<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: To Align or Not to Align? How Structured Should Enterprise 2.0 Initiatives Be?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:29:35 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jordan Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/comment-page-1/#comment-24521</link>
		<dc:creator>Jordan Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/#comment-24521</guid>
		<description>If we failed to provide some structure, relying on every new wiki space to evolve on an emergent basis, we may as well take the &quot;knowledge&quot; out of &quot;knowledge worker.&quot; We may as well re-invent the wheel every time we need to move a heavy object. The key E2.0 take away is to provide &quot;just-enough&quot; structure to direct and norm collaborative behaviour (answering &quot;what do we do in this space and what is the core organization of it&quot;) while also allowing creative lattitude for structuring and organizing a space. I explain this in detail in a post about the &lt;a href=&quot;https://traction.tractionsoftware.com/traction/permalink/Blog426&quot; title=&quot;Yin and Yang of E2.0&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;. In that case study, I reference the success at &lt;a href=&quot;https://traction.tractionsoftware.com/traction/permalink/Public1146&quot; title=&quot;ShoreBank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; where this was put into practice successfully. 

One of the comments above mentions culture as a barrier. My experience at deployment after deployment is that the culture call is a sort of cop out &quot;ahh, we couldnt make this 2.0 stuff work because our culture just isnt open enough.&quot; I&#039;ve seen the most conservative tech-backwards groups go from 0 to Wiki-Fast in 24 hours or less. 

How? Simply agreeing as a group WHAT process will be done in the wiki and blog environment, and showing everyone HOW to do add/edit/manage the content to meet the process need. The process may be as simple as posting market intelligence announcements with one category each, or managing project requirements across milestones. 

If the instructions are clear and everyone agrees to move together, groups typically don&#039;t care about whether a process is handled in a less structured wiki or process oriented work flow system. Based on culture of privacy or *need* for privacy, there is, however, a need to keep some workspaces permission filtered to the &quot;need to know&quot; level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If we failed to provide some structure, relying on every new wiki space to evolve on an emergent basis, we may as well take the &#8220;knowledge&#8221; out of &#8220;knowledge worker.&#8221; We may as well re-invent the wheel every time we need to move a heavy object. The key E2.0 take away is to provide &#8220;just-enough&#8221; structure to direct and norm collaborative behaviour (answering &#8220;what do we do in this space and what is the core organization of it&#8221;) while also allowing creative lattitude for structuring and organizing a space. I explain this in detail in a post about the <a href="https://traction.tractionsoftware.com/traction/permalink/Blog426" title="Yin and Yang of E2.0" rel="nofollow">. In that case study, I reference the success at </a><a href="https://traction.tractionsoftware.com/traction/permalink/Public1146" title="ShoreBank" rel="nofollow"> where this was put into practice successfully. </p>
<p>One of the comments above mentions culture as a barrier. My experience at deployment after deployment is that the culture call is a sort of cop out &#8220;ahh, we couldnt make this 2.0 stuff work because our culture just isnt open enough.&#8221; I&#8217;ve seen the most conservative tech-backwards groups go from 0 to Wiki-Fast in 24 hours or less. </p>
<p>How? Simply agreeing as a group WHAT process will be done in the wiki and blog environment, and showing everyone HOW to do add/edit/manage the content to meet the process need. The process may be as simple as posting market intelligence announcements with one category each, or managing project requirements across milestones. </p>
<p>If the instructions are clear and everyone agrees to move together, groups typically don&#8217;t care about whether a process is handled in a less structured wiki or process oriented work flow system. Based on culture of privacy or *need* for privacy, there is, however, a need to keep some workspaces permission filtered to the &#8220;need to know&#8221; level.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/comment-page-1/#comment-19252</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/#comment-19252</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think we could (or should) separate &quot;core business process&quot; from &quot;individual knowledge worker&quot; in an enterprise.  In fact, social computing provides an environment to marry them into one, which is the vision of Warren Bennis (i.e., &quot;Great Groups&quot;) and Peter &amp; Trudy Johnson-Lenz (i.e., &quot;Groupware&quot;).  For reference, see http://newnewweb.blogspot.com/2007/05/are-we-witnessing-death-of-personal.html.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think we could (or should) separate &#8220;core business process&#8221; from &#8220;individual knowledge worker&#8221; in an enterprise.  In fact, social computing provides an environment to marry them into one, which is the vision of Warren Bennis (i.e., &#8220;Great Groups&#8221;) and Peter &amp; Trudy Johnson-Lenz (i.e., &#8220;Groupware&#8221;).  For reference, see <a href="http://newnewweb.blogspot.com/2007/05/are-we-witnessing-death-of-personal.html." rel="nofollow">http://newnewweb.blogspot.com/2007/05/are-we-witnessing-death-of-personal.html.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Ives</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/comment-page-1/#comment-19200</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Ives</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:27:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/#comment-19200</guid>
		<description>Paula, Mike, and Tony - Thanks for your comments. I agree with Tony&#039;s formular of preceived uesefulness * perceived ease of use (see his link) for adoption success. I think some of the energy that Paula talks about is built around the perceived usefulness and then it gets sustained or, at least not worn out, by the ease of use. Mike you gave a great example of what to do and what not to do. I have seen many times that implementation success requires the right thinking at the top. Even though Entperise 2.0 allows for more individual intiatives within the organizations, the top can still make or break it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paula, Mike, and Tony &#8211; Thanks for your comments. I agree with Tony&#8217;s formular of preceived uesefulness * perceived ease of use (see his link) for adoption success. I think some of the energy that Paula talks about is built around the perceived usefulness and then it gets sustained or, at least not worn out, by the ease of use. Mike you gave a great example of what to do and what not to do. I have seen many times that implementation success requires the right thinking at the top. Even though Entperise 2.0 allows for more individual intiatives within the organizations, the top can still make or break it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Karrer</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/comment-page-1/#comment-19119</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Karrer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/#comment-19119</guid>
		<description>I would agree with the 90% people, 10% technology.  Certainly the technology has lowered the barrier and made it a lot easier which is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/04/enterprise-20-whats-pu.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;big factor in adoption&lt;/a&gt;.  However, we seem to be missing a couple of really important things right now:

1. Awareness of the opportunity/need to improve knowledge work and learning
2. Changing habits and skill building

There&#039;s quite a bit out there around the &lt;a href=&quot;http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2007/06/needed-skills-for-new-media.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;skills for new media&lt;/a&gt; especially by people looking at it from skill development among students (often called information literacy).  But I don&#039;t hear nearly as much about this in the corporate world.

Certainly it seems that in order for Enterprise 2.0 (or Personal Work and Learning Environments - PWLE) to really take off we should be supporting it&#039;s adoption.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would agree with the 90% people, 10% technology.  Certainly the technology has lowered the barrier and made it a lot easier which is a <a href="http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2006/04/enterprise-20-whats-pu.html" rel="nofollow">big factor in adoption</a>.  However, we seem to be missing a couple of really important things right now:</p>
<p>1. Awareness of the opportunity/need to improve knowledge work and learning<br />
2. Changing habits and skill building</p>
<p>There&#8217;s quite a bit out there around the <a href="http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2007/06/needed-skills-for-new-media.html" rel="nofollow">skills for new media</a> especially by people looking at it from skill development among students (often called information literacy).  But I don&#8217;t hear nearly as much about this in the corporate world.</p>
<p>Certainly it seems that in order for Enterprise 2.0 (or Personal Work and Learning Environments &#8211; PWLE) to really take off we should be supporting it&#8217;s adoption.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/comment-page-1/#comment-19081</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/#comment-19081</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;ve hit upon something here.  I pay very close attention to what&#039;s happening in Web 2.0 world expecting it to arrive very shortly in Enterprise 2.0 world.  Less that a decade ago, the opposite was true; Look at the Enterprise to see what&#039;s arriving for the Consumer.

Enterprise 2.0 will take time.  It&#039;s about changing the culture behind the firewall, where historically (and especially in my sector, Banking and Finance) regulations, processes and rules exist that make it harder to embraced...it seems.

A few years ago, our CIO and a select forward thinking individuals within the organisation decided to &#039;build it and see what happens&#039;.  Break down the walled gardens was a popular statement for the strategy.  

Sure enough, small pockets of the organisation embraced blogs, wikis, IM and began to move away from email (where the walled gardens exist).  Knowledge sharing began to blossom.  Soon the front office were not only communicating with the back office, but they were also involving the IT people who as you quite rightly put it, build technology to ease their own pain not those of the user base.

Over the course of 3 years, we were communicating synchronously and asynchronously on open information systems.  More and more people embraced it. Exactly as it should be, the seed of Knowledge Management and Enterprise Social Networking was growing.

We (IT) understood the end-users (our clients), we focussed on usability and began to rebuild the infrastructure and applications to suit the way our users worked.  The support organisation-wide was encouraging.

Then, in 2006/2007 a restructure, a change of senior management affected the organisational culture in an adverse way.  Existing communication and collaboration tools were seen as confusing and negative.  As a result, the blogging stopped, the wiki content reduced, email traffic increased, the walls were erected once more.  

Large investments are now being made into business processes and service management tools as opposed to the self help culture that once blossomed.  Where tacit knowledge was a trend due to the transparency that became a by-product of the open systems culture.

We crashed on take-off.  My challenge now is how to help change the perception of Enterprise 2.0 in an organisation who were unaware they were leading the trend.  Can we bring an Enterprise Facebook in as the new CRM system?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;ve hit upon something here.  I pay very close attention to what&#8217;s happening in Web 2.0 world expecting it to arrive very shortly in Enterprise 2.0 world.  Less that a decade ago, the opposite was true; Look at the Enterprise to see what&#8217;s arriving for the Consumer.</p>
<p>Enterprise 2.0 will take time.  It&#8217;s about changing the culture behind the firewall, where historically (and especially in my sector, Banking and Finance) regulations, processes and rules exist that make it harder to embraced&#8230;it seems.</p>
<p>A few years ago, our CIO and a select forward thinking individuals within the organisation decided to &#8216;build it and see what happens&#8217;.  Break down the walled gardens was a popular statement for the strategy.  </p>
<p>Sure enough, small pockets of the organisation embraced blogs, wikis, IM and began to move away from email (where the walled gardens exist).  Knowledge sharing began to blossom.  Soon the front office were not only communicating with the back office, but they were also involving the IT people who as you quite rightly put it, build technology to ease their own pain not those of the user base.</p>
<p>Over the course of 3 years, we were communicating synchronously and asynchronously on open information systems.  More and more people embraced it. Exactly as it should be, the seed of Knowledge Management and Enterprise Social Networking was growing.</p>
<p>We (IT) understood the end-users (our clients), we focussed on usability and began to rebuild the infrastructure and applications to suit the way our users worked.  The support organisation-wide was encouraging.</p>
<p>Then, in 2006/2007 a restructure, a change of senior management affected the organisational culture in an adverse way.  Existing communication and collaboration tools were seen as confusing and negative.  As a result, the blogging stopped, the wiki content reduced, email traffic increased, the walls were erected once more.  </p>
<p>Large investments are now being made into business processes and service management tools as opposed to the self help culture that once blossomed.  Where tacit knowledge was a trend due to the transparency that became a by-product of the open systems culture.</p>
<p>We crashed on take-off.  My challenge now is how to help change the perception of Enterprise 2.0 in an organisation who were unaware they were leading the trend.  Can we bring an Enterprise Facebook in as the new CRM system?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paula Thornton</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/comment-page-1/#comment-19074</link>
		<dc:creator>Paula Thornton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fastforwardblog.com/2007/06/27/to-align-or-not-to-align-how-structured-should-enterprise-20-initiatives-be/#comment-19074</guid>
		<description>Science models tell us it&#039;s about energy. Discussion groups wane without energy (voices that keep a conversation going). Most of the discussion groups I&#039;ve been on in the past have simply become (which isn&#039;t a bad thing) just an open spiggot for announcements. Occassionally a conversation breaks out, but not often.

The conversations have moved to the industry blogs (perhaps only for a while?), but not necessarily personal ones (with exceptions for people who are &#039;pulsepoints&#039;), rather topical ones. Thus there is real indication for people gathering around any mechanism that 1) allows for conversation and 2) is focused on a common topic of interest (e.g. creates a sense of community).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Science models tell us it&#8217;s about energy. Discussion groups wane without energy (voices that keep a conversation going). Most of the discussion groups I&#8217;ve been on in the past have simply become (which isn&#8217;t a bad thing) just an open spiggot for announcements. Occassionally a conversation breaks out, but not often.</p>
<p>The conversations have moved to the industry blogs (perhaps only for a while?), but not necessarily personal ones (with exceptions for people who are &#8216;pulsepoints&#8217;), rather topical ones. Thus there is real indication for people gathering around any mechanism that 1) allows for conversation and 2) is focused on a common topic of interest (e.g. creates a sense of community).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
