Comments on: Tom Tom — beating the drum for E 2.0 http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/05/03/tom-tom-beating-the-drum-for-e-20/ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:21:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Tom Mandel http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/05/03/tom-tom-beating-the-drum-for-e-20/comment-page-1/#comment-14326 Tom Mandel Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:49:48 +0000 http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/05/03/tom-tom-beating-the-drum-for-e-20/#comment-14326 "flexibility to use the most appropriate structure for the situation" -- that's the ticket, I agree. “flexibility to use the most appropriate structure for the situation” — that’s the ticket, I agree.

]]> By: Chris Heuer http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/05/03/tom-tom-beating-the-drum-for-e-20/comment-page-1/#comment-14299 Chris Heuer Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:45:43 +0000 http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/05/03/tom-tom-beating-the-drum-for-e-20/#comment-14299 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. 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.

]]>