<?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/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Culture - The Secret to a 2.0 Organization</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/08/11/culture-the-secret-to-a-20-organization/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/08/11/culture-the-secret-to-a-20-organization/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Edmundo Llopis</title>
		<link>http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/08/11/culture-the-secret-to-a-20-organization/comment-page-1/#comment-173972</link>
		<dc:creator>Edmundo Llopis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fastforwardblog.com/?p=1085#comment-173972</guid>
		<description>I have been saying this for over one year, but I will repeat it here as a comment to your post.  The olympic team analogy sounds reasonable, however, the concept doesn't transfer to mid to large organizations.  My view is that the main obstacle to en mass 2.0 adoption is not tools.  The reason why most publicly owned organizations have top down control is relatively simple: (1) Accountability (2) Budgets and these two elements are joined at the hip.  Budgets are assigned by sectors, divisions, businesses, etc., until organizations have a different mechanism for measuring the performance of sectors, divisions, businesses, etc., the financial structure, which is designed to top-down, will continue to dominate organizations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been saying this for over one year, but I will repeat it here as a comment to your post.  The olympic team analogy sounds reasonable, however, the concept doesn&#8217;t transfer to mid to large organizations.  My view is that the main obstacle to en mass 2.0 adoption is not tools.  The reason why most publicly owned organizations have top down control is relatively simple: (1) Accountability (2) Budgets and these two elements are joined at the hip.  Budgets are assigned by sectors, divisions, businesses, etc., until organizations have a different mechanism for measuring the performance of sectors, divisions, businesses, etc., the financial structure, which is designed to top-down, will continue to dominate organizations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
