This is a response to James Robertson’s post, Tips for gaining adoption (1) and Euan Semple’s contribution. Now I am not trying to be a smart ass and go for twelve instead of five. The number came from a series I did a couple of years ago on successful factors in implementing knowledge management. I looked at six case studies and the lessons learned. The series is summarized here, Post Script: Summary of KM Stories.

Certainly, Enterprise 2.0 is more complex than knowledge management but it raises many of the same issues, only more so, and we can learn from its mistakes. The list is below. Now these are were not new suggestions when they were made but it is surprising how many times they are not done. I modified items, 2, 3,4,and 11 to reflect Enterprise 2.0 without changing the concept. However, there will not likely be a central Enterprise 2.0 function as in most KM so I added the pural(s).

I completely agree with what James and Euan wrote. Perhaps, as suggested by James Dellow, the writers of this blog can collaborate make a composite list. Of course, a wiki would be a better platform for that activity. BTW here are some good wiki tips from the American Library Association. They are at a more detailed level than these lists but they apply to most Enterprise 2.0 implementations (e.g., 1. A wiki must have a specific purpose and 2. You can’t just offer a wiki to the public as a blank slate and expect participation.)

1. Gain and Enlist Top Down Support to Overcome Turf Issues
2. Provide Strong Leadership for the Enterprise 2.0 Function(s)
3. Align Enterprise 2.0 Strategy to Business Strategy
4. Align Enterprise 2.0 Applications to Key Business Goals and Process
5. Develop a Clear Business Case
6. Design Measures Aligned to Business Processes
7. Listen to the Users, Involve Them in the Design
8. Simplify the Access of Knowledge
9. Develop a Clear Communication Plan to Promote the Effort
10. Involve all the Key Stakeholders
11. Integrate all forms of Communication and Documentation)
12. Develop a Clear Motivation Plan that Aligns with Current Motivation Plans

James tips (and the factors above they most align with):
Create a prototype or pilot (7,8,10).
Use stories to articulate (and capture) needs. (9)
Build on existing platforms.
Use case studies from similar organisations. (yes, but do not simply copy them)
Be passionate about the right things (3,4)

Euan’s cautions:
“Avoid turning Enterprise 2.0 into a “thing” and a thing that can be done correctly or incorrectly with a whole load of people telling you what correct is.” As Euan notes, this was the downfall of KM that it has struggled to recover from and was part of the motivation for doing the six KM cases. If you do all of the above it should not be a thing.

Euan also said, “don’t do what people tell you to do. Do what makes sense, do what works and do what you have the energy to sustain in the face of the considerable challenges that will be thrown before you. By all means have conversations with people who have been around and seen and done related things and who are happy to have interesting conversations with you but that is it. No formulas and no experts.”

I feel that this most important tip is in the spirit of the twelve points above that are mostly process steps and not design specifics. The same applies to James’ tips. Enterprise 2.0 is a business approach and a suite of capabilities that have to fit the specifics of your organization. This is why I do not like how the wikipedia assigned it to a technology. There is no single best way or approach. Any list we collaborate on should be done in this spirit.

I have now looked at the excellent adoption tips from Jerry Bowles and Kathleen Gilroy after writing this post. They each bring some new items to the conversation but all appear to not violate Euan’s caution about making Enterprise 2.0 a “thing.” There are none that I disagree with.

I also just read Mike Gotta’s, 5 Tips for Enterprise 2.0 Adoption. They start with “Define what Enterprise 2.0 means for you.” The other four fall into this mode and are consistent with a process approach and build on what has been said so far. They avoid the “thing” trap than Euan cautions us on. After everyone contributes we should pull the suggestions together. I see no inconsistencies so far which I guess is good.