I reviewed and added to James Delow’s thoughts in my post
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2008/11/14/are-you-really-doing-enterprise-20/

So far I don’t think you necessarily need the right culture to do social computing..social computing is merely a coping mechanism.

But will this coping use build enough weight that it starts to show signs of disintermediating some tasks usually sourced/done/claimed by management. When they OKed the use of these tools did they imagine that they may be bypassed for certain things.

Now you can bypass your boss and make his contacts yours as well (you’d never do this in email…but the nature of social networks has welcomed interaction/connection inherent in it’s design)

Now you can be connected without having to be at a certain level of hierarchy, I think the use of the way social networks are designed will, to a certain extent, flatten an organisation (the us and them is lessened a bit).

But will design and it’s use be enough of a trampoline (as Sameer patel says), or as Lars mentions will it just merely be a mirror for your current culture.

I agree with Sameer that enterprise 2.0 is a state of being, and with Lars that the organisation as a living system is more towards enterprise 2.0. A hybrid approach where it’s still run by a hierarchy but ideas and work are crowdsourced, where people can self-organise into groups, where self-organising interactions can be fed back into strategy, and where people find what they need (social productivity), an engaged org (where your reputation is a new driver besides just money), break down the walls (transparency) to both a team and a role-based org.
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/04/24/we-are-more-than-our-job-title-describes-so-lets-get-social/

Enterprise-wide social networks will get us closer to enterprise 2.0, these tools have a design that when used have an inherent incentive and motiviation to share and be transparent. But we need more than just bottom-up, this also needs to be done top-down…somehow the organisation has to be set up to be interdependent. We have to create an environment where if you don’t share you won’t be able to be as productive, and I’m not just talking about being part of performance review.

I’m talking about a family environment, where you depend on each other to get your pay cheque, rather than a competitive model of you get more for your output (therefore hoarding is good).

I think we can achieve the family environment of interdependency in our teams, but what about across teams?
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2008/05/12/is-knowledge-hoarding-all-about-your-pay-cheque

I totally agree here. enterprise. I made a similiar observation in a post about technology fixes not bringing transformation from Enterprise 1.0 to Enterprise 2.0 – http://www.enterpriseagility.dk/?p=34

Just installing E2.0 tools into an enterprise will not bring transformation. It will at best yield incremental improvements. If wetruly want to transform the enterprise, we will have to work on many different levels. Most importantly, we will (in time) have to change the way we think about managing enterprises and how work is to be done.

“I do know one thing: we’re not going back.”

I really hope that you are right. I am not my-self sure of this.

Re: “It seems to me that there is an issue greater than adoption at play here: hesitation to recognize the breadth and depth of adaptation that needs to occur across the entire enterprise and every aspect of the business model.”

That’s exactly where it needs to start, not end up. That’s the kinds of discussions smart business executives will happily partake in, and it’s, thankfully, what’s been central to my work. If we can’t take on this heightened dimension (or as you say, hesitate to do so) and show a clear path to business execution, E2.0 will sadly remain in the weeds (check Google Trends for Enterprise 2.0).

Thanks again.