My posts on Enterprise 2.0 have stressed that its component technologies let structure emerge over time, rather than imposing it front as Enterprise IT does. Enterprise 2.0, however, does not mean that business leaders surrender all of their previous levers of control. It also doesn’t mean that IT is now bad if it imposes structure up front.
There remain plenty of good reasons to impose structure via IT — to demonstrate compliance with laws and regulations, to ensure that best practices are followed with 100% fidelity, to increase ‘analyzability,’ to hand off grunt work from people to computers, etc. — and these reasons do not go away or become less important simply because of the appearance of a new set of technologies.
What does get called into question by Enterprise 2.0 is the assumption that collaboration IT needs to be thoroughly ‘set up’ in advance. When I look at a lot of corporate collaboration technologies after spending time at Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Flickr, and Blogger I am struck by how regimented, inflexible, and limited the corporate stuff seems, because it does some or all of the following:
- Gives users identities before they start using the technology. These identities assign them certain roles, privileges, and access rights, and exclude them from others. These identities almost always also place them within the existing organizational structure and formal corporate hierarchy.
- Contains few truly blank pages. Instead, it has lots of templates — for meetings, for project tracking, for documents and reports, etc.
- Has tons of explicit or implicit workflow – sequences of tasks that must be executed in order.
Large groups of strangers are coming together on the Web, interacting productively, and generating some very valuable outputs without encountering a lot of obvious workflow, gatekeeping, credentialing, or oversight when they try to join in and start contributing.
So here’s the obvious question: why should employees of the same organization require or benefit from more of these constraints than a large bunch of strangers scattered across the Web?
It seems to me that collaboration within companies should be more freeform than Internet-wide collaboration. After all, employees share a common culture, and can be easily identified and brought back into line if they violate norms behind the firewall. These facts imply to me that employees can usually be trusted to work well together better than an Internet full of strangers, some of whom are clearly not people of good will.
Yet corporate collaboration platforms remain pretty highly regimented, while Web 2.0 collaboration is not. I don’t think that this strange situation will persist, at least not everywhere, for one very simple reason: freeform IT-based collaborations are yielding great results.
- Wikipedia is the world’s largest reference work, and its factual accuracy is close to that of Encyclopedia Britannica. I’ve followed the debate about the Nature study that underlies that statement, and I still find it a fair statement.
- The Iowa Electronic Markets have been consistently more accurate than professional nationwide polls in predicting US election winners.
- Folksonomies provide powerful, accurate, and dynamic categorizations of many kinds of content.
- Peer rating systems let good products and content rise above the din.
These ‘pinko technologies,’ to steal the great phrase used by DrKW’s CIO (and blogger) JP Rangaswami when he visited my class, are accomplishing things that should impress the most hardheaded, results-obsessed business leaders — as long as they’re not blindly elitist, credentialist, or obsessed with hierarchy and the ‘proper’ channels.
The former Dean of my school, Kim Clark, told us early and often to trust our students when leading case discussions. And the HBS teachers I admire most, particularly David Garvin and David Upton, excel at the subtle art of setting up a classroom environment in which the students are learning not (just) from them, but from each other, and collectively building up knowledge over a semester. I honestly can’t think of a single good reason not to try hard to use IT to emulate and extend that kind of environment within companies.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Clay Shirky’s insight about Situated Software supports your notion that companies ought to be able to take advantage of their culture and social structure. He writes about applications designed by his graduate students:
What a useful post here. Very informative for me..TQ friends…
Cheers,
porcelain coffee mugs
(Coffee Mug Online Shop: The Best Coffee Mug Store)
nice post…thanks for sharing
Although freeform is one of the key aspects of collaboration 2.0 technologies, one cant completely do away with structure. For example, information of teams/groups needs to be grouped together, rather than there being an enterprise wide sea of information. However, these subsets of information should be permeable. With this basic structure in place, companies can let further structure evolve around it, for example informal corporate communities etc.
Although freeform is one of the key aspects of collaboration 2.0 technologies, one cant completely do away with structure. For example, information of teams/groups needs to be grouped together, rather than there being an enterprise wide sea of information. However, these subsets of information should be permeable. With this basic structure in place, companies can let further structure evolve around it, for example informal corporate communities etc.
{ 7 trackbacks }