavoie and Marino developed these concepts into a puzzle (Exhibit 1). If a piece was missing in
the transactional stage, the remedy was simple—the employee quit or was fired. However, if the
employee could do the job, and followed the rules, and the company did not accomplish any of
the objectives represented by the puzzle pieces required for a meaningful relationship, the
consequences were more damaging. The employee could play a puzzle piece called “Screw
You.” The two founders believed that this was the most damaging situation—an employee who
met the basic employment requirements, but who brought negativity. Such an employee could
poison an otherwise outstanding organization.
The final line of the puzzle related to staying involved with the company after retiring. In
industrial companies, workers typically did not want to stay involved in the company after
retirement. An auto worker for instance, would probably not want to come back to the factory
after retirement. As companies evolved, and employees contributed on an intellectual level, they
did not necessarily want to totally withdraw when they retired. They might want to travel, spend
more time on hobbies, but they also might want to spend some time making a significant
personal contribution in their professional field, or to a company that they cared about. This
required a way of staying involved in a meaningful way. Lavoie characterized “knowledge
capture,” the practice of documenting the knowledge of retiring employees, as “I want to know
what you know, and put it someplace electronically so I won’t have to know you anymore.” He
wanted to create a vehicle for “knowledge tethering, which he described as: “I don’t want to suck
your brain out. I want to know how you think. I want to know what you think. I want to know
what interests you.”
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 6
Organization Structure
Organization structure was an essential element of the Rite-Solution culture. The “culture” page
of the company Web site included a glossary of terms (Exhibit 2). In the section labeled “Not in
Our Vocabulary,” organization was defined as “a pyramid.” Pyramid was defined as “a tomb for
dead people,” and an organizational box was defined as “a storage bin for dead people stuck in a
pyramid.” 3
Lavoie described what he called “the pyramid game”:
You have to know how to play the pyramid game in a big company. There are
fewer boxes above you than level with you. Which means you’ve got to be better
than someone in [your peer group] to get to [the next higher] line. That’s why the
pyramids are such an awful, awful structure… When we sold the company, we
made a dozen people wealthy. But we left 1,800 behind who got to keep their job
when we sold the company. Why? Because they weren’t as good at playing
pyramid as we were. Now, there were guys a heck of a lot smarter than me back
in the old pyramid. They just didn’t have the moves, didn’t have the theater,
didn’t have the passion…
It’s interesting to watch people just try to do their best. And their best can be
good enough in a good community. You don’t have to be a politician to be a
good citizen—and it’s the politicians that win the game of pyramid.
Another drawback of the pyramid model, according to Lavoie and Marino, was the perception
that people at each level were smarter than those below them. Where this perception existed, it
placed severe pressure on people at the top to constantly be right, and it inhibited input from
people elsewhere in the organization. Lavoie and Marino freely admitted that good ideas were
likely to come from anywhere in the organization.
Rather than think of the organization as a pyramid, they thought of it as an “adaptive community
of knowledge,” supported by four guideposts: stability, innovation, empowerment, and vision
and coaching (see detailed description in Exhibit 3). Two senior people were assigned to each
guidepost (increasing as the company grew), chosen so that they each brought complementary
capabilities (or “yin and yang”). Lavoie and Marino were the vision and coaching guidepost.
The empowerment guidepost consisted of the CFO, whose strength was information, and a
technology/automation expert. Guidepost partners made an agreement specifying what each
expected of the other. The empowerment guidepost focused on the infrastructure that was
needed to support the efforts of employees. The stability guidepost focused on the nuts and bolts
of operations and maintaining the business—e.g., order receipts, getting paid, and the other
necessities of keeping the business in operation.
There was a yin and yang between guideposts as well as within them. Lavoie described the
interaction between the innovation stability guidepost by describing measures of success:
3
http://www.ritesolutions.com/home.html (“Culture” tab) (July 31, 2006).
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 7
If you’re in the innovation block, you’re not going to be measured on how
innovative you are, because I already know you’re innovative. I’m going to
measure you on how stable your innovations have been for the company. For the
stability people, I’m going to measure you on how innovative you’ve been in
putting new products in the customer’s hands. So, now it forces these guys to
work together, because we’re dependent on you for the innovative ideas that
we’re going to leverage into my customer base.
While the company used a community/guidepost model rather than a pyramid to describe the
organization, this did not mean that there was no hierarchy. Lavoie was CEO, Marino was the
company’s president. There were vice presidents and directors, group managers and project
managers. The hierarchy was driven by the need for accountability and effective customer
service. In addition, performance appraisals and salary reviews required a degree of hierarchy.
But the overriding principle was that people could play multiple roles in the organization,
unconstrained by “boxes.” People were free to seek the advice of the best person available
without the boundaries of a “chain of command.”
Company Ownership
Another important aspect of the company culture was the fact that it was employee owned, with
no need for outside investors. Lavoie and Marino believed that an ownership interest was
important to a meaningful long-term relationship with employees. Employee ownership was in
the form of stock options, but employees were not eligible for options until they had been with
the company for one year. Since the objective was a long-term relationship rather than a quick
pay-off, this enabled both the employee and company to take stock of the situation and make
sure that there was a good fit. If there wasn’t a good fit, it wasn’t in the interests of either the
employee or the company to continue the relationship. This typically centered around the
collaborative nature of the company, and the central concept of trust.
Lavoie explained:
We have a forcing function at the one-year mark. [If they aren’t the right fit, we]
help them find another job, where they would probably be very comfortable,
because it’s the norm, and this is not the norm. They just aren’t perfect for us. It
doesn’t mean they aren’t smart. They just don’t get [the concept of] trust.
Lavoie elaborated on the importance of basing relationships on the assumption of trust, rather
than having trust come only after being earned by long experience:
If you don’t start out from a position of trust, just about the time [a person is]
about to gain your trust, they do something you don’t understand, so you distrust
them. My God, that’s too many calories for me. Why not trust everybody, and
once in a while you’ll get screwed. As opposed to ‘don’t trust anybody,’ and
you’ll never trust anybody.
Ownership fostered the employees’ sense of belonging and accountability, but in order for it to
have economic meaning, there had to be a way for ownership to be monetized. This presented a
potential problem. Lavoie and Marino did not plan to take the company public, nor to sell it to a
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 8
larger company—either of which would have serious consequences for the company culture.
(Lavoie noted wryly that one advantage of not having a pyramid organization structure was that
it made a takeover unlikely—an acquiring company would have no idea how to assimilate the
organization.)
Terry Feeley, director of new ventures, had founded a successful laser company in 1980, which
he had sold. After doing some consulting, he heard about Rite-Solutions, met Lavoie and
Marino, and joined the company. An important part of his job was to find ways to monetize
company ownership. While employees talked of working for the company because of the
culture, and how well they were treated, Feeley believed that it was naïve to think that employees
didn’t also want to make a substantial amount of money from their company ownership. He
observed:
There’s a tremendous loyalty to Jim and Joe, and that’s a wonderful thing. I also
think there’s an expectation that they will get taken care of. That’s an expectation
because that culture is here. We stay here because we’re treated well. But treated
well when you’re getting ready to retire looks different than being treated well
when you’re 20 years old. Since I’ve been both 20 and ready to retire, I’m
committed, and Joe and Jim are supporting me, on creating liquidity.
The company planned to create liquidity by developing products and/or services that could create
lasting value. Feeley cited the example of Skype, which had sold to eBay for $1.4 billion. He
believed that some of the ideas and intellectual property that Rite-Solutions was working on had
the potential for very high returns.
However, Lavoie and Marino recognized that if the concepts they had used in creating and
developing Rite-Solutions was truly to be a business model for the 21st century, it could not be
limited to small, privately held companies. It would have to also be applicable to larger, publicly
held companies.
MUTUAL FUN
Mutual Fun was created as a way of fostering trust, collaboration, and the ideas of employees
throughout the company. While it was often referred to as a “game,” in reality, it was a powerful
tool for innovation and employee involvement. It also served as a unifying structure to enhance
the company culture, and to bring forth the benefits that the culture provided. It was launched in
January 2005.
Mutual Fun was an internal stock exchange, consisting of three markets: Savings Bonds, which
were ideas that could save the company money or increase efficiency; “Bow Jones,” which
consisted of ideas that utilized existing technology to create new products or services; and
“Spazdaq,” which contained ideas of new technologies that the company should explore for
potential future use. Like technologies that formed the basis for companies on the NASDAQ,
some technologies worked well, and others not so well. The study of a new technology could
lead to a decision to return to a proven technology rather than an emerging alternative. The
“knowledge spasm” of investigating emerging technologies was worth the investment to the
company and its knowledge base. (Exhibit 4 shows representative stocks on each exchange.)
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 9
Putting an Idea Onto the Market
To put an idea onto the stock market, an employee (the “inventor”) went to the Mutual Fun Web
site and clicked on a button to create an “Expect-Us.” (Exhibit 5 is a flow chart of the stock
market process. Exhibit 6 shows some of the Mutual Fun Web screens.) The Expect-Us was a
simple, one-page, form that described the idea. (Exhibit 7 provides an example of a completed
Expect-Us for an idea that was later incorporated within Rite-Solutions, and then sold as a
product.) In order to guide the inventor, the Expect-Us form had some simple screening
questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Is this idea in our path?
Does it leverage what we know?
Does it allow us to learn new things?
Would we use this?
Do we know anybody else that would use it?
Will this make us a better company?
These questions were intended to coach the inventor into areas that might be of use to the
company, as opposed to money-making ideas that were totally outside the company’s
competence (such as opening a dry-cleaning store). Even if the idea seemed far-fetched,
however, the inventor could still pursue it.
The Expect-Us also had space for a description of the idea, and then asked: What’s the key to
success for this? What’s the potential savings or growth? What’s the return on innovation
(knowledge gained, product developed, etc.)? What are the success beacons (how do you know
when you’re done)?
After completing an initial draft of the Expect-Us, the inventor had to find a “prophet,” another
person in the company who would act as a mentor and evangelist for the idea. There were about
40 people in the company who Lavoie and Marino had approved to be prophets. An inventor
would select a prophet who s/he thought might provide good guidance, and who would be
interested in the idea. If a potential prophet was interested, s/he would agree to help. This
fulfilled one of the important rules of Mutual Fun—the “two-man rule,” which ensured that at
least two people were interested in the idea before it proceeded. The prophet could be anywhere
in the company, and did not have to have any other relationship with the inventor. Sometimes
the prophet would change as the idea progressed—a technical person might be the prophet at the
start, handing it off to a business person once the technical issues were understood and a business
case was required. More than one prophet could help with any idea.
Once the prophet signed on, and helped the inventor finish the Expect-Us, the idea was listed on
the appropriate Mutual Fun stock market through a process termed an initial public offering
(IPO), as in the real stock market. In this case, however, the stock price was always initially set
at $10. By July 2006, there were about 50 stocks in the market. (Exhibit 8 provides statistics
on Mutual Fun activity.)
Each employee, including new employees, started with $10,000 in virtual money (also referred
to as “impression” or “opinion” money) that s/he could invest. When an employee logged into
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 10
his/her Mutual Fun Web site, he/she could see his/her portfolio, and any unallocated funds. To
buy or sell a stock, the employee simply highlighted the stock, filled in the dollar amount, and
clicked “buy” or “sell.”
Employees could review all Expect-Us documents, and could participate in threaded discussions
about any stock. They could also volunteer to complete short tasks that would move the idea
forward. These tasks, called “Budge-It” items (as they served to budge the idea along), were
defined and listed on the stock’s Web site by the prophet.
Thus, when employees clicked on a specific stock, they could review: the Expect-Us, any
discussions that had taken place, the list of Budge-It items, and those Budge-It items that had
been completed. Employees could also sign up to receive e-mail updates every day on things
that interested them, such as new IPOs, progress on selected stocks, or new Budge-It items that
they might want to take on.
Moving an Idea Along
Ideas that were viewed favorably developed a community of interested employees that
contributed through discussions or by taking on Budge-It items. Often these communities
developed around common non-work interests, such as parenthood (for educational ideas). They
might also develop around common technical interests. Lavoie commented:
Mutual Fun allows half-baked ideas to get in the community. It lets people start
chatting about them, making them better, polishing. Informal interest networks
form, without management, without supervision. When an informal network
forms, let it form. Sometimes an informal network will form in Mutual Fun
because people are parents, and the idea is about kids. Sometimes it’s a cool or
neat technology, so it will form around the geeks. What we found when we were
at a big company, was that we were very innovative at stopping innovation.
The stock price increased as people participated and made progress with Budge-It items. When
the stock market first began, management adjusted the price to reflect interest. However, part of
the point of Mutual Fun was for employees to move projects ahead without the involvement of
management. The price adjustment was then changed to reflect the intellectual capital invested
in the stock (discussions, volunteers, completed Budge-It items). As more effort was devoted to
a stock, the price would rise. The price never fell, since lack of additional activity for a period
didn’t necessarily mean that the idea was bad—it might just mean the engineering work was
done, and the idea was entering a new phase.
The point of the market was to be a collaboration tool, not a prediction tool—thus, the stock
price was not used to pick winners, but to indicate progress. Also, the endpoints of stock market
ideas varied, as did the measures of success. In the case of Savings Bonds, the endpoint would
be implementation of a cost-saving proposal. However, in the case of Spazdaq stocks, the
endpoint might be an understanding of a new technology. The endpoint and success measure
was specified in the Expect-Us—in the case of understanding a technology, it was important to
specify the endpoint, or else the investigation could go on forever. When the endpoint was
reached, or when it was clear that there was no interest in an idea, the stock was delisted.
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 11
There was also a management display function that Lavoie and Marino could use to look at the
activity in the market. They could look at a graph showing the amount of impression (dollars
allocated) by stock. They could look at a graph of stocks according to the total intellectual
capital invested (a function of money allocated plus discussion activity, Budge-It items
volunteered for, and Budge-It items completed). By looking at these charts, they could see those
ideas that had developed a community of interested employees. When an idea reached the top
20, Lavoie and Marino considered putting real money behind it (“Adventure Capital”)—giving it
a budget and personnel. At this point, Lavoie and Marino also allocated a reward that would be
paid off when the project was complete. The prophet(s) apportioned the reward based on each
person’s contribution. 4 The Mutual Fun Web site had a ticker running across the page, which
Lavoie and Marino could use to point out stocks that were beginning to generate interest or had
just IPO’d.
The management portion of the Web site also provided a listing of the participation of each
employee, in several categories: inventions, discussions, service as a prophet, volunteering for
Budge-It items, and completing Budge-It items. An algorithm weighted these, providing a
measure of each person’s contribution. These contributions could be measured during a specific
period of time, providing a “leader board” for each quarter, for instance. Thus, a new employee
that was very active could immediately be recognized for contributions.
Mutual Fun and Corporate Culture
Participation in Mutual Fun was highly encouraged, but it was something that was over-andabove the employee’s project or client commitments. It was not acceptable to miss a project
deadline because of work on a Mutual Fun stock. In looking at the company as a community,
Lavoie and Marino felt that it was important for citizens (employees) to participate in community
service projects. Mutual Fun was community service, and was voluntary. In the company
incentive structure, the basic salary was paid for the employees’ regular job. Employees
participated in profit sharing. Bonuses, however, were based on participation in Mutual Fun,
providing a reward for community service.
Mutual Fun reinforced the company culture in many ways. When a new employee joined the
company, s/he was introduced to Mutual Fun on their first day at work, and encouraged to play.
Some were surprised at this, as it provided all new employees, regardless of position, with
complete access to all the new ideas that the company was working on—on their first day at
work. This immediately reinforced the basic value of trust, and the employee’s importance to
the company’s future.
Mutual Fun also enabled everyone in the company to come up with ideas, and to nurture those
ideas without facing immediate review. In other companies, someone coming up with a new
idea would have to fully develop the idea, then present it to a committee (what Lavoie and
Marino termed a “murder board”). This process inhibited new ideas, and those that tended to
survive the murder board were generally those that were slickly presented, not those that were
4
Rewards could be financial, but often were not. They were based on what was meaningful to the specific
employee. For instance, often technical people wanted to attend a conference to increase their knowledge. In other
cases, an employee might prefer extra vacation.
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 12
the best ideas. Typical review processes focused on things that were missing in the idea. Mutual
Fun enabled inventors to present ideas to the community, see if there was interest, and to enlist
the community in fleshing out the ideas. And Expect-Us was intended to be compelling—
stimulating discussion and support—rather than predictive.
Unleashing Quiet Genius
Opening up the process to the entire workforce surfaced useful ideas that would not have
occurred to the senior management. For instance, Lavoie and Marino observed that the people
who really knew how to save money were the administrative people—they knew what tasks
would benefit from automation. They just didn’t know how to do the automation. So, through
Mutual Fun, they were able to enlist the help of code writers who could implement the change.
The company receptionist, for instance, had launched a stock for a cost-savings idea. She
described it and the concept of being an “inventor” with excitement and joy—she was obviously
engaged in improving the company, and highly motivated by having her voice heard and her
ideas considered and acted upon by the community.
The technical staff generally was well positioned to evaluate potential new technologies.
However, software engineers would not propose projects in a typical company, and would wither
in front of a murder board. Lavoie observed that most programmers were much more
comfortable communicating electronically, and in spurts, rather than in person (or, worse yet, at
a meeting). The idea of making a formal presentation was extremely intimidating to them. He
termed them “quiet geniuses.” The challenge was to find a vehicle for them to express their
genius in a way that their ideas could take root and grow, rather than being killed off before they
could be fully formed.
Lavoie also commented on the importance of letting these people drive the technological
expertise of the company:
We freely acknowledge that we are not the two smartest people in the company
when it comes to emerging technologies and their application to new and legacy
challenges for our customers. We’ve got a lot of real world experience. We’ve
got a vision of where we want this thing to be at some point in time. But exactly
how to get there, and what technologies to use, and how we should employ them,
that’s much bigger than any two people should be responsible for making those
decisions…
Do you really think a 60-year-old is going to guess the next emerging technology
that this company should be gravitating towards, or learning about, or going to
seminars about? No. I’m just not. I’d guess wrong. You have to open it up to
these quiet geniuses and say, the company wants to know what you think are the
emerging technologies that we should be learning about today, because there’s
going to be a customer that desires that from us, and he’s going to hit Who on our
Web site, and ask, ‘Do you guys know anything about XYZ technology?’
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 13
Stock Market Example: Win/Play/Learn
Rite-Solutions had a company-wide Christmas party every year, which included spouses. One
year, the company had a large increase in employees, and Lavoie was concerned that he, and
others, did not know all the employees. The company had technology that it could use to create
a Bingo game, in which a Bingo “ball” could be displayed with an employee’s face on it. Each
person at the party received a Bingo card with the names (but not the faces) of employees on it.
At the start of the evening, Lavoie described the game to the attendees, and announced that the
winner would receive a trip for two to London. Over the next two hours, instead of staying with
people that they already knew, the attendees actively tried to meet new people and learn to
recognize them. It was an extremely effective networking activity, and lots of fun for the
participants.
The person working with Lavoie to set up the party, including the bingo game graphics, was
Rebecca Hosch, who had worked for Lavoie for many years, and described herself as the
“problem solver of the day.” One day, as she was working on the party, one of her daughters
came to her with a problem—she had to develop a game about soil for her agricultural science
class. Since this wasn’t a terribly exciting subject, she was struggling to find a way to develop
an exciting game. She said to her mother, “Do you think Jim [Lavoie] would let me use the
bingo game?” She used the game, and it was a huge success.
In talking with her two daughters about this, Hosch learned that they frequently used bingo
games in class, but that the students found them boring. They weren’t very interactive, and the
students didn’t have to think. Hosch thought that by using the Rite-Solutions bingo algorithm,
they might be able to create an exciting educational product. Since it was electronic, it could be
accessed over the Internet, and a database could be created that could address the needs of
different grades and subjects, so that it could be used by lots of classrooms, communities, and
families.
She developed an Expect-Us, found a prophet that was excited about the concept, and launched a
stock called “Win/Play/Learn.” Soon a community grew around the stock, consisting largely of
parents who saw this as an exciting educational tool that their kids would like. As the
community completed Budge-It items, and moved the idea ahead, it became one of the leading
stocks, and Lavoie and Marino put real money behind it. When the project was sufficiently far
along to present to outsiders, an employee participating in the stock discussions got in touch with
a relative who was an executive at Hasbro, the large toy company located in Rhode Island, not
far from Rite-Solutions. That executive arranged for the company to meet with the appropriate
person within Hasbro.
Hasbro liked Win/Play/Learn, but wasn’t quite ready to adopt the product. However, they were
very excited about the software architecture that was used for the game. Hasbro had been
developing a new product, for which they had acquired a great deal of content from
entertainment companies, but needed software and a secure architecture to drive it. After the
Rite-Solutions presentation, they adopted the Win/Play/Learn architecture for their new product,
resulting in a very large contract for Rite-Solutions. As of mid-2006, Hasbro was still interested
in the bingo game, which it might adopt at a later date.
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 14
Mutual Fun and Knowledge Tethering
One of the attractive possibilities for Mutual Fun was to serve as a “knowledge tether” for
company alumni. Alumni could participate when they wanted, to the degree that they wanted,
and could do so remotely. Thus, interested alumni could stay involved with the company,
contributing their knowledge and experience to projects that interested them.
Lavoie and Marino were at an age when they were considering retirement, or to the possibility of
scaling back their involvement. Other employees were also reaching that point. Yet they still
had a great deal to offer the company, and still wanted to stay engaged with the business on some
level. Looking into the future, more and more employees would be coming to this stage in their
lives. Rite-Solutions developed a “search” function to make it easy for retired players (or any
player) to find an idea or Budge-It item that needed their alumni expertise.
Mutual Fun as a Product
Mutual Fun was created as a tool for use within Rite-Solutions, but Lavoie and Marino quickly
realized that it could be applied to other companies. The company had previously marketed
other products that had begun as innovations for internal use, such as a PBX system that had
been developed as a result of the high cost of expanding existing commercial systems.
Employees had then used the technology developed for the PBX to create even more powerful
products for commercial use. To further the commercial development of the stock market, they
created a Mutual Fun stock, which became one of the more popular stocks in the market.
A big break came when a New York Times reporter heard Lavoie make a presentation about the
company, and visited to learn more. The result was a lengthy article in the March 26, 2006
edition of the paper. 5 This article generated a tremendous amount of interest in the company,
and in Mutual Fun. Employees received many email messages through the “Who” function on
the Web-site, and companies approached Rite-Solutions with detailed questions about the game.
The company created a set of presentations about Mutual Fun, which they put on the Web site,
and set up a series of day-long seminars. 6 To weed out those without a serious interest, they
charged a fee for the seminars.
By July 2006, two multi-billion dollar companies had licensed Mutual Fun. Others were in
advanced-stage discussions about adopting it. Consulting companies were also discussing the
possibility of becoming distributors, so that they could offer it to their clients. Rite-Solutions
viewed these discussions favorably, as they preferred that a highly regarded firm distribute the
product.
CONCLUSION
Rite-Solutions had developed a tool, Mutual Fun, to help bring out and develop their employees’
ideas. The tool, however, was more than just a way of developing innovations. It was a tangible
embodiment of a company culture of trust and collaboration. After participating in the day-long
5
The article was: William Taylor, “Here’s an Idea: Let Everyone Have Ideas,” The New York Times, March 26,
2006.
6
From the company Web site, click on “Innovation Engine” to view the presentations.
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 15
seminar, Duncan considered how this tool might be incorporated into her company, and the other
changes that she might recommend as a result of what she had learned.
STUDY QUESTIONS
1. Mutual Fun was developed as a tool for Rite-Solutions, a small software company.
Duncan’s company is very different, a large consumer products company.
a. What factors must be present for Mutual Fun to be an effective tool? Consider
the implications of company size, product or service, and culture.
b. Does the company culture have to be ready for Mutual Fun? How does a
company that is “stuck” in a culture that is resistant to innovation get its idea
engine started?
2. How scalable is Rite-Solutions’ company model? What challenges will it face as it
grows? How can the company maintain its distinctive culture? What is the role of
Mutual Fun in maintaining the culture as the company grows?
3. Are the “Savings Bond,” “Bow Jones,” and “Spazdaq” idea buckets appropriate for
multi-billion dollar companies, or should other indexes be introduced? If new buckets
are needed, what are they?
4. Did the puzzle or the game come first? Which is more important, and why?
5. Is vocabulary important? To whom? Why (or why not)?
6. How dangerous is Rite-Solutions’ concept of “total trust” in their citizens? Is it wise to
expose everyone to all the ideas being considered?
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 16
Exhibit 1
Puzzle
Transactional
Relationship
Meaningful
Relationship
Source: © Rite-Solutions (reprinted with permission)
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 17
Exhibit 2
Culture Vocabulary
The Rite-Solutions Web site included the following glossary of terms:
In Our Vocabulary:
Community: A healthy entity of people with different jobs/skills working together for the
good of the neighborhood (Rite-Solutions)
Guideposts: The defining boundaries of our community at Rite-Solutions (Innovation,
Stability, Empowerment, Vision)
Trust: The currency of a good community
Citizenship: Caring about a community
Customer Service: Helping outside
Community Service: Helping inside
Accountability: An expectation of caring about and taking ownership of company and
customer problems
Tryouts: The interview process
Newborn: A celebrated addition
Stock Market: A place where citizens can grow additional value through their
intellectual capital investments
Not In Our Vocabulary:
Organization: A pyramid
Pyramid: A tomb for dead people
Boxes: Storage bin for dead people stuck in a pyramid
Source: www.ritesolutions.com (Culture tab, “Community Vocabulary) (July 11, 2006)
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 18
Exhibit 3
The Rite-Solutions Atmosphere of Influence
Rite-Solutions viewed its organization in the form of an “atmosphere of influence” that guided
and mentored self-managing, task-oriented teams, rather than the traditional pyramidal structure
characterized by command and control. The structure (below) consisted of four guideposts,
which defined the boundaries of the community to maintain focus and direction — what the
community did, and what it did not do. The interaction between the guideposts created the
dynamics necessary to move the company forward in a structured manner.
Stability
Enablement
Influence
Teams
Vision
Innovation
Each of the four basic components was occupied by at least two people, who were responsible
for the following functions:
Stability, responsible for:
- Business discipline,
- Near-term customer value,
- Maintaining corporate health,
- Well-being of corporate “citizens” (employees).
Innovation, responsible for:
- Long-term, sustainable customer value,
- Implementing the company mission “Innovate Everyday,”
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 19
Exhibit 3 (continued)
-
Leading the growth of the company.
Enablement, responsible for:
- Fiscal corporate management,
- Automating the finance and administration process,
- Supporting task teams with automated processes and tools,
- Establishing team financial metrics to determine project success.
Governance and Vision, responsible for:
- Overall corporate governance in an ethical fashion,
- Establishing the overall boundaries of the community (company),
- Training, mentoring, and guidance,
- Defining citizen (employee) attributes for a healthy community (company),
- Telling the Rite-Solutions story (corporate branding).
The guideposts worked with leaders of Influence Teams to define the vision, the operating
parameters, and the metrics of success. The influence teams were responsible for creating the
overall atmosphere of influence that Performance Teams operated within. There were four
influence teams:
- Citizen Advocate Team: responsible for fair, equitable treatment of citizens (employees),
for “try-outs” for new employees, and for keeping existing talent.
- Program Coordination Team: responsible for collaboration and leveraging of individual
performance team actions.
- Opportunity Analysis Team: responsible for leveraging, harnessing, and focusing the
intellectual capital of the total company to provide growth through products and services.
- Customer Advocate Team: responsible for maintaining a strong relationship with the
customer and being the voice of the customer internally. Also, for establishing metrics,
providing infrastructure, and coordinating growth through excellent performance for the
customer.
Performance Teams (shown emanating from the Influence Teams in the graphic), were
responsible for task execution, bringing value to customers on a day-to-day basis. Performance
teams were created on an ad-hoc basis to perform a specific function for a defined period of time.
They might be standalone or linked depending on the need for interaction driven by customer
requirements or the ability to create greater corporate value through leveraging. They provided
opportunities for team leaders and members to demonstrate the attributes necessary to move into
positions of influence within the organization.
Rite-Solutions contrasted its model for growth and development with the traditional pyramid as
follows:
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 20
Exhibit 3 (continued)
Hierarchical Model (Pyramid)
Power gained through “moving up” the
organization
“Boxes” added to the base of the pyramid as
the hierarchy expands
Hierarchical Model (Pyramid) (continued)
Expansion through control of more and more
boxes
Limits of “span of control” drive the need for
more boxes
People “locked” within the scope of box,
regardless of organization need
Promotion to fewer and fewer top “boxes”
results in unhealthy, internally focused
competition
Community Growth (Atmosphere of
Influence)
Influence gained by moving to the center of the
community
Membership of influence teams and guideposts
expands as the community grows
Community Growth (Atmosphere of
Influence) (continued)
Growth through the ability to support more and
more performance teams
Span of influence creates new opportunities to
move to the center
People allowed to play numerous roles at each
level, simultaneously, based on organization
need
Increased community influence is based on
value, not title. Limits to influence are based
on ability and desire.
Source: Rite-Solutions (graphic © Rite-Solutions, reprinted with permission).
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 21
Exhibit 4
Representative Stocks on Mutual Fun
The following stocks are representative of the types of ideas in each of the three Mutual Fund
exchanges: Savings Bonds, Bow Jones, and Spazdaq.
SAVINGS BONDS: KNOWLEDGEDNA
Savings Bond stocks were ideas that saved the company money or increased efficiency. An
important part of the Rite-Solutions business was training, and the Web-based training was
becoming an increasingly important part of the product line. In many cases, portions of training
programs that were developed for one course were applicable to other courses, or differed only in
the data that was incorporated. For instance, a training program for operating one type of Navy
ship would have the same basic structure as that for a different ship, just with different data. The
KnowledgeDNA idea was to develop a set of applications that automated the production and
maintenance of Web-based courses. This would allow course designers to develop data specific
to a new course, then automatically create the Web-based training program.
The success beacon for this stock was to utilize the KnowledgeDNA toolset for a specific client
project.
BOW JONES: CHIPS
Bow Jones stocks used existing technology to create new products or services. Rite-Solutions
provided software to the casino industry. When a new player bought into a table game, the game
had to stop while the player gave cash to the dealer, the dealer counted the cash, spread the cash
so surveillance could film it, put away the cash, and gave chips to the player. This wasted time,
and was frustrating for the existing players. The CHIPS idea was to have a kiosk at the table,
where the player could input cash or a credit card. The dealer would continue the game with the
existing players. When the player entered enough money to buy-in, s/he hit a buy-in button. A
display would show the dealer the approved buy-in amount that the player had deposited, and the
dealer would slide the chips to the player.
The success beacon for this stock was to develop the product for a specific casino on a trial basis
to prove that it enabled the dealer to complete more hands per hour. The company would then
make it available to other casinos through a distribution agreement or technology lease.
SPAZDAQ: WEB SERVICES
Spazdaq stocks were for ideas of new technologies that the company should invest in. The Web
Services stock was a project to understand technologies that could be used to make capabilities
available to software applications across the company network, which would enable faster and
less expensive development of complex applications. The project would understand and utilize a
number of tools, and identify an existing or new application that could benefit from the new
technology. The success beacon for this stock would be to utilize the new technology to support
a tool used by the company, such as maintenance of contact information.
Source: Rite-Solutions.
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 22
Exhibit 5
Mutual Fun Process Flow Diagram
1
Innovative Idea
By Anyone
2
Draft
Expect-Us
3
IPO &
Announcement
4
Mutual Fund
Activity By
Everyone
5
No
Top 20
Yes
6
Prophet Selected
Market Activity
Accelerated
Index Activity (on-going)
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Discussions
Budget-IT list
Investments
New Items added
Expect-US fleshed out
Stock Price adjustments
Launch plan emerges
Budget Assigned
To Energize
Activity
Reward Plan
Approved
7
8
Success
(Launch)
No
Yes
Reward Distributed
Individual
Portfolio Updated
9
Flow-chart for Mutual Fun. The original prophet is chosen by the inventor at Step 2. The
prophet selection at Step 6 is done by management, as part of the transition to a funded project.
Source: © Rite-Solutions (reprinted with permission)
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 23
Exhibit 6
Mutual Fun Web Site Pages
EMPLOYEE PAGES
The Headlines page shows news about Mutual Fun, divided into four categories: Yesterday’s
News (items that previously ran on the ticker tape), New Investments (recently completed
Budge-It items), New Opportunities (recent IPOs), and Help Wanted (Budge-It items that need
volunteers).
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 24
Exhibit 6 (continued)
The following page shows an employee’s portfolio page, listing stocks by exchange, together
with the unallocated balance.
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 25
Exhibit 6 (continued)
When an employee clicked on a stock, the following page was displayed. The employee could
learn more about the stock by clicking the Expect-Us, reading discussions (and contributing to
them), and looking at Budge-It items that were outstanding and that had been completed.
1
Describes ideas in
enough detail to start
discussions and
gather interest
2
Expect-Us
Discussions - Strengths
Discussions - Suggestions
Discussions - Weaknesses
As people research
stocks, they add their
thoughts where they
believe they
add value
Budge-IT List
Investor’s Log
3
4
Completed items
add value to each
stock and develop
an informal
investor’s network
Action items
that can move the
value of a stock
forward if a volunteer
comes forward
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 26
Exhibit 6 (continued)
MANAGEMENT VIEW
Management had access to information that could be used to evaluate the interest level in each
stock, as well as to evaluate the contributions of employees.
The following screen shows a plot of the top 15 stocks, in terms of the “impressions” (the
amount of Mutual Fun money that the employees had invested in each stock).
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 27
Exhibit 6 (continued)
Management could view the leaderboard, showing the “innovation earnings” of each employee
over a specific period of time. Innovation earnings were calculated using an algorithm that
weighted the number of inventions, participation as a prophet, discussions, Budge-It items
volunteered for (“interest”) and Budge-It items completed (“investment”). The total innovation
earnings for the company was calculated, as was the percentage of the total attributed to each
employee. (The data shown is fictitious, for illustration only.)
Source: All screen images © Rite-Solutions (reprinted with permission).
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 28
Exhibit 7
WHO?: Intellectual Capital Investment in a Mutual Fun Stock
“Who?” was an idea that was floated, attracted interest, and was used internally at Rite-Solutions
in accordance with the launch plan. It was then implemented for a customer, a police
department—enabling citizens to relate more to their local patrolman.
The Expect-Us for Who? follows. You can see the final product on the Rite-Solutions Web site,
by clicking on the owl on each Web page. This Bow Jones stock allowed Rite-Solutions to use
some Spazdaq technologies to implement a new product idea. In working on the project,
employees learned new technology, the company improved, and it added a product that
personalizes communication, both for Rite-Solutions, and for customers.
Expect-Us for WHO?
Stock Name
Summary
Symbol
Stock Market
Status
Inventor
Prophet
Savings/Growth
Is:
Category
Description
WHO?
An easy way to contact a person from a Web site that you best relate to
WHO
Bow Jones
IPO Version on 02/23/2006
Bruce Reilly <Send Message>
Thomas Santos <Send Message>
In our path?
Yes
Leverages the known?
Yes
Allows learning?
Yes
Will we use it?
Yes
Will others use it?
Yes
Make us better?
Yes
Technology,
Service,
Improvement
All Web sites for technology companies include the same techno-drivel.
They are all offering seamless, integrated, open, extensible, fault-tolerant,
high-availability, high-tech, interactive, affordable, solutions to any
customer’s problems. Once you've read all the drivel you can stomach, to
contact someone, you have to send an e-mail to info@sales.com.
The major problem with Web sites today is that they all try to sell to
potential customers and few try to SERVE potential friends. The basic
premise of WHO? is that the internet is there to connect people to people,
not people to salespeople. Potential friends believe all sites lie, so they
must find the truth elsewhere (other customers or insiders who would tell
the truth).
We will think of everyone who visits our Web site as a "friend in need."
We will have an owl on all pages of our site that links people to a Web
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 29
Exhibit 7 (continued)
Description
(continued)
Keys to Success
Potential
Savings/Growth
Return on
Innovation
Success Beacons
Team Room
Links
service that shows the bios of people within the company who can talk
intelligently about the information on any page on the site. The bios will
be a list of people in the company and will include such data as: name,
hometown, birthday, hobbies/interests, alma mater, languages, job
classification, and a picture (fun shot). This allows the person to read the
bios and contact the person they feel they most relate to. They can also put
comments to indicate that the person was helpful and friendly. This will
help to show the desirability of the feature to potential customers, and
begin to indicate to the outside world a change in dynamic to person-toperson rather than salesjerk-to-nonbeliever. This also extends our
experience with offering Web services (Spazdaq stock).
It must be catchy, quick, and easy.
It will show that we are a company that trusts our employees to talk to
people outside the company.
The outside world will see that we make it easy for them to establish the
most comfortable initial dialog with the company. It also shows that we do
not limit discussions within the company and are indeed a community of
technologists.
We will roll it out as part of our new Web site (2nd quarter 06).
Intellectual Capital Invested in WHO
Like all stocks, WHO launched at $10 per share. It attracted 3.51 percent of Mutual Fun funds
(impressions), putting it in the top 20 stocks. Volunteers signed up for 33 hours of Budge-It
items (interest), which actually took them 41 hours to complete (investment). It launched at
$11.75, at which point the company provided resources and budget to the project.
Source: Rite-Solutions (with permission)
Rite-Solutions: Mavericks Unleashing the Quiet Genius of Employees: HR-27
p. 30
Exhibit 8
Activity in the Mutual Fun Stock Market
GROWTH IN NUMBER OF STOCKS
When the market first started, Lavoie and Marino seeded it with four stocks: one each in Savings
Bonds and Spazdaq, two in Bow Jones. The increase in stocks can be seen in the following
chart. Months shown are after rollout of Mutual Fun to the entire company.
60
Number of Stocks
Total
50
40
30
Bow Jones
20
Spazdaq
10
Savings Bonds
0
Seed
Test Group
6 months
12 months
18 months
EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN MUTUAL FUN
Employees Participating
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Seed
Test Group
6 months
12 months
18 months
Months refer to time after Mutual Fun was rolled out to the entire company. The total number of
employees 18 months after rollout was approximately 160.
Source: Rite-Solutions