Comments on: Understanding the role of Enterprise 2.0 and moving towards a Social Business

By: Alora Chistiakoff

Alora Chistiakoff — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:08:57 +0000

I think that the problem we see in the Enterprise 2.0 space is systemic, because far too many of us come to this space from a technical background. Collaboration tools don't do any good in an organization that doesn't value collaboration (or, worse yet, gives lip service to valuing it, but inadvertently disincentivizes people from actually doing it). Transparency tools have no place in an organization that doesn't really want transparency.

In Ricardo Semler's book Maverick (and his subsequent writings), he talks about the transformation he helped lead his company through to create a highly communicative, highly transparent "new" kind of organization. But he did it in the mid-80's without the assistance of emergent technology. They attacked the structure of the company and the counter-productive attitudes a command-and-control environment fosters. They didn't get hung up on the technology part.

Of course it's easier for us to look at it in terms of technical implementations: compared to changing human behavior, changing a technology toolset is a walk in the park. The trouble is, without dealing with the human element, that walk in the park leaves you at a dead end.

By: Lynda Moulton

Lynda Moulton — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:42:14 +0000

Jevon,
I have saved this to re-read and make a thoughtful comment. As Jon says, you have made the case for the inter-personal aspects of leveraging social technologies something we see lacking in most of the tool discussions. Answers to questions like "how will this make my work life easier," "how much and what do I need to know in order to embrace and gain from this solution," "how is this going to integrate with all the other technologies that I am using," "what kind of time investment will be required before this benefits me and my colleagues and the business unit as a whole?" More important, when will we know that we are gaining advantage, working more easily and effectively and willingly. Does anyone really care? Your reality check is fine and recommended.

By: Stefan Hauptmann

Stefan Hauptmann — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:54:39 +0000

ROI – yes, five years ago it was about 'savings in telco and email'. And 100 years ago it was showing savings about the costs of meeting-rooms, tables chairs, servants.

So, what is the ROI of a meeting? There is no good answer in terms of $ or €. But there is defenitely a ROI.

By: Stefan Hauptmann

Stefan Hauptmann — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:43:01 +0000

"Considering that the entire reason an organization exists is to collaborate (the belief that more can be accomplished together than individually), would suggest social computing strategy needs to be seriously understood."

That is a damn nice statement, indeed. I do not understand where all these orga-academics are. Where is there academic output about E20? Not the crappy ones. Where are the good ones? I am awaiting their work desperately.

By: Alex Todd

Alex Todd — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:36:44 +0000

I think you hit the nail on the head with this insight. The issue is the structure of Enterprise 1.0. It is based on a control-oriented mindset. By contrast, Enterprise 2.0 is based on a trust-oriented mindset. The roots of Enterprise 1.0 run deep. Although its governance is founded on fiduciary (read trust based) law, all its business is conducted under contract (read distrust based) law. When, corporate directors believe their fiduciary duty is to shareholders (the way it is interpreted by Delaware courts) then all other stakeholders need to protect themselves with contracts and/or other control mechanisms.

We therefore need a conceptual model for Enterprise 2.0 that address stakeholder trust requirements. If the objective is collaboration in the absence of traditional organizational controls (read hierarchies) then the only alternative for building sufficient confidence in the process is "trust". Fortunately, trust is not as soft soft as some might think (witness eBay and PKI – public-key infrastructures). Enterprise 2.0 needs to be supported by trust enabling infrastructures. These infrastructures must reside under a robust conceptual model for Enterprise 2.0 that Jevon talks about. And I am not sure where it would fit in his Elements of Social Business Transformation, but it is required.

By: Jon Husband

Jon Husband — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:48:12 +0000

Very strong post, Jevon. You have certainly laid down a gauntlet, and fostered a rich ensuing discussion.

I think you know that I agree with you re:

Enterprise 2.0 has given us the beginnings of a technical framework for a new type of organization, but it has not provided us with a conceptual model that is robust enough to create a more complete business design. Enterprise 2.0 was never meant to do this, and it probably never will.

AND …

We are asking questions like “Which tools should I use to collaborate?”, “What are the case studies of social networking in a company?”, “What are the results of using twitter in the enterprise?”. I believe that these questions are all too shortsighted and narrow partly because they presuppose the necessity of collaboration, social networking and other Enterprise 2.0 tools, but those are not safe assumptions to make.

I presume we'll all get there eventually. The foundation is busy being poured for the wholesale re-definition and re-design of the whys, whats and hows of knowledge work aimed at delivering results. There are many years of different fundamental assumptions about "how we work" to remake, revise or adapt, and IMO we're only somewhere in the first or second inning of a multi-inning game.

By: Josh Davids

Josh Davids — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:17:12 +0000

it is always a two way interaction with tools shaping how businesses work and business needs shaping tools. like it or not, 2.0 style tools have crept into companies. and with this fact upon as, as you said, we need to develop models and conceptual frameworks to best harness this reality.

By: Victoria

Victoria — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:32:48 +0000

What a great article! I'll be sure to re-post in our blog http://www.sustainabilitythebook.com/a, where we're discussing ideas on sustainable practices and enterprise 2.0.

Thanks!

By: RTodd

RTodd — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:26:49 +0000

Great Post and spot on, Jevon. I liken Enterprise 2.0 to a baseball game. We have built a team of talent (Tools) and perhaps we know which positions (features) they will best perform in during a game (implementation). We have even defined how to celebrate the success of winning but we have no idea how to play the game, what strategies to deploy, or how to build a long term winning program. Yes, it’s still early in the game but progress is too slow.

By: Lowell Soffer

Lowell Soffer — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:34:13 +0000

Web or Enterprise 2.0 – doesn't matter – they all need a business case. Long term, qualitative strategic buseinss cases sound great until you ask for the money. I believe it is really a change management issue and since the decsion makers are not the users/evangelists of Emerging Technologies more questions get asked.

The good news is that these tools are not big ticket items like ERP. So what was the business case for instant messaging? What is the valiue of getting quick answers to short questions? Five years ago – it was about showing savings in telco and email cost – today it is ubiquitous. Soon it will be the same for Enterprise 2.0 But for now – the finance follks are going to ask for ROI, especially in these tough economic times