<?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: Andrew McAfee and Tom Davenport webinar on viability of Enterprise 2.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:28:22 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Neal Williamson</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/comment-page-1/#comment-138027</link>
		<dc:creator>Neal Williamson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:06:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/#comment-138027</guid>
		<description>Interesting conversation. However, it seems like the only discussion was about that to call these tools and maybe what is included. At the end of the day I don&#039;t think companies care if it is called Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise Web 2.0 or Web 2.0 for the Enterprise or something else. Companies want to know how (or if) they can use some of the different tools that are popular with the online communities as a whole to improve their business. On that point there seemed to be no debate. The tools are valuable. What we should call them, what should be included in them and what they will actuall do to enterprise structure is anybody&#039;s guess.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting conversation. However, it seems like the only discussion was about that to call these tools and maybe what is included. At the end of the day I don&#8217;t think companies care if it is called Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise Web 2.0 or Web 2.0 for the Enterprise or something else. Companies want to know how (or if) they can use some of the different tools that are popular with the online communities as a whole to improve their business. On that point there seemed to be no debate. The tools are valuable. What we should call them, what should be included in them and what they will actuall do to enterprise structure is anybody&#8217;s guess.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marilyn Pratt</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/comment-page-1/#comment-137992</link>
		<dc:creator>Marilyn Pratt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/#comment-137992</guid>
		<description>Was the advent of the printing press a historical breakthrough.  If powerful Corporations are the new oligarchies and burocratic in nature, aren&#039;t these &quot;new&quot; collaboration tools truly a kind of revolution?  I equate making these tools available to masses akin to Guttenberg making content accessible to those outside the elite scribe community (of the church, for example).  The technology in that case did create the revolution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was the advent of the printing press a historical breakthrough.  If powerful Corporations are the new oligarchies and burocratic in nature, aren&#8217;t these &#8220;new&#8221; collaboration tools truly a kind of revolution?  I equate making these tools available to masses akin to Guttenberg making content accessible to those outside the elite scribe community (of the church, for example).  The technology in that case did create the revolution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hylton Jolliffe</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/comment-page-1/#comment-137931</link>
		<dc:creator>Hylton Jolliffe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/#comment-137931</guid>
		<description>For those who&#039;ve asked here and via email - the call will be recorded. There won&#039;t be cameras and only a slide or two so tuning in via phone&#039;s all that&#039;s needed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those who&#8217;ve asked here and via email &#8211; the call will be recorded. There won&#8217;t be cameras and only a slide or two so tuning in via phone&#8217;s all that&#8217;s needed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Becker</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/comment-page-1/#comment-137395</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Becker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:59:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/#comment-137395</guid>
		<description>I beleive Mike O&#039;Hare has put it correctly if we follow the current structures.  

William Pasmore has noted that organizations are myths that are created by a group of people who have come together to solve an ill-defined problem that they cannot solve alone and are able to change the organization at will...or words to that effect.

If human beings can think it they will do it!  Simple example: Twlenty Thousand Leagues Beneath the Sea was authored before the advent of submarines.  WE can create ways of working together that benefit most everyone with this new technology.

What has history taught us about organizations?  That they are adaptable..that essentially they are made of values supported by the resources of power in the form of the spiritual, psychological, and material; and, depending on the values, will and ability of those with  that power to get others to act acording to their plans, they have control.  The greater their control the more stringent the rules, thus leading to less freedome for most.  If the acts are &#039;good&#039; there may not be a lot to complain about, if they are so restrictive that individual and group freedom is uncomfortable the pot boils and sturm and drang evolve.

The nub seems to be that there is a human race awareness that there has to be a balance between control and freedom, as Marvin Weisbord often notes.  However, this new technology is not going to wait, as humanbeings have a &#039;will&#039; and are curious buggers, and our biggest muscle is our brains, especially when collectively put towards a task.  (Our most important muscel is our &#039;heart&#039;.)

Our current task appears to be to want to get out from underneath the restrictions of industrial organization structure and operations...for the good of the organizations and individuals I would like to think. What will be interesting to see is how this all evolves.  It could be that the technological 2.0 sharing, Open organizations will live  together side by side with the traditional. That is just as we now use to sell directly to individual and group buyers on eBay as well as shop in person at Macy&#039;s, the two technologies or processes, store retail and electronic sales, seem to be going through such an evolution.  Perhaps all organizations&#039; puropose would not fit a 2.0 model, and of course there will be blended organizations using both structures and processes.

Much of this will take care of itself as young folks who have grown up with electronics and who are comfortable using the technology to create new ways of working.  

The larger concern, I beleive, is not organizations, but the strong influence of the one or two percent of the wealthy class that actually &#039;control&#039; our economics and thus the governments and the laws.  This goes back to control and freedom, only on a very large macro scale.  

I can imagine the fear they have that the heathens are at the gates of their empires.  So Mike is right!  It depends on how the transition takes place the results it delivers to make the power brokers trust this new age.

One of the salves that might be applied  is the development of greater understanding and verification that human beings collectively are more alike than different.  This begs the the need for greater and faster research on the social side of our quest for &#039;freedom&#039;.  Equally important along the way will the application of social networking analysis and future search methodologies.

Hey, but what do I know...I&#039;ve only been an OD consultant for 30 years....I have much to learn!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I beleive Mike O&#8217;Hare has put it correctly if we follow the current structures.  </p>
<p>William Pasmore has noted that organizations are myths that are created by a group of people who have come together to solve an ill-defined problem that they cannot solve alone and are able to change the organization at will&#8230;or words to that effect.</p>
<p>If human beings can think it they will do it!  Simple example: Twlenty Thousand Leagues Beneath the Sea was authored before the advent of submarines.  WE can create ways of working together that benefit most everyone with this new technology.</p>
<p>What has history taught us about organizations?  That they are adaptable..that essentially they are made of values supported by the resources of power in the form of the spiritual, psychological, and material; and, depending on the values, will and ability of those with  that power to get others to act acording to their plans, they have control.  The greater their control the more stringent the rules, thus leading to less freedome for most.  If the acts are &#8216;good&#8217; there may not be a lot to complain about, if they are so restrictive that individual and group freedom is uncomfortable the pot boils and sturm and drang evolve.</p>
<p>The nub seems to be that there is a human race awareness that there has to be a balance between control and freedom, as Marvin Weisbord often notes.  However, this new technology is not going to wait, as humanbeings have a &#8216;will&#8217; and are curious buggers, and our biggest muscle is our brains, especially when collectively put towards a task.  (Our most important muscel is our &#8216;heart&#8217;.)</p>
<p>Our current task appears to be to want to get out from underneath the restrictions of industrial organization structure and operations&#8230;for the good of the organizations and individuals I would like to think. What will be interesting to see is how this all evolves.  It could be that the technological 2.0 sharing, Open organizations will live  together side by side with the traditional. That is just as we now use to sell directly to individual and group buyers on eBay as well as shop in person at Macy&#8217;s, the two technologies or processes, store retail and electronic sales, seem to be going through such an evolution.  Perhaps all organizations&#8217; puropose would not fit a 2.0 model, and of course there will be blended organizations using both structures and processes.</p>
<p>Much of this will take care of itself as young folks who have grown up with electronics and who are comfortable using the technology to create new ways of working.  </p>
<p>The larger concern, I beleive, is not organizations, but the strong influence of the one or two percent of the wealthy class that actually &#8216;control&#8217; our economics and thus the governments and the laws.  This goes back to control and freedom, only on a very large macro scale.  </p>
<p>I can imagine the fear they have that the heathens are at the gates of their empires.  So Mike is right!  It depends on how the transition takes place the results it delivers to make the power brokers trust this new age.</p>
<p>One of the salves that might be applied  is the development of greater understanding and verification that human beings collectively are more alike than different.  This begs the the need for greater and faster research on the social side of our quest for &#8216;freedom&#8217;.  Equally important along the way will the application of social networking analysis and future search methodologies.</p>
<p>Hey, but what do I know&#8230;I&#8217;ve only been an OD consultant for 30 years&#8230;.I have much to learn!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike O'Hare</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/comment-page-1/#comment-136697</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike O'Hare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:48:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/#comment-136697</guid>
		<description>This ultimately will come down to a question of trust. How much do investors trust executive leaders to build and run effective organisations, irrespective of traditional models ?  And how much do executive leaders trust their people to devolve organisational power and authority to them ?
How much devolution is sufficient to engender the huge innovation potential of the collective intellect of the organisation whilst maintining the power of executive authority to lead the business ?
Once you give up control, it can be very hard to get it back. You have to be able to trust.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This ultimately will come down to a question of trust. How much do investors trust executive leaders to build and run effective organisations, irrespective of traditional models ?  And how much do executive leaders trust their people to devolve organisational power and authority to them ?<br />
How much devolution is sufficient to engender the huge innovation potential of the collective intellect of the organisation whilst maintining the power of executive authority to lead the business ?<br />
Once you give up control, it can be very hard to get it back. You have to be able to trust.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JJ</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/comment-page-1/#comment-136349</link>
		<dc:creator>JJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/#comment-136349</guid>
		<description>Will the webinar be recorded and archived?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will the webinar be recorded and archived?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sim Hua Soon</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/comment-page-1/#comment-135136</link>
		<dc:creator>Sim Hua Soon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/04/andrew-mcafee-and-tom-davenport-webinar-on-viability-of-enterprise-20/#comment-135136</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a really interesting. I will love to participate.

Do I have to call in by phone or it will be possible to communicate through the internet?
Will the recording be made available? 

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a really interesting. I will love to participate.</p>
<p>Do I have to call in by phone or it will be possible to communicate through the internet?<br />
Will the recording be made available? </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

