by Jon Husband
January 22, 2008 at 9:40 pm
· Filed under Change, Dead Paradigms, Emergent, Enterprise 2.0, Enterprise Social Computing, New Realities, Social Computing, Social Networking, User Revolution, Web 2.0, Web Services, Wisdom of Crowds
Many of the readers of this blog will be familiar with the terms "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" (both terms coined by Marc Prensky, a virtual learning / game-based learning guru), and recently colleague Rob Paterson offered up a post (The Social Web - A New "World") noting his "aha" moment about the issue.
"It" is interactive, it’s fast, the flows of information are overwhelming, it feeds social computing, it’s not going away, and it will be coming to a workplace near you. It’s also becoming clearer and clearer that the pressures due to a growing demographic shift are getting more and more tangible every month. When the Gartner Group starts predicting that the coming generations of knowledge workers will understand how to work in wirearchies, and predict that their influx will cause 40+ % annual growth in the adoption of Enterprise 2.0 capabilities .. well, one might say that awareness is growing.
Remember sending groups of people off for training on the latest complicated software ? Will that change ?
JP Rangaswami, who writes often about the use of social software in the enterprise based on his experiences at DkW and BT recently emphasized the coming impacts at the LeWeb 3 conference in Paris, noting in his presentation that:
.
The digital natives now starting to flood into the workplace are already all trained up on these (social software) tools.
.
This also reminds me of the central issues raised in a seminal article article in the Economist 18 months ago titled The New Organization, namely that most organizations have watched the rise of the networked worker (and equipped them all with Crackberries) without making fundamental changes to organizational structures and work design,
I suspect that’s one of the core targets of Gary Hamel’s new book The Future of Management, in which he lays out this key challenge for executives and managers everywhere.
Here’s one Gartner Group analyst’s take on the coming challenges associated with Enterprise 2.0 and the war for talent in a digital era.
.
‘Digital Natives’ Will Drive Web 2.0 into Your Business
Clint Boulton
September 20, 2007
Analysts delve into how businesses might leverage blogs, wikis and other social networking tools.
LAS VEGAS—Digital natives—people who grew up using interactive Internet tools—will push the enterprise social software market to grow at a compound annual revenue growth of 41.7 percent through 2011, said Gartner analysts at Web Innovations here Sept. 19.
As these digital natives grow up, they’re moving into the work force, taking with them blogs, wikis, mashups, RSS feeds and other so-called Web 2.0 social networking tools that will enable them to collaborate more freely in an enterprise environment, said Gartner analyst Anthony Bradley.
"They bring with them a set of expectations of how they will interact and the tools they’ll use to interact, and they can be woefully disappointed walking into organizations that don’t have some of the Web 2.0 tools that they’re used to using for building relationships and getting things done," Bradley said.
Digital natives will thus usher in what Gartner calls the Enterprise 2.0, where users will use rich Internet applications, social software and a Web platform to execute tasks.
Social software includes social networking (Facebook-like profiles), social collaboration (JotSpot-like wikis and blogs) and social publishing (social tagging, think Digg) tools to interact socially and boost organizational effectiveness.
While traditional Enterprise 1.0 tools were more rigid and siloed, Gartner analyst Tom Austin said Enterprise 2.0 technologies need to be "free form," or informal, messy and participatory, to make co-workers comfortable.
.
Tags: Marc Prensky, Rob Paterson, JP Rangaswami, digital natives, Enterprise 2.0, hierarchy, wirearchy, the new organization, networks, Gartner Group
Powered by Qumana
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink
Jim McGee wrote @ January 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
One small point. I had always thought the Nick Negroponte was the first to use the term digital immigrants, not Marc (a former b-school classmate of mine, BTW)
That could well be, Jim. You’re no doubt right, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
(I’ve now checked a number of references, including several papers by Prensky … He attributes to himself the term “digital native” but does not do so regarding “digital immigrant”). In the papers I’ve checked he cites Negroponte’s “Being Digital” (1995) as a reference - which is where I believe the term “digital immigrant” first came into public view - but he never does so directly with respect to the term.
I was relying on the title of the PDF to which I linked (which has been widely circulated and cited) and Prensky’s profile in the area, but of course Negroponte is a giant in the general area.
One of the issues I think is interesting is that it’s only relatively recently that the notions expressed by Prensky in the 2001 paper linked to above are gaining mass critical awareness (emphasis on the “mass”).
It’s interesting to note as well that Prensky did not cite Negroponte in the paper “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”. I imagine that we could infer from Negroponte’s use of “digital immigrant” that, while using it in his mind those who were not immigrants were “digital natives” ? Therefore, I suppose we could conclude that by claiming coinage of “digital natives” but not directly citing the origin of “digital immigrants” Prensky is being careful to look out for his own interests ?
Nevertheless, your point is well taken and I should be more careful with the verbs I choose to use.
Jim McGee wrote @ January 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Actually, the conclusion I’ve come to is to not worry quite so much about primacy outside of Nobel prize level research and patent prior art. Ideas seem to float around and untangling origination seems to be a thankless task. Marc does excellent work and I am much more concerned about that than who should get credit for a particular phrase. As a former academic, I suppose I tend to worry about getting the citation trail right when I can. In the commercial environment, there seems to be a lot of reluctance to admitting that there might actually be sources to your ideas.
Yes, I understand your points well, I think.
[…] http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/01/22/digital-natives-making-enterprise-20-and-hamels-the-future... […]
[…] a previous post I mentioned a growing awareness of the impact of the interconnected digital infrastructure and digital natives on the Enterprise 2.0 ma…. The publication of this Aspen Institute report is to me just one more piece of evidence that […]
I think the way “Digital Natives” is used is pretty much a farce.
Most people are generalising to a generation a reality that is part of a generation but is not as widespread as they think. Not all teenagers are gamers or users of social computing. Not all pappy-boomers are out of the picture when it comes to playing with a laptop. It is far less simple than that especially because one overlooks the power of routine and authority to curb innovation. Additionally there is this false assumption that the “young generation” by definition is pushing hard to see its ideas on the scene. That might have been true 40 years ago but it’s not the case anymore.
The question of adoption of social computing behind the firewall is not mechanically tight to the progressive entry in the workplace of a new generation. The adoption of social computing is linked to curiosity to use tools and understanding how this set of tools can be customized to create meaningful application for organisations.
Hopefully, curiosity is not a question of age. And the ability to create meaningful applications in a corporate world means one does need to have experience in this environment.
How social tools can positively complement or renew existing processes and help make more profitable or efficient businesses is the key to “Enterprise 2.0″ adoption. The immature debate on ROI 2.0 over the last summer set the frame: the bottom line is and remains the driver.
Olivier, those are good points.
Here’s how I interpret and respond to them, without the benefit of more context and the chance to discuss them face to face, with tea and biscuits or coffee in front of us.
“Not all teenagers are gamers or users of social computing”
This is correct, but a large number are .. and (yes, as a generalisation), most young people, at least in the more affluent countries or regions of those countries (let’s say future knowledge workers for most mid-sized organizations) are cell phone users and have been using computers here and there during the course of their educations. That is still, I think, a distinct contrast with those of us over let’s say 40 to be conservative for whom computers (and certainly mobile devices) came along and spread to the point of ubiquity. So, if not gamers or regular users of social computing (shorthand for blogs, wikis and social networking platforms - OK with you ?).
The difference in proportions in terms of proportion of users familiar is probably enough to make a noticeable, and generalizable, difference. We could argue more about that, if you want.
The Pew Internet Research project does some pretty authoritative work at regular intervals about the use of the Web and social computing and so on, though admittedly it is America-centric. Are you aware of it, and the various research studies it has published ?
“Not all pappy-boomers are out of the picture when it comes to playing with a laptop”
True enough. My dad is 90 and the last chapter of his life would have been vastly different without a computer and the internet. he surfs the web a lot, doing research and keeping up with friends in different parts of the world, etc. .. even in spite of the fact that I still every once in a while have to go through the answer to the question “what’s a browser?” (I have to yell into his ear even though he has sophisticated hearing aids) when I am explaining something and use the term. That’s after explaining it to him somewhere between 50 and 100 times over the last 5+ years.
I know tons of so-called digital immigrants who are daily hard-core users of social software and social computing. That’s one of the interesting bits about all this … it’s not nearly as hard, in my opinion, to “learn” as it is to learn a second language and the customs of a new land. It
’s more a question of attitude and a willingness to look at, perhaps change (and learn from that changing) the way one works. That’s a change I would argue one needs to contemplate anyway, as the massive flows of information aren’t going to stop in the near future unless something catastrophic like a worldwide failure of the net happens.
“the power of routine and authority to curb innovation”
I am with you there, for sure .. and I think that (if I am interpreting your point correctly or nearly so) that many people have the default-setting of psychology where they want a decent if not interesting job, not too much stress, and don’t necessarily want to be into stimulating conversations, arguments and other similar dynamics whereby innovation often gets squeezed out. yes, it is a more battened-down world in many ways, and in many instances notably so in workplace, thanks to 20 years or so of process re-engineering, six sigma and all sorts of other processes seeking replicability, standardization and control of throughput and output.
“this false assumption that the “young generation” by definition is pushing hard to see its ideas on the scene”
I think that too is a good and fair point. What remains to be seen is whether another generally observable phenomenon happens as the demographics continue to shift. many people enter the workforce bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, eager to please and get ahead, excited by the challenges and possibilities of a new career, proud to be associated with the new employer. some people remain that way for relatively long periods of time, and yes, some even stay open, curious, eager and switched-on most or all of their work lives, but vast numbers of people get disillusioned or re-orient themselves (for one reason or another) after 5, ten or 15 years at work. I think that this type of behaviour probably started, more or less, with my generation. I quit jobs because I was impatient and yes, bored, and chafed under mindless positional authority. Younger people today (often) seem to move around quite a bit, and the bright and talented ones (the ones all the employers say they want as “employers of choice”) are especially demanding when it comes to being kept in front of interesting challenges and having a fair amount of space to express themselves and work they way(s) they want to.
“adoption of social computing behind the firewall is not mechanically tight to the progressive entry in the workplace of a new generation”
I am not sure I understand what “mechanically tight to” means. Did you mean “tied to” ?
” The adoption of social computing is linked to curiosity to use tools and understanding how this set of tools can be customized to create meaningful application for organisations.”
Yes. One of the promising aspects of social software used in the process of what is called “social computing” is that by and large there is quite a lot of ease-of-use that has accompanied the development and rise of platforms, widgets and web services. That’s not a universal, as (for example) the interfaces of some wikis can throw people off a bit, but I tend to see almost continual progress with respect to ease-of-use and it is certainly a core factor in the thinking of most if not all software designers and developers these days. That generalized ease of use is also relevant to your point about pappy-boomers above.
“How social tools can positively complement or renew existing processes and help make more profitable or efficient businesses is the key to “Enterprise 2.0″ adoption.”
Yes, AND … i’d go even further than “complement or renew existing”. That social tools and social computing should and will do so is correct, in my opinion. and, I continue to think it is also the case that the increased and more widespread use of such tools, in environments where organisations need to respond to more dynamic customers and markets, will demand more ‘open” organisational culture(s) and more listening-and-learning oriented management philosophy and styles in order to achive greater responsiveness, flexibility and sustained effectiveness.
“the bottom line is and remains the driver”
Yes, and I remain convinced that, as a generalisation, that primary driver will make the points about responsiveness, flexibility and sustained effectiveness in the last sentence above centrally relevant to the design of work and the practice of management in / for wired organisations in an increasingly wired world.
Olivier, thanks for raising such useful points and issues - it would be great to talk more about them with you. Maybe we’ll get the chance to some day.
Jon,
Thank you for your detailed answered and sorry for not maintaining the conversation.
It seems that we have commons views on lot of aspects.
Where we differ actually is on:
- our sensibility of using catch words like ‘Digital Natives’ as it occurs that the more popular it gets, the more caricatural it gets. I understand from this exchange that you have a very balanced approach of this which I personally find great.
- our cultural environment. French have a very conservative way of managing business which kills curiosity and innovation. People spend their days sending emails ccing their boss and dozen of colleagues, no one takes a decision unless they have been given the green light from hierarchy. This results in endless conversations, loss of time, involvement of people who are not relevant and finally non-decision making. That is one reason why there is such a discrepancy between personal uses of the web (massive adoption) and corporate non-use of the web (or E2.0 adoption). Additionally, it’s been about 15 years now that statistics in France show a divorce between middle management and their corporation. These people have the feeling that their personal investment is not valued correctly (truth is that we have a much more emotional relation with work than anglo-saxons) so that they complain but have stopped to push things forward. ‘Bonjour Laziness’ (http://www.amazon.com/Bonjour-Laziness-Jumping-Corporate-Ladder/dp/0375423737) was a best seller in few days in Paris and displays pretty much the approach a lot of people have toward their work because initiative and innovation are curbed by conservative authorities (and a sleepy labor market). This is one reason why I don’t think the new comers in the workforce are not about to change stuff, in France.
My reaction to your post is based on such background. It’s obviously personal but based on repeated experiences. For instance, my last blog on Headshift (http://www.headshift.com/archives/003360.cfm) had gained certain attention, except in France (and it is not a question of language).
Yes, Olivier, I think your key pioint is a good one. The use of hierarchy and autocratic and coercive management syles (and thus closed or discouraged corporate cultures) differs more than most may realize from country to country.
And these differences are being confronted each in their own way by the globalization of media, whether it is television or Internet-based, though I believe that the transparency and openness afforded by the Internet will have a very great and widespread impact in the next decade or two to come.
Language creates reality, but new language has to be shared widely and then internalised one person at a time because it take a while to create fundamentally new “realities”.
I guess you have to assume that as the use of the web in the enterprise spreads and matures, there will be more and more examples and case studies that show both the benefits and the hindrances or disadvantages, and that even French companies and management will come along. In my opinion, social software in general is to natural a knowledge work tool and support to be ignored permanently .. and using it effectively both demands and creates a different cultural environment.
[…] couple of weeks ago, Jon Husband provided us with some insights on the coming wave of “digital natives” that will be driving our workplaces and businesses, intermingling with the “digital […]
In the ‘middle’ of both Jon and Oliver’s perspectives is the answer. There are those of us who paved the way for the youth (with high adoption rates for some aspects of digital), but likely they have a far higher adoption rates and greater adoption velocity than any other segment. It is because of this latter that, as others have pointed out, they will provide the critical ‘tipping point’ for more rapid adoption within organizations.
We’ll know more when Tapscott releases his next book…but there’s got to be relevant clues in his “Growing Up Digital”
http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Up-Digital-Rise-Generation/dp/0071347984/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product
As with all market considerations, these youth represent but one segment, and as Oliver alluded to there are dimensions of consideration that will not be generational specific. I’m curious to know what some of those dimensions might be and what influences those similarities the most. [It took me the longest time to realize that the disconnects with my own kids were not fundamentally generational, although they like to make that the issue, when I saw brilliantly eye-to-eye with individuals of their own age]
Oliver said, “French have a very conservative way of managing business which kills curiosity and innovation.” This sounds remarkably similar to the observations I’ve been making about the parts of the US culture that is driving innovation to surface in Canada
http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/02/28/the-voice-of-the-revolution/#comments
This is an important clue [put in basket]
My apologies to Olivier for anglicizing his name.
HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
