inicio mail me! sindicaci;ón

Tom Tom — beating the drum for E 2.0

by Tom Mandel

My post on Tom Davenport’s skeptical response to “Enterprise 2.0″ has drawn an interesting response from Bill Ives on this blog. There is not enough difference among any of us to allow for a real debate, but I want to clarify a point from my post.

I’m a big fan of Tom Davenport. As a commentator on and analyst of organizations and their cultures, I can’t even carry Tom’s gym bag! When I called a point of his “rhetorical,” I wasn’t criticizing him — rhetoric is one of the key tools of all writing. It’s not a bad thing!

My goal was to distinguish between enterprise work and the organization of enterprises. Big changes to the ways people work in enterprises do not necessarily change the structure of those organizations, not in the short run and not necessarily in ways we can predict.

Even if lots of people in an enterprise blog, and its teams use wikis, and everyone benefits from tagging and social bookmarking, and social networks arise to ease collaboration — even with all these things, we cannot conclude that these enterprises will become more “democratic” or “better places to work.” The changes are good on their own, but technology is demonstrably not a route to utopia.

In that sense, I could be thought of as agreeing with Tom Davenport. Change is constant, and it is emergent. New tools do affect the future, but we we won’t be able to measure that effect directly, and the end of hierarchical organization is nowhere in sight.

But, I hope the key takeaway from my post is that we will see the success of Enterprise 2.0 in its wide adoption — not in some change it spurs in global capitalism or corporate hierarchies. In fact, I hesitated before writing this post, because I didn’t want to displace Jevon MacDonald’s post on accelerating Enterprise 2.0 adoption from the top of this blog. Check it out.

Share and Enjoy:
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt


2 Comments »

Chris HeuerJune 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am

As always Tom, very well stated.

For me though, it still comes back to optimism or pessimism – are we optimistic about the potential for improvement resulting from better tools for collaboration and communication or are we pessimistic thinking that the world will always be the way it is now? In my work with emergence, peer to peer learning, ad-hoc organization and the whole 2.0 thing, I have always focused on the need for situational fit. By this I mean that some things will work better with free-form structures and some will work better remaining in hierarchical systems. It is not about absolute control, or total chaos reigning supreme, but where these 2 principles overlap in some way to create order. Where the flexibility to use the most appropriate structure for the situation is paramount, not one absolute over the other.

Going back to the round table we had at the Fast Forward conference earlier this year (where I had the pleasure of sitting next to you), it seemed we all well understood the challenges the idea of Enterprise 2.0 faced. We also understood that people were more important than the technology and that the challenges were not insurmountable obstacles, but rather problems to be solved.

Tom MandelJune 4th, 2007 at 2:49 pm

“flexibility to use the most appropriate structure for the situation” — that’s the ticket, I agree.

» Subscribe to the RSS feed for these comments

Your comment

Want an image to appear near your comment? Go to gravatar.com

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Additional comments powered by BackType