Enterprise 2.0 Strategy

Making Sense of Enterprise 2.0

In my experience one of the most common mistakes that is made when approaching the introduction of enterprise 2.0/social computing capabilities is to think about them from a functional perspective. This is often the result of legacy approaches, within IT departments, to solving business problems. Traditionally these approaches can be summarised as i) identify business problem and ii) build solution to problem. So we end up with a series of independent solutions for each business problem identified. Enterprise 2.0 capabilities challenge this way of thinking by providing users with a suite of capabilities that they can combine in numerous ways so that they can solve the challenges they are facing. If we are to see this potential realised then we need to utilise an alternative approach to classification of these capabilities, ideally one based around the activities that knowledge workers perform. In the white paper ‘Making Sense of Enterprise 2.0’ I present such an approached based round the Cynefin sensemaking framework developed by Dave Snowden. Utilising the Cynefin model in this way provides powerful framework on which business problem(s) and enterprise 2.0 capabilities can be aligned. Thus producing a clear roadmap for selecting and implementing the appropriate enterprise 2.0 solutions to solve the challenges the business is facing.

You can read ‘Making Sense of Enterprise 2.0’  online over on our open source methodology site, Project Collaborate by clicking here.

Prerequisites to successful collaboration

Over the years I have been involved in numerous experiments with enterprise 2.0 tools, some have been successful and some not so. Out of these experiments has come a realisation that there are really two key prerequisite to delivering a successful environment where collaboration flourishes. The first of these is to start by recognising that the internal intranet within your company is not the same as the web. This may seem obvious but by recognising the differences in terms of the way people use and their expectations/behaviours of the intranet, home vs business, is critical.  Understand why what works on the web may not work internally and how you will need to modify/change the usage pattern will in many cases make the difference between success and failure.

Comparison of the differences between Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 environmental drivers.

  Web 2.0 Enterprise 2.0 Comment
User Millions Hundreds On the Web only a small percentage of the total user population needs to adopt a tool to achieve network effect. Within a business you may need the majority of users to become involved to see the same benefits.
Mind set Fun Work At home users do things for fun but at work do things because we are paid
Organisational structure Flat Hierarchical Flat organisational structures encourage collaboration while hierarchical ones hinder2.
Attitude Sharing Hoarding At home users share information without expectation of recompense while at work all too often people ask ‘what is in it for me?’
Skill set Digitally savvy Digitally adverse On the Web the users are all those who are web savvy by their nature. At work the user base covers the complete spectrum from web guru to technophobe.
Visibility Anonymity Recognition On the Web you are one of the herd, the majority of users can assume that there is anonymity in a crowd. At work people seek recognition for their contribution as career progression can depend on it.
Society Public Private On the Web users are able to control the information they share and are free to create alternative personas, masks, behind which they can obfuscate their identity. Within the business environment there is no anonymity, everything you say and do online can be traced back to you.
Cultural Innovative Mundane In one’s home life people are free to experiment and try new things. At work we have to use the tools we are given and are often told what to do.

 

The second prerequisite I haven come to think of as a set of principles that define the core architecture of collaboration. These principles apply equally to the technology and the culture. It is my experience that adoption of these principles is required if a culture of collaboration and openness is to develop. The four core principles are:

  1. Freedom – The easiest way to prevent collaboration from occurring is to impose overly burdensome control around how colleagues work. If collaboration is to flourish we need to trust colleagues and not impose rigid workflows, inappropriate approval processes (moderation), restriction on who can collaborate with whom (association) and have an open attitude towards sharing information.
  2. Emergence – No two collaborations are the same, each team/group will have different requirements and will develop different working practices. Given this we need to allow patterns and structures to emerge as collaborations develop. This is not to say we should not stimulate behaviors we want or share experiences but rather we should accept this and recognise that we need to avoid a ‘One size fits all’ approach.
  3. Clarity of Purpose – Contextualising tools for colleagues work processes is critical. Without a clear explination as to how and when to use new tools colleagues become confused and revert back to there default methods of working. The lack of consistent advice around how and when to use these tools inevitably leads to adoption of Outlook for information management, fragmented silos of project data and a lack of any real knowledge management processes.
  4. Ease of Use – Collaboration is about enabling conversations between people. It is not about technology. Therefore, it is critical that technology does not get in the way of collaboration. If we are to enable a culture of collaboration we must ensure that colleagues find the tools are intuitive and require minimal training.