Both Andrew McAfee and Dion Hinchcliffe have publicly stated that they are seeking examples of serious productivity issues resulting from Web 2.0 deployments. So far, Dion reports, “no one has come forward with a significant story around productivity loss, or misuse of these tools in the enterprise. “We have been unable to hear even one. So far, the evidence is looking favorable.”

Dion had recently joined Beth Gold-Bernstein, my colleague from ebizQ, who hosted a fascinating online panel discussion on the growing convergence between SOA and Web 2.0. Beth and Dion were joined by ZapThink’s Ron Schmelzer, and Doug Wilson, CTO of portals and collaboration products at IBM.

For those managers who fear the ramifications of productivity loss as a result of unleashing Web 2.0 into their enterprises, think back to the first Macs and Windows-based PCs 20 years ago, said Doug Wilson. “When we introduced GUIs 20 years ago, there was the same question. Weren’t we going to waste a lot of time, people moving the mouse around?”

Of course, PCs and Macs had a very different kind of an impact on productivity.

An even more delicious example is employee orientation at a candy factory, Doug added:

“Candy makers indoctrinate people by telling them to eat as much candy as they want off the line for the first day, or anytime else for that matter. After 20 minutes, people will have had their fill.”

Likewise, when a new technology or technique is introduced, it’s only natural for people to try and learn and teach themselves. That’s how human beings learn — they experiment and play.”

Dion also provided this example of how Web 2.0 sweeps through the enterprise:

“AOL rolled out…a very heavyweight content management platform. But users gravitated to a new media wiki platform, the same platform that powers Wikipedia. Within a couple of months, because the tool was so much easier to use, and had been proven on a very large scale, with all the adoption kinks worked out of it in that very large laboratory called the Web… it was successful to the point where 95% of their content management now occurs in those platforms.”

This is a fairly common story, Dion added — analogous to the way the PC came into the back door of organizations 20 years ago.

Rob Paterson just posted this account of a Yahoo employee who was Twittering his way out the door after being laid off. What better way to communicate your situation — and availability for new opportunities — to the world? Truly astounding, and an incredible , empowering resource. That dude probably won’t be spending too much time on the unemployment rolls.

Forrester’s Josh Bernoff has weighed in with some of his thoughts on how Web 2.0 would prevail through a down economy. “Things are different this time,” he opines. For example, we won’t a repeat of the devastation of the 2001 recession, because this is “not a tech bubble” as it was in 2000-2001. “Technology spending is not irrational,” he points out. Agreed.

Josh adds that social networking platforms will flourish in a down economy, however. While advertising may get cut, marketers will see greater value in blogs and social networks. And the best part is that social applications “can be nearly free (think blogs, Ning.com, facebook pages) and even more sophisticated communities are typically $30K to $200K — a lot cheaper than a significant sized ad campaign.” Plus, being all digital and all, social network-based responses are extremely measurable.

So the social networking platforms will do just fine in the event the economy were to go south for a while — and in fact, may even receive a boost from companies seeking inexpensive channels to their customers. And, as I mentioned previously, end users will have that power in their hands as well.

Here is Kilkullen on how the “Donut” works in the Terror context:

I find it fascinating when I find that someone I don’t know has seen the same as I.

One of the cleverest people I know is John Robb. Here is a nugget from him that clarifies this point:

Here’s three simple insights for organizational success in a chaotic, complex, and hyper-competitive environment (and a way to use the wisdom of crowds to unearth talent that you need to thrive):

• The best people (to solve any given problem) don’t work for your organization. A corollary to this: if you don’t have the best people working for you, you will fail.
• Use transparency and the marketplace to find the best people located outside your organization (simple test: whose ideas capture the greatest mindshare within your organization?). NY City’s contest is a great example of using transparency as a means of finding great talent.
• Buy all of the time they have available.

NOTE (on when being good isn’t enough): Another trend is that an increasing number of problems are information/knowledge intensive. This means that an old rule from the software world applies: a couple of great programmers are more valuable than a room full of good ones. Apply this rule to any complex information-intense problem you face and you will get much faster, cheaper, and better results.

None of us have the best people for any of the myriad issues that confront our organizations. But the best people do exist. Why not use the “Donut” to bring them in to help you?

Here is a clip from Chorus line showing the process – note that really experienced dancers are struggling. Imagine if on the night the music changed?

Here is a clip from UFIT – see how the group transition from one move to another. The class lasts for an hour and nothing is choreographed and most of the class are just regular folks.

I think that this shows me the essential difference between an energetic organization and a machine organization.

With social media you too can dance

As I have been attending my client UFIT’s classes recently I have had a “Donut” moment. All at once the theory leapt into reality.

The picture above gives you a rough idea of the set up. As a newbie, I hang out trying not to be seen on the periphery. Gord is in the centre. Seen from this angle it would appear that we all follow him. But in practice this is not possible.

In practice, you have to follow the folks in the inner ring. These folks tend to be not only very experienced but are amplifying what Gord does. Note the guy in the red shirt – he is in the centre but is not connected. he is in effect working against the energy.

We have just noticed that while the instructor has to be energetically powerful, she or he is not very effective unless they have attracted this inner circle to themselves. We see this with new instructors – who have all the moves etc but not disciples. When Julie came as a guest to Charlottetown from her home base in Summerside, she brought her inner circle that has even named itself – Team Sweaty!.

Julie is a great instructor but having her Crew with her lifted the entire experience. It appears that the inner circle interact with each other and with the point in the centre. They create a “Sun” that attracts the outer rings with their “light”, energy and gravity.

So what does this mean?

I think that it means that we can now see how to operate the new organizational model. The new model is not a mechanical model that has friction and demands effort. It does not have to control every move and component. It is “Energetic”. If the centre and the inner circle are dense enough and in tune enough – the resulting energy will fill the system. My bet is that such an insight is behind the new reality of the 1% Rule for Networks such as for Wikipedia.

If we are correct – all of the current organizational theory can be thrown out the window. The current theory is like the old Ptolemaic (put the Earth in the centre) system. It was OK for a less complex world. But once people traveled around the globe – it became too complex. (They had to use very complex math to make it work giving the planets little orbits called epicycles) Our current organizational theory is based on a fallacy as was the Ptolemaic system – human organizations are not mechanical or kinetic – they are energetic. We all “Know” that really. Think of the days when the boss in at the office or away – think about the difference in “feel”. To make a mechanical system work, you have to have a non complex environment. A mass market ideal can be seen as being essentially “simple”.

But in a complex reality – as our interconnected world is today – a simple mechanical model can only work by making the processes over complex. Imagine trying to choreograph a UFIT class? The only way a UFIT class can work is an an organism that is connected energetically.

People moan on all the time about how hard change is. That is because in a machine model change is hard – it demands that parts are broken or that too much effort is put in choreography. But in a UFIT class, or in an organization that is set up energetically, change is fun, is easy and is natural.

So what then is the new work of the leaders in the energetic model?

• The person in the centre has to listen to the music and feel the energy of the system – they have to not only have the moves but be in tune with the group
• The person in the centre has to have their own Team Sweaty or inner circle. This group also have to be able to know the moves and to listen well.
• The larger and the more connected Team Sweaty is – the more powerful the energy is to attract the system
• So the organization is simplified as the Copernican Revolution simplified the universe. All the leader has to do is to hold the key ideas and attract and nurture the inner circle – the resulting energy will drive the system. No more attempting to choreograph and drill every part. Most of the effort, friction and labor goes away. With it most of the cost and the anguish.

The old model is like this steam engine. It’s big, noisy, hot and very very inefficient. It has to run on tracks on a schedule. There is little flexibility. The smallest mistake in scheduling can lead to a big crash. Without constant reinvestment of outside resources it cannot grow.

The new system is like this. It follows the 14 billion year old design that nature uses. It is so much more powerful than any machine. It is is a life creating system. It has a timetable measured in millenia.

So my friends the choice is clear and it is yours.

Do you want to run a railway or a solar system?