As the User Revolution rages on, its impact is being felt not only by newly empowered users but by businesses struggling to respond. We see Enterprise Search as a key technology in harnessing the power of the User Revolution through rich, new user experiences that drive online business and enterprise productivity.

FASTforward’09 will explore how leading-edge companies use search and related technologies to engage people in interactive experiences and connect them to information. The event provides a much-needed forum to discuss best practices for developing and implementing search solutions that allow people to create content, consume information, and collaborate with each other in innovative new ways. We’ll kick off the conference with a discussion of the latest Web 2.0 trends and then spend two days talking about what it all means for you and your business. A strong line-up of guest speakers, Microsoft executives, and customer presentations will make this a event you won’t want to miss.

Commenting on her experience at the conference last year, Krista Thomas—VP of Marketing and Communications at Thomson Reuters—had this to say: “FASTforward is the best ‘user-conference’ I have ever experienced. Given the quality of the speakers and content and the thought-leadership of your executives and clients, the event amounts to a meeting of the best minds in search and content technologies.”

Speakers for FASTforward’09 include:

• Charlene Li - Independent Analyst on Emerging Technologies, co-author of Groundswell. “Groundswell provides practical advice on how to stay nimble and flexible in an ever-morphing digital world. Enabling your company to respond to change quickly especially when talking to and supporting your consumers is essential for business success.” - Cathie Black, President, Hearst Magazines
• Clay Shirky - Author, Consultant, Professor. His new book, Here Comes Everybody, explores the effects of open networks, collaboration, and user-created and disseminated content on organizations and industries. “In story after story, Clay masterfully makes the connections as to why business, society and our lives continue to be transformed by a world of net-enabled social tools. His pattern-matching skills are second to none.” - Ray Ozzie, Microsoft Chief Software Architect
• Don Tapscott - Internationally renowned authority on the strategic value and impact of information technol­ogy and chairman of nGenera Innovation Network. “Don Tapscott provides an exciting roadmap to surviving and thriving in the Connected Era.” - Michael S. Dell, Chairman And CEO, Dell

Discover for yourself why FASTforward has become the largest global business and technology conference dedicated to search-driven innovation! Visit the FASTforward’09 event site for more details and to register – and register by January 9th and save $400.

Enterprise software spending has recently crashed. Companies such as SAP, headquartered in Waldorf Germany, have recently issued earnings warnings, which illustrate how dramatically enterprise application spending has dipped in just a few weeks. These organizations can no doubt weather this storm, but with this shift, opportunity is found.

As traditional enterprise vendors suffer, a panacea for investors and customers is emerging with the nascent enterprise social software industry. Until now, Enterprise 2.0 has sat on the sidelines of the enterprise software industry, seen perhaps as less focused and more predisposed to conversation than action.

Enterprise 2.0 consultant and speaker Thomas Vander Wal may be a typical example of the ethos that has emerged from this industry within an industry. “My clients always see my value as providing strong benefit of getting the most value out of social tools,” of his work implementing and designing Enterprise 2.0 tools, “The interconnections and interactions between people spark great value, but the more costly traditional tools have missed out on this great reservoir of of value, but the newer lower cost solutions offer these gems up wonderfully with a little coaxing.”

The concept that more traditional enterprise applications miss out on these network effects, the value added by having many people using a single tool or platform, is not new. The emergence of Saas, software which is not installed on a computer but is instead delivered via the Internet, has recently generated more interest in leveraging these effects as an advantage to businesses.

“The promise of bringing social tools into organizations has never been about complicating worker productivity.  It centers on allowing individuals to act more independently and to make smarter decisions more easily.” said Susan Scrupski, an ‘Enterprise 2.0 Evangelist’ with nGenera, an Austin-based Enterprise 2.0 developer and consulting company, “The end result really is in reducing the costs of creating and delivering products and services.”

Social Software is software which “allows users to interact and share data.” according to Wikipedia. These principals, applied to everything from mundane business processes to change management have been slowly making inroads in recent years.

In many cases, enthusiasm for this technology has outpaced reliable case studies and visible progress, but that progress has become more remarkable in 2008, with several large infusions of capital in to budding Enterprise 2.0 startups such as $15million that Sequoia Capital recently invested in Portland based Jive Software, and $20million from Intel Capital which was invested in Telligent, a Dallas, Texas, company.

So too have new stories emerged, like that of National Public Radio, a network of over 800 stations in the United States. “It’s no secret that employee anxiety within organizations will increase as markets fall, giving organizations embracing Enterprise 2.0 tools opportunities to build trust and transparency across all levels of a company.“, says Tim Eby, a board member of National Public Radio and the manager of NPR station WOSU in Columbus, Ohio. “The effective use of wikis, internal blogging that invite comments, Twitter, and social bookmarking tools like del.icio.us bring a flow of needed ideas and innovation at a time when all organizations are seeking to improve efficiencies, customer relations, and loyalty. There’s no better time than an economic downturn to consider embracing these tools within an organization.”

Enterprise 2.0 may not yet have fulfilled its biggest promise, the democratization of the enterprise, but as successes mount, those who may have ignored its rise will begin to take notice. In a time of uncertainty such as we have seen in the past several months, new and promising technologies may prove to be the safest harbour for those who must continue to deliver growth.

That was the case with me as well. Call me a wannabe “Technomadic.” From Chicago (where I was a panelist for a session at The Open Group Enterprise Architecture conference — details here), on northward to the wilderness of Upper Peninsula Michigan, Mackinac Island (pictured here), Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, and, later in the summer, to the Green Mountain Inn in Vermont, I posted blogs, collaborated with colleagues, published research, and worked on applications, quite seamlessly, without anyone knowing where I was on any given day.

The Green Mountain Inn’s claim to fame is that Lowell Thomas, the famed broadcaster, would conduct his shows from the inn during ski season. In other words, Lowell wanted to get away on ski vacations without leaving work, so he brought his work with him. Now with wireless access and broadband, every average Joe can broadcast from the inn.

Some might say it’s a little obsessive to want to always stay connected; but I am my own boss, and therefore do not receive vacation pay. So I prefer to stay in touch with the world. But by spending a couple of hours a day online at a minimum, work flowed and clients were kept happy (I hope) and I still had a refreshing amount of downtime.

Technomadic is a term coined by Steve Roberts, who many years ago, set off on a cross-country trek on a bicycle outfitted with a satellite uplink, the latest communications technology and microprocessors of the time. Now, anyone can compute and collaborate, anywhere, anytime. The Web has made sense of place irrelevant to modern-day work.

If your organization is all about control and top down - it is unlikely that having a Wordpress site will take you to the new world of networks. To make a 2.0 world work for those you serve means that you have to have such a world working inside your organization.

So what do you do to get this? It is clear to me that we have made this shift at KETC in St Louis.

The context of this story is a project that KETC is working on to find ways of activating the community in St Louis to help reduce the pain of the mortgage crisis.

In so doing we are testing the big idea that Public Media can do more than bring Jane Austen to your TV screen. The CPB is testing this idea in St Louis and if we have enough progress - will expand the test to many other cities and stations.

So an important task that we have to fulfill will be to help the system replicate what we have done.

The easy part of this task will be the “Whats”. The Content we created, what we did on air, on the web, in meetings with the community etc. But I don’t think that only talking of the “what” will be very helpful. I think that it will be the “how” that is the real secret. The “how” will be about the new culture - the new set of work and social norms that are behind becoming a convener.

We surely have to become a Convener inside the station before we can have much a of a chance of being the Trusted Convener outside. That is the really hard work. I know that KETC has pulled this off. But how can I tell you about the how. How do you tell another about a new way of being?

This weekend while watching the Olympics I had an aha about the “How” that I would like to try here with you.

Here is a picture of the Canadian men’s 8 at the Olympics yesterday.

When all the 8 in the boat and the cox are aligned - something magic happens. All the effort is applied to the work. When this happens, you feel it. It is almost a spiritual feeling. It’s a form of magic. The boat just flies. You dissolve into a field that is the boat, the 8 and the cox. You are ONE. All friction and resistance is gone.

With a big race and your reputation on the line - the pressure to get aligned is huge - you can feel if one person is not there with you.

This is what it feels like in our KETC project meetings now. It feels like the boat is flying - it feels so good to be with the other members of the boat.

The pressure is there. As the guinea pig for Public Media we feel the eyes of thousands upon us. Upping the pressure to perform seems to help with transformation. Like heat applied to water creates steam or heat applied to iron with other things creates steel.

So creating pressure about results, time and scale is a first step. You don’t go gradually into this - you have to go full tilt.

We had no time. the project is only 3 months long. So there was no time to be incompetent. In the early days we had to re-arrange the boat a bit to get the team that could do the work and do it with the others. We could not tolerate anyone in the boat who could not pull their weight. We acted immediately when it was clear that the mission was being threatened. This is not the pub media way but it is the real community way. Real communities see everything and expect a lot. Real communities are not soft.

But after this initial shift - we know we have the right team. With the right team we build energy and confidence over time. There is a trust and a confidence in each other that has been developed by publicly and transparently experiencing the abilities of the others.

To get this transparency - we have a process that is built around all involved making public commitments.

It has developed by a simple part of the Project Management process - the day starts with asking each other for help. Every day we meet for 30 minutes to talk about what is going on and all the cards are face up on the table. We have learned to be explicit. Not rude but very clear. A very different norm from the past or most organizations. Accountability is fully visible.

This does not seem like the typical meeting that many of us have. It is very operational - what has to get done today and this week. But it is also very social. As trust has built there is also a lot of laughter and banter. The walls of the silos are coming down. We are finding that people who we did not know or trust much can be very helpful and that they can work miracles. Especially when the chips are down.

We have set major milestones and we have surpassed them all. Everyone has been tested in public. By being open - by being demanding in public - we are closer. Nothing is not unsaid anymore. You don’t have to whinge in the washroom. This is more than transparency - this is “clarity”.

So how does this happen? Well we are set up as I now see like an 8. The engine room is of course the department heads - they do the rowing. But it is the project management structure and discipline that makes the 8 go so well. So let’s look at this because all can replicate this.

First of all we have “Cox”. Not the project sponsor, not the President but the Cox (The Project Manager). In an 8, it is the cox - usually a very small person (Our PM is new and is very young but is an old soul) - who not only steers but who encourages and who works with the crew to respond to threats and opportunities as they happen on the water in the race. He is always pulling us back to the task. He is always asking the awkward question - he is always asking for more clarity. He uses humor and self-deprecation to get his way. But behind him is the power of the coach and the President. He can always use disappointment as power - “Do we really have to go to Jack about this?” usually settles most issues without escalation.

So the PM/Cox not only sets the process tone but also shows us how to use power as a convener. He uses personal power and almost never has to escalate because all the conversations are in the open - bad behavior - is obvious to all - social pressure ensures good behavior.

There is no doubt in my mind that Project Management is a key skill in the operation of a high performing organization. What it does is it keeps focus - it forces accountability - it manages the white space between the silos - for this is where the cooperation is demanded. For a while it all feels forced for this is new. But after 9 weeks it is our new normal.

Of course what is really happening is that the PM is “Convening”. He is holding the kind of open and trusted space that enables groups to work well with each other. The central process at KETC has become Convening.

We are also seeing that the project never ends. There is always complex work that is measured by outcomes to do. That raises another issue. Outcomes and measurement: in the old norm, we were soft on both. Now everything that we do has to have an objective and hence has to have a measure. This again was awkward at first but now is a new normal.

Which brings us to the “Coach”. The Coach in an 8 is not the cox. The coach’s work is all about ensuring that the goals are set and the capability is ready. We have such a role being played at KETC - the project Sponsor.

There is a lot of discipline in the role. The coach is not one of the guys. The coach pushes all the time. the coach has expectations.The coach sees the needs of the whole race/project. She sees how this race/project connects to others. She sees the development needs and she has an eagle eye on personnel. If someone is not working out, she has to deal with this.

Part of her power comes from her appointment. She has been selected by the “Club President”. She can escalate and does over personnel and budget issues. But she settles organizational issues from her position. But not all her power is delegated from the President. She has her own power based on her own achievements. For the coach is also rooted in their own talent. She has deep skills in a key area - Community Engagement. She has a track record of her own in getting tough jobs done well.

Finally we have the club president. He is responsible for the financial envelope - which provides the boat etc. This is a separate role to that of the Coach or the Cox. But in most organizations this person does all of this.

This is what I mean by Top Down organizations being political. They tend to be like medieval courts, where factions compete for influence and power. All the work happens in the corridors or in secret. Little is really visible. All in the end is decided by the King.

What is happening at KETC is that all the key work is now taking place in a process that is fully transparent. The President can look at the boat in the water and see all the workings. Accountability is clear.

• Each rower has his or her part and they have to be visibly working with the rest of the 8.
• The cox’s ability to get the boat running optimally in each race is clear to all - especially in the boat itself.
• The results of the boat belong to the coach - her role is clear.
• The resources for the club are the President’s role - and he is delivering and he also sets the tone.

The President in our case, asked the team for it all. He wants Gold in an Olympic setting and he asks for nothing less. In asking for all, he is getting it.

So that’s my metaphor. If you run your organization like a rowing team, if you set up the key roles as you find in a rowing team, you can make the shift inside from 1.0 to 2.0.

The irony is that the 2.0 world is more disciplined than the 1.0 world. But as you can see much of the discipline happens because of visibility and clarity. It’s like being in a small town. What you say and what you do can never be a secret. So your word and your actions define you. In a small town you also have to help each other.

In the 1.0 world of the huge city - there is little social pressure. All is anonimity. So there have to be rules and policemen and gaming the system.

Installing the kind of Project Management Process that we are using at KETC gives you a good shot at making this shift.

The report packs a lot of food for thought into a small space. Much of the data will be head-nodding material for readers of this blog, but in several areas there are items that jump out. First, though, a quick overview.

This survey focuses on what Web 2.0 technologies are being adopted, on which areas of business they are deployed, on techniques to support adoption, and on the executives’ level of satisfaction with the results. Helpfully, the report provides consistent comparisons to McKinsey’s last report on this topic, the April, 2007 How Businesses are Using Web 2.0. The report is also helpful once again in identifying differences in E20 patterns among regions (e.g. executives in India and Asia-Pac are more than twice as likely as Europeans to cite blogs as a tool of real importance to their companies).

The McKinsey authors focus their commentary on several core messages.

1) There are more executives now reporting dissatisfaction with their E20 investments and programs (although Asia-Pac bucks the trend).

2) There is an emerging gap between some 20% of firms who are satisfied with their experiences, using the tools widely, and achieving positive results, and another 20% of firms going in the other direction – dissatisfied and reducing their use of the tools.

3) While internal uses of E20 like managing knowledge and promoting collaboration are marginally more common, externally-facing uses like improving customer service, acquiring customers, and integrating more effectively with suppliers and partners are almost equally popular.

4) Among the tools themselves, there is an increasing array of choices and some changes already in the popularity of individual tools. Wikis, for example, are much more popular than they were a year ago, while peer-to-peer networks have dropped by 50% or more.

[Click to Enlarge]

Turning to the items that jump out I’ll focus on the tools area. One major datapoint is the ascendancy of social networking to the top of the E20 tool list, roughly at the same level of importance as blogs in most regions. (While McKinsey includes “Web Services” as an E20 tool, and it is by far the most important to the surveyed executives, I’m ignoring it here as an apple among oranges.) I suspect that this sudden jump in importance for enterprise social networking is more anticipation than reality, more Facebook fallout than widespread internal deployment. But it’s a first great example of how the public web experience is driving expectations for the enterprise.

The next datapoint of note is the sudden appearance of video sharing as a Web 2.0 tool already surpassing podcasts and closing in on wikis in level of importance. This is clearly a second great example of how public web experiences, in this case YouTube, drive practice in the enterprise.

Another surprise is the low level of importance the executives assigned to rating as a tool. In this case, a technique widely used on many different kinds of public web sites (from Amazon to TripAdvisor to eBay) appears to be falling below the radar for the enterprise.

In one of the bigger “ouches” for fans of socially-generated knowledge, tagging appears to be another casualty in the McKinsey research. Tagging rates even lower than rating in the tool catalog. It would appear from this data that anything that asks the user to thoughtfully execute one more click, or type one more word in an adjacent box is not acceptable in the view of this executive audience. Or perhaps a larger issue is that both rating and tagging require some degree of strategy and an ongoing “harvesting” program in order to capitalize on their enterprise value. The executives’ lack of enthusiasm may be a reflection of their understanding that they are not invested in providing that kind of strategy and oversight at this time.

[Click to Enlarge]

We’ve known all along that relatively small numbers of people are interested in tagging, but one of the best things about this tool is that even a small percentage of a knowledge workforce can produce major added value to a content collections of all kinds. You’d think that the easy knowledge ROI offered by tagging should get any exec’s attention.

Overall, the McKinsey survey provides another proof point that use of the E20 technologies is increasing. That it also shows lumpy adoption experience and shifts in tool use is something we should expect from an emerging set of practices. The fact that the data establish that the successful firms are increasingly successful and have been building up a set of best practices for adoption represents a real transformation over the past 12 months.

I’d like any of you who may be interested to help me, and perhaps help advance the general state of awareness and understanding of the type and scope of impacts the developments of the last several years have brought to the knowledge workplace.

A couple of months ago on this blog there was an interesting discussion unfold around an exploration of KM’s past and Enterprise 2.0’s present and (possible) future titled Retrospective on KM and the Impact of Web 2.0. 

In one camp some commenters gathered around the possibility that the post neatly "outlined the nexus of Enterprise 2.0, Web 2.0, and KM 2.0."  In the other camp the position was taken that:

.

1. KM is not adaptive, Web 2.0 is.
2. KM supports collaboration. Collaboration is not social networking; 2.0 supports the latter.
3. KM wants to manage things; 2.0 wants to free things in loosely connected ways

.

It seems clear that web services and personal "knowledge management" tools are migrating from the consumer Web into the workplace.  That phenomenon, combined with RSS feeds, wikis, search capabilities that are pushing towards the confluence of intent, imagination and serendipity and the growing scope of interactivity all of us are learning from the constant presence of the Web, may be forcing the issue of fundamentally rethinking the established and still-accepted ways of structuring, organizing and managing knowledge work.  Then again, maybe not ?

I know my position … I have argued for quite a while that the fundamental principles of work design need to change from those underpinning the industrial age to principles that stem from network structures and dynamics and yet still respect relevant core assumptions about domains and bodies of knowledge.  But there are very many other perspectives, concepts and examples that can either rebut or amplify that position.

I’d really like to take a stab at advancing the general debate about the issues cited above, as I believe there is a real opportunity to 1) stimulate the widespread and rapid shedding of obsolete elements of Industrial Age work design, 2) create much wider understanding about the congruence between some of the fundamental concepts of traditional KM and some of the fundamental dynamics of enterprise social computing, and 3) help popularize and make simple and easy to understand why there are real opportunities now for enterprises to (insert cliché here) tap into the potential and collective wisdom of employees and customers whilst also offering (and benefiting from) enriched jobs and more flexible and responsive cultures.

So … what I’d like to do now to  is gather your input in the form of questions, assertions, opinions and links to references such as articles and essays that speak to the differences, similarities, complements and conflicts between the concepts of KM and the use of social computing in the workplace that has been labeled Enterprise 2.0.  With that input there’s a chance I may be able to synthesize the content (mine and yours) to present at KMWorld 2008 that helps to clarify what’s new and useful and what’s not.

That’s what the comments section below is for.  Let’s see if we can create a knowledgeable, practical and useful conversation.

I’d also like to bring your attention to a new book by British author Niall Cook (with foreword by Don Tapscott of Wikinomics fame) titled "Enterprise 2.0 - How Social Software Will Change The Future of Work". 

Evidently I or we are not the only ones who think there are large opportunities for both intelligent, common-sensical and incremental improvements to knowledge work and for radical innovation and fundamental change.

.

Powered by Qumana

.

Open Text strikes Web 2.0 deal with Ottawa
MATT HARTLEY

The Canadian government is getting a Web 2.0 upgrade.

Waterloo, Ont.-based business software maker Open Text Corp. [OTC-T] announced Tuesday it has landed a seven-year maintenance contract with the federal government to supply the tools that will “provide the foundation for the government’s 2.0 strategy.”

Open Text said the agreement will see its software used in all federal departments, agencies and crown corporations helping to create internal wikis, forums and blogs to help the government be more responsive to Canadians.

Open Text, which became Canada’s largest software company when International Business Machines Corp. purchased Ottawa-based Cognos Inc. last year, produces “enterprise content management software” that helps businesses to store, organize and analyze records and documents.

.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, I can’t help but think that this will be the knowledge-worker equivalent of acquiring and implementing a large ERP system which will require enormous amounts of training so that everyone uses the tools in the same way, so that they push and pull content to and from each other in the same ways. Will it become a new form of email for use internally ?

From what I have been able to understand about using social software to carry out social computing inside the firewall, this approach (or my interpretation of it) flies in the face of much of what we have learned about social computing.  I strongly suspect that different government departments of varying size and scope will carry out different kinds of knowledge work, and have different requirements for when and how to use collaboration to develop policy and deliver services.  However, I am sure that there will have been consultant studies and recommendations backing this decision.

I think it might be better to consider a 2.0 strategy that takes into consideration those different requirements and look at a range of possible solutions, with the intention of acquiring and implementing that which will work best.  After all, many of the 2.0 collaboration platforms can co-exist nicely with existing information technology architecture and what differentiates with respect to effectiveness is the take-up and use of the 2.0 capabilities by the end-user.

My sketchy opinion notwithstanding, it may be the case that such issues have been considered will be addressed with the Open Text solution.  Open Text has been a leader in the collaboration space for some time now, and my thinly-informed interpretation of a short newspaper article does not have the benefit of the details of the Canadian government’s 2.0 strategy.

But my knowledge of the structure and dynamics of the work of government departments (I have consulted to a number of them in the past) suggests to me that there will be many procedural binders and lots of day-long training sessions trying to help workers become familiar with the new tools and which categories to use for which piece of content, etc.

I believe that control is still a very important consideration, if not the primary factor, in the design of work in government departments.

It will be interesting to check in 3 or 4 years down the road and see how things are going.  Nothing would be more pleasing than to discover that my country’s government is reaping the benefits of using social computing inside its firewalls.

Powered by Qumana

In an important sense, it was useful to his theories that 1) they helped respond to the massive spread of the Industrial Era’s requirements for growth in the first half of the 20th century, and 2) World Wars I and II came along in the late 1910’s and in the late 1930’s to provide a massive need for manufacturing.

30+ years elapsed from the publication of Principles of Scientific Management in 1911 to the codification of those principles into work design methodologies in the 1940’s and early 1950’s.  He and his theories get a bad rap today, but it seems clear that they were highly useful to the process of creating wealth by improving manufacturing processes and capabilities.

It seems banal to say that those theories are less effective today, but I am not sure that’s the case.  There have been no comprehensive theories and principles come along (yet) to replace them, notwithstanding a plethora of management books published since the mid-1980’s promising enhance organizational effectiveness … more often than not by combining Taylorist principles with developmental workarounds and adaptations.

The recent emergence of the field called Enterprise 2.0, and clarion calls for management innovation that have followed (see Gary Hamel, Andrew McAfee, Tom Davenport, Don Tapscott, Dave Snowden and many, many others) promises much potential disruption.  It also portends significant struggle as the forces of buttoned-and-battened-down efficiency derived from a manufacturing-focused era vie with the forces arising from networked flows of information in an era where economic value is derived from the construction and application of knowledge to product and service design and delivery (manufacturing happens in China now).

Via Wikipedia:

.

Taylor published his Principles of Scientific Management in 1911, which elucidated four core principles:

1. Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.

2. Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively leaving them to train themselves.

3. Provide "Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker’s discrete task".

4. Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks

Management theory

Taylor thought that by analysing work, the "One Best Way" to do it would be found. He is most remembered for developing the time and motion study. He would break a job into its component parts and measure each to the hundredth of a minute.

[ Snip ... ]

He was generally unsuccessful in getting his concepts applied and was dismissed from Bethlehem Steel. It was largely through the efforts of his disciples (most notably H.L. Gantt) that industry came to implement his ideas.

Managers and workers

Taylor had very precise ideas about how to introduce his system:

"It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone." (Taylor, Principles of Scientific Management, cited by Montgomery 1989:229, italics with Taylor)

Workers were supposed to be incapable of understanding what they were doing. According to Taylor this was true even for rather simple tasks.

"’I can say, without the slightest hesitation,’ Taylor told a congressional committee, ‘that the science of handling pig-iron is so great that the man who is … physically able to handle pig-iron and is sufficiently phlegmatic and stupid to choose this for his occupation is rarely able to comprehend

[The scope of] Taylor’s Influence - United States

• Carl Barth helped Taylor to develop speed-and-feed-calculating slide rules to a previously unknown level of usefulness. Similar aids are still used in machine shops today. Barth became an early consultant on scientific management and later taught at Harvard.
• H. L. Gantt developed the Gantt chart, a visual aid for scheduling tasks and displaying the flow of work.
• Harrington Emerson introduced scientific management to the railroad industry, and proposed the dichotomy of staff versus line employees, with the former advising the latter.
• Morris Cooke adapted scientific management to educational and municipal organizations.
• Hugo Münsterberg created industrial psychology.
• Lillian Gilbreth introduced psychology to management studies.
• Frank Gilbreth (husband of Lillian) discovered scientific management while working in the construction industry, eventually developing motion studies independently of Taylor. These logically complemented Taylor’s time studies, as time and motion are two sides of the efficiency improvement coin. The two fields eventually became time and motion study.
• Harvard University, one of the first American universities to offer a graduate degree in business management in 1908, based its first-year curriculum on Taylor’s scientific management.
• Harlow S. Person, as dean of Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck School of Administration and Finance, promoted the teaching of scientific management.
• James O. McKinsey, professor of accounting at the University of Chicago and founder of the consulting firm bearing his name, advocated budgets as a means of assuring accountability and of measuring performance.

I’ve long appreciated the aphorism that is the title of this post, and I think of it regularly when surfing and reading the latest insight from the many pundits and critics of the Web.  And today I am thinking about "the future of work".

It’s my assertion that the changes social computing will bring to knowledge work and knowledge-based workplaces may be even greater than the generally immature experiments that have taken hold today as early adopters play with tools that allow them to connect, create, converse, convulse, coopt, and carry on about all manner of things … including work issues, challenges and opportunities.

David Weinberger is a well-known expert on knowledge management and the hyperlinked web / organization.  He has from time to time written about how the digital infrastructure and the dynamics it fosters "cuts the slack out of interactions" (The Need For Leeway, October 2002) .  We need "slack" to reflect, to think, to imagine, to support the filling in and filling up of the connections we have made between people, information, task and problems.  And we need analysis and measurement, specialized skills, budgets, accountability and best practices to optimize work and eliminate what is clearly unnecessary, not useful and / or wasteful.

But efficiency is not and will not be the hallmark of human interaction, and human sociology in the modern workplace cannot forever take its architectural design principles for Taylorism.  As we watch Enterprise 2.0 emerge, I watch what seem to be regular waves of dots (widgets, applications, platforms, services and people in equal measure) joining together, using the Web, to meld efficiency and slack … the "both / and" so often cited as characteristic of this new environment.  A flow of questions, responses and pertinent information soldered together to provide a design, or a service, is not the same as carrying out efficient repeatable supervisable step-by-step tasks the result of which are combined with other sets of efficient repeatable supervisable step-by-step tasks to produce repeatable products or services (You can have any Model T you want, as long as it is black).

There’s an enormous amount of resistance, both intellectual and cultural, to acknowledging that maybe work cannot be designed and structured based on the principles that have been in place for more than three-quarters of a century now.  A lot of that has to do with what "management" still means to us (especially the incumbents of managerial roles).  It’s hard to give up power and control, especially when you are charged with making stuff happen and the budgets and performance management and compensation bonus schemes reinforce that charge. So, while it appears that the Internet, and thus the difficult-if-not-impossible-to-control flows of information, are here to stay, it also seems that about every 6 months or so there’s another wave of "this newfangled hyperlink stuff, personal publishing, connecting social-this-and-that is now officially over and it hasn’t yet changed the world".

Generally, I agree but with reservations.  Those reservations are that "we tend to overestimate the impacts in the short term because we overlook all the details of how things are done and the tenacious stickiness of peoples’ habits, and tend to underestimate the impacts in the longer term because we overlook or ignore the scope and depth of accumulated change" (not verbatim).

Today I found this snippet from Clay Shirky’s now-well-known Web 2.0 Expo keynote.

In my opinion he puts none too fine a point on the fact that the Internet seems to be with us to stay, and that it’s impacts will continue to accumulate.  Tomorrow’s workers won’t understand meetings, collaboration, supervision or accountability in the same way we do … all because of gin and that damned mouse.

.

Gin, Television, and Social Surplus

… a British historian arguing that the critical technology, for the early phase of the industrial revolution, was gin.

The transformation from rural to urban life was so sudden, and so wrenching, that the only thing society could do to manage was to drink itself into a stupor for a generation. The stories from that era are amazing– there were gin pushcarts working their way through the streets of London.

And it wasn’t until society woke up from that collective bender that we actually started to get the institutional structures that we associate with the industrial revolution today. Things like public libraries and museums, increasingly broad education for children, elected leaders–a lot of things we like–didn’t happen until having all of those people together stopped seeming like a crisis and started seeming like an asset.

It wasn’t until people started thinking of this as a vast civic surplus, one they could design for rather than just dissipate, that we started to get what we think of now as an industrial society.

If I had to pick the critical technology for the 20th century, the bit of social lubricant without which the wheels would’ve come off the whole enterprise, I’d say it was the sitcom.

[ Snip ... ] 

I was having dinner with a group of friends about a month ago, and one of them was talking about sitting with his four-year-old daughter watching a DVD. And in the middle of the movie, apropos nothing, she jumps up off the couch and runs around behind the screen. That seems like a cute moment.

Maybe she’s going back there to see if Dora is really back there or whatever. But that wasn’t what she was doing. She started rooting around in the cables. And her dad said, “What you doing?”

And she stuck her head out from behind the screen and said, “Looking for the mouse.”

Here’s something four-year-olds know: A screen that ships without a mouse ships broken. Here’s something four-year-olds know: Media that’s targeted at you but doesn’t include you may not be worth sitting still for.

Those are things that make me believe that this is a one-way change.

Because four year olds, the people who are soaking most deeply in the current environment, who won’t have to go through the trauma that I have to go through of trying to unlearn a childhood spent watching Gilligan’s Island, they just assume that media includes consuming, producing and sharing.

[ Snip ... }

I think that’s going to be a big deal. Don’t you?

Well, the TV producer did not think this was going to be a big deal; she was not digging this line of thought. And her final question to me was essentially, "Isn’t this all just a fad?" You know, sort of the flagpole-sitting of the early early 21st century? It’s fun to go out and produce and share a little bit, but then people are going to eventually realize, "This isn’t as good as doing what I was doing before," and settle down.

And I made a spirited argument that no, this wasn’t the case, that this was in fact a big one-time shift, more analogous to the industrial revolution than to flagpole-sitting.

I was arguing that this isn’t the sort of thing society grows out of. It’s the sort of thing that society grows into.

But I’m not sure she believed me, in part because she didn’t want to believe me, but also in part because I didn’t have the right story yet. And now I do.

Powered by Qumana

The net of this is that the FAST team moves intact into a much-expanded Microsoft Enterprise Search Group (MESG, for those collecting new acronyms). We are particularly excited about the charter for this new group, which is to invest to be the industry leader developing the most innovative technologies for the widest range of customers and greatly expanding what has traditionally been viewed as the “search space.”

This direction is one that long-time analysts of the search space (myself included) have pointed to as the most likely development as search becomes more and more central to all of our online activities. We are still just at the beginning of the changes we see coming, which we see accelerating on the foundation of three core elements of the Microsoft search vision:

Search will be everywhere.
Search will enable unique user experiences.
Search will change the way people do business.

I wanted to share with FASTforward Blog readers what Kirk Koenigsbauer, Microsoft Sharepoint General Manager and the business executive behind the acquisition had to say today on Microsoft’s Enterprise Search blog. Kirk’s post:

FAST Tender Offer Complete!

Well, it has been a while since I last posted – but for good reason. Aside from our usual day-to-day efforts to deliver great enterprise search solutions for our customers, we’ve also been feverishly working on the acquisition of FAST Search & Transfer that we originally announced on January 8. Today, I’m excited to share that the tender offer is complete!

As I mentioned in January, FAST has an incredibly talented team of folks who bring great customer focus and tremendous expertise in the category – more than 60% of their people are engineers and close to 50 of them have PhDs in relevant fields. One of their true visionaries, John Markus Lervik, who has been FAST CEO, will transition to become Microsoft’s Corporate Vice President of Enterprise Search. John’s leadership will have an immediate impact on the development across our comprehensive portfolio of enterprise search offerings – including Microsoft Search Server 2008 Express , search for Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 and FAST ESP – and will result in the future delivery of a single enterprise search platform. I’m thrilled to welcome our new team members on board and am eager for them to get started!

By bringing together our two companies, customers will no longer have to compromise when evaluating the enterprise search solution that’s best for them. We can now meet all their needs no matter how basic or complex: Search Server Express available as a free download; SharePoint offers search integrated with other business productivity tools; and for those with highly sophisticated needs, FAST ESP provides best-in-class capabilities for the most demanding search applications in both internal and customer-facing scenarios. And, you can be assured that with our expanded team in place, we’ll be in an even better position to continue innovation across all three products, including FAST ESP on Linux and UNIX.

Speaking of Linux and UNIX, some people may be (mis)interpreting our continued support and investment in these platforms as a broader change for Microsoft – so here’s some color. We’re making a pragmatic decision to continue to delight a core part of FAST’s customer base that has chosen the Linux/UNIX OS. You can bet that we’ll innovate on Windows, too, and over time we hope customers will see .NET as a preferred platform choice.

Net, our approach doesn’t imply any kind of broader change for our company in its strategy (so conspiracy theorists can stand down ) and you shouldn’t expect to see SharePoint running on UNIX. We’re making a business decision for enterprise search and feel great about what it means for our FAST search customers.

Getting to this point has been quite a journey, but the most exciting part about it for me is that we are only just getting started. Whether it’s ensuring customers continue to get great service from the people and support teams they know or building on the span of our product portfolio, I’m confident that the combination of Microsoft and FAST will serve customers’ needs more broadly and help make enterprise search become a truly ubiquitous tool that is central to how workers find and use information.

I look forward to sharing more with you as the journey continues.

Kirk Koenigsbauer
General Manager,
SharePoint Business Group

The survey of 385 corporate managers and developers covered Web 2.0-based development mechanisms — such as mashups and gadgets/widgets — as well as social networking tools. Both types of environments are now very much a part of the corporate scene, and have become important tools for corporate applications, the survey finds.

Demand for Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 talent is hot, as a matter of fact. Two out of three respondents say their demand for such talent will increase over the coming year. That’s because there is a lot of strategic business-to-business and internal business development going on by software developers in the survey. Developers are working on Web 2.0 software for business applications in several areas, including interface design, gadgets and widgets, and social networking.

Most Web 2.0 applications are being targeted at internal corporate requirements, versus consumer engagements. Close to half of the survey participants are focused on developing applications for internal use inside their companies. Less than a third are building Web 2.0 applications intended for delivery on a subscription base to online users.

Forty percent of interfaces for Web 2.0 applications are “mixed” web-rich clients that include AJAX for fast downloads of pages that include live feeds of data (gadgets) and other dynamic components found in Web 2.0 applications. An overwhelming majority of respondents are using gadgets and widgets (portable Web parts) from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and others to deploy fast, lightweight business applications and services.

More than four out of ten companies encourage social networking; however, most feel the business value still needs to be demonstrated at this time. Social networking is strongest among developers in scientific and technical fields, who see social networking as a communications and collaboration medium, and among OEMs and systems integrators, who see benefits in product delivery.