by Paula Thornton
August 31, 2009 at 3:35 pm · Filed under
Enterprise 2.0
A recent post titled “Enterprise 2.0: What a Crock“, by Dennis Howlett, initiated a flurry of responses-as-posts.
I’m enjoying all of the perspectives. In the interest of timeliness, I’m including a quote or two. I’ll leave the rest to you.
From @gyehuda “Denial is a River Full of Crocks”
“Dennis is correct. If your E2.0 guru is describing coattails, then reject it. I don’t believe in false idols either. [But] Enterprise 2.0 does not prescribe that all organization must transform themselves into social guilds.”
From @niallcook “Is Enterprise 2.0 a Crock?”
“Yes, Enterprise 2.0 is a label. So was Groupware. Remember that? New things will always be given labels by the people trying to educate the market. Get over it.
So is Enterprise 2.0 trying to solve a problem? No. Because it’s just a label. Is it a thing you can go and buy? No. Because it’s just a label. Is it going to change the world? No. Because… you get the idea.”
From @shel “The Real-World Work of Enterprise 2.0”
“While Howlett rails that most people ‘just want to get things done with whatever the best tech they can get their hands on,’ P&G saw the potential for social tools to allow ‘users to create value beyond their usual circles.’”
From @oscarberg “Enterprise 2.0 is a Process not a Solution”
I haven’t yet worked out a position about ‘process’. Right now, I’m not in agreement in the use of the term, but I still have to figure out why I used to think it was relevant and now not.
“You might agree or disagree on this point, but nevertheless I think it is safe to say that Enterprise 2.0 since long has got a life of its own, independent of the person who originally coined it. It is up to us together to fill it with purpose.”
From @mikelafleur: “The Problem Enterprise 2.0 is Trying to Solve”
“If the sole purpose of Enterprise 2.0 was to enable social networking in the business environment, then it would be difficult to come up with a compelling reason to implement it in the current economic environment. But this is a simplistic view of Enterprise 2.0. Enterprise 2.0 is far more than creating communities; while the definition is still evolving, at its root Enterprise 2.0 conceptual and technological framework which provides agile and adaptable collaboration and information sharing combined with integration of enterprise data, presented to the user in one interface.”
From @chieftech “The Nonsense of Enterprise 2.0”
“Similarly there is a lot of truth to Howlett’s call for Enterprise 2.0 to step up and come clean, but on the other hand I think he is mistaken in thinking that Enterprise 2.0 is a solution looking for a problem.
[The] most important feature of Enterprise 2.0 that many people still don’t get is the concept of emergence. Emergence isn’t about creating social chaos inside organisations. Instead its about taking an abundance approach to IT using Web 2.0 technology that allow users to create their own solutions with few constraints or penalties for wastage. And this is why Howlett gets it all wrong. As faddish as it sounds, Enterprise 2.0 isn’t a solution – it actually describes an IT paradigm shift.”
The latter sounds a lot like my position in a recent ZDNet guest post “Debunking Enterprise 2.0 Failure”
“Enterprise 2.0’s true potential is to facilitate a paradigm shift that fundamentally changes operating models and leverages the existing reality of work.”
by Bill Ives
August 27, 2009 at 4:48 pm · Filed under
Event Announcements
I saw an interesting study reported in the Communications Strategist blog on the uses of social media by management. In July 2009, Russell Herder and Ethos Business Law undertook a research study to look at how business leaders view social media and its role in their organizations – see Social Media: Embracing the Opportunities, Averting the Risk. They found three main fears: concern over how use of social media while on the clock might diminish productivity, how it might increases an IT infrastructure’s odds of being hit with computer viruses, and how a corporate reputation could be damaged based on what employees post to their personal online accounts.
Apparently with these fears in mind the following reasons that management uses social media were reported. The top reason is to read what customer might be saying about the company (52%). Next was to monitor a competitor’s use of social media (47%). Third was to see what their employees may be sharing, The fourth reason was to check on the background of prospective employees (25%). Thee reasons seems to bring in the vast majority of management into the social media space as only 16% said they use social media for personal use or not at all.
However, as the Communications Strategist noted, these were mostly defensive uses. For example, what about engaging in conversation with employees, customers, and the market in general. They also seem to display a lurker mentality. You really need to more fully engage to understand how social media might help the enterprise. The study also points out the many studies that show a rise in the use of social media should look closely at the reasons the various social media are being used.
by Paula Thornton
August 27, 2009 at 12:32 pm · Filed under
Clayton Christenson, Emergent, Enterprise 2.0
Andrew McAfee released a post today about challenges to his definition of Enterprise 2.0. In it, he made the statement featured in the title here. Because I’ve often stood by the statement that “it’s not about the technology”, I felt it reasonable to share here some clarifications to such a position, as was detailed in my response to Andy on his blog.
Andy: I agree that it’s ‘not not’ about technology. And as I always like to point out, we’d all be a lot better off if we understood and embraced the non-digital aspects of technology, especially as noted by Clayton Christensen “the processes by which an organization transforms labor, capital, materials, and information into products and services of greater value”. But we don’t.
Due to the imperfections in language as a representation, we have to deal with common interpretations. The message “it’s not about the technology” does not infer that the technology is not necessary — it suggests that it’s not sufficient. In a reality where so many see and buy technologies as ‘finished products’, this mindset has to be overcome with a strong perspective. The common belief has to be challenged to start the conversation in earnest.
Yes, the digital technologies hold great potential. But they are ‘lost’ without the balance of all the components that make a sound technology, by Christensen’s definition. Because so few hold this understanding, anyone who is championing core principles must also champion the details of the broader definition of technology, else the story is only partially true. You speak of technology and then you specifically mention software. While software is a technology, not all technology is software. Even if we were to embrace, as you suggest, the technological aspects of Enterprise 2.0, software itself is a small part of it.
“A definition is not a discussion”. I would guess you’re suggesting that a definition is a placeholder, around which discussion can ensue (I believe the ‘contrarians’ are suggesting they’re not seeing a venue for such discussion). The essence of all things 2.0 is the recognition that ‘facts’ are contextual. The purpose of the flexibility that is borne of 2.0 is to accommodate growth and ever-changing conditions that are the reality of business.
Ever-changing has always been part of the business landscape, the difference now is the rate of change — which is forcing us to move away from the side of the Design Thinking continuum where lives “binary code” and “algorithms”, more toward “heuristics” and “mystery”. While there will be conditions for which all will be relevant, the focus has to be more in the tradeoffs between the heuristic and the algorithm. We are constantly learning and seeing things from different perspectives. A definition that is ‘locked down’ would be an embracing of ‘binary code’. That’s just not part of a 2.0 reality which embraces the need to facilitate the dynamic middle — providing the ability to harness the crest of the wave, capitalizing on kinetic energy (energy in motion) and order for free…the birthplace of emergence.
We offer gratitude and respect for your trailblazing this category. As well I offer as evidence other trailblazers: John Zachman originally only had 3 categories in his now 6 category Enterprise Architecture Framework (the other three came from the ‘masses’); Bill Inmon did not embrace data marts as part of data warehousing. Both evolved.
I look forward to the continued growth in our collective understanding of this topic as we seek to leverage its potential and improve the means by which we work together.
by Rob Paterson
August 26, 2009 at 7:19 am · Filed under
Social Media
So where is your social media plan?
“We (Forrester) just published our third annual Social Technographics Profile in a document called “The Broad Reach of Social Technologies” . The author is Sean Corcoran, with help from out data expert Cynthia Pflaum. The data across North America, Europe, and Asia will be available later today.is now available.
Starting with the book “Groundswell” and continuing now for three years running, we’ve analyzed consumers’ participation in social technologies around the world with a tool called the “Social Technographics Profile.” The profile puts online people into overlapping groups based on their participation (at least once a month) in the behaviors shown in the ladder. We’ve kept the ladder categories consistent to allow us to make comparisons year-to-year, across ages and genders, and across geographies. This provides something that’s often sorely lacking in analysis of online social phenomena: perspective.
The headline: in 2009, more than four out of five online Americans are active in either creating, participating in, or reading some form of social content at least once a month.”
The rest of the post is here
by Rob Paterson
August 26, 2009 at 6:03 am · Filed under
Politics, Politics 2.0, Twitter
Micah Sifry and Eric Kuhn weigh in with the point here in two contrasting pieces on the “Right” and Twitter that the Right are making good use of Twitter to build a platform of support.
One thing is clear from both articles is that using Twitter well will be an essential part of politics in the future.
Unlike other political web tools, like email lists, websites and video channels, Twitter is completely instantaneous and multidirectional. A fact or an idea can start almost anywhere on Twitter and spread without centralized control. To be sure, if you’re trying to start and spread a meme using the platform, it doesn’t hurt to have a network of well-connected friends–but the most popular memes seem to spread mainly because they’re fresh AND of inherent interest to users. (Sifry)
Lewis added, “The ability to effectively utilize the Internet in the political realm works very well for the have-nots. It does not work so well for the establishment.”
To that end, Republicans are working overtime to establish a beachhead, online.
“Twitter is the best example of the most modern technology and how folks are organizing,” David All, a GOP new media consultant who has helped galvanize the party on Twitter, told CNN. He points to the success of hashtags – a popular way to keep track of a conversation – on Twitter. “#TCOT” (top conservatives on Twitter) has seen much more success on Twitter than “#P2 (progressives 2.0). See stats from Hashtag.org here: TCOT vs P2.
Cooper is quick to defend progressives: “Conservatives are always good at pushing that one concise message. The death panels are easy to tweet. The explanation for why there are no death panels and making that explanation takes much more explanation. You can’t do that on Twitter.” (Kuhn)
Thanks to Jay Rosen for setting this up.
