Comments on: Talking with Erik on Enterprise 2.0 http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/03/talking_with_erik_on_enterprise_20/ The Business Impact of IT Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Raj Kumar http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/03/talking_with_erik_on_enterprise_20/comment-page-1/#comment-3050 Raj Kumar Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:56:18 +0000 #comment-3050 A Few Questions: Who is required to organize knowledge work? Who must progress the five disciplines of Senge? Who must act to bring the team together? Who must organize to influence the collective? Who must be committed not to innovation or attitude or pursuit of truth but to the mechanics of contribution? Who must create momentum on progressing an idea? The questions could go on. At stake is a solution to the problems that bedevil collective ability. The answer in each case is it is not IT despite the advances that have taken place. What then has IT contributed? Well, tools of course so that personnel can progress an answer to the questions, perhaps a bit more easily. The questions demonstrate that personnel must continue to initiate, organize, drive and channel the pursuit of success though the practices are well known. The E2.0 virtual space has only shifted the demand from their manual energy to their intelligent energy. The diet of personnel has not changed and the premium on their time has only gone up and is likely to go up even further. A Few Questions:

Who is required to organize knowledge work?

Who must progress the five disciplines of Senge?

Who must act to bring the team together?

Who must organize to influence the collective?

Who must be committed not to innovation or attitude or pursuit of truth but to the mechanics of contribution?

Who must create momentum on progressing an idea?

The questions could go on. At stake is a solution to the problems that bedevil collective ability. The answer in each case is it is not IT despite the advances that have taken place. What then has IT contributed? Well, tools of course so that personnel can progress an answer to the questions, perhaps a bit more easily.

The questions demonstrate that personnel must continue to initiate, organize, drive and channel the pursuit of success though the practices are well known. The E2.0 virtual space has only shifted the demand from their manual energy to their intelligent energy.

The diet of personnel has not changed and the premium on their time has only gone up and is likely to go up even further.

]]> By: Kasten Bjørk Rasmussen http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/03/talking_with_erik_on_enterprise_20/comment-page-1/#comment-3049 Kasten Bjørk Rasmussen Fri, 23 Mar 2007 11:52:30 +0000 #comment-3049 The discussion around whether the hierarchy (with it's focus on efficiency) and the more informal and self-organizing structure (with focus on innovation) can co-exist is quite interesting. You have some very valid points about the frontier for the trade-off being pushed out. But I would like to direct your attention to Nonaka's seminal article on "The knowledge creating organization", where the conecpt of the "hypertext organization" is introduced. It has no discussion about (versions of) technology developments, but a strong case for how you can combine the best of the two worlds by paying close attention to shaping the right context in the organization. The discussion around whether the hierarchy (with it’s focus on efficiency) and the more informal and self-organizing structure (with focus on innovation) can co-exist is quite interesting.

You have some very valid points about the frontier for the trade-off being pushed out. But I would like to direct your attention to Nonaka’s seminal article on “The knowledge creating organization”, where the conecpt of the “hypertext organization” is introduced.

It has no discussion about (versions of) technology developments, but a strong case for how you can combine the best of the two worlds by paying close attention to shaping the right context in the organization.

]]> By: Rex Lee http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/03/talking_with_erik_on_enterprise_20/comment-page-1/#comment-3048 Rex Lee Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:00:43 +0000 #comment-3048 I think this discussion also highlights the differences in W2.0 and E2.0. In the E2.0 environment, we have ability to control the organzational structure and division of labour. There is an opportunity to blend the traditional hierarchical model with the heterachical model to achieve the best-of-both-worlds. The E2.0 org structure happens to also be the topic of a recent blog I wrote. http://rexsthoughtspot.blogspot.com/2007/03/enterprise-20-organizational-structure.html I think this discussion also highlights the differences in W2.0 and E2.0. In the E2.0 environment, we have ability to control the organzational structure and division of labour.

There is an opportunity to blend the traditional hierarchical model with the heterachical model to achieve the best-of-both-worlds. The E2.0 org structure happens to also be the topic of a recent blog I wrote.

http://rexsthoughtspot.blogspot.com/2007/03/enterprise-20-organizational-structure.html

]]> By: Dennis McDonald http://andrewmcafee.org/2007/03/talking_with_erik_on_enterprise_20/comment-page-1/#comment-3047 Dennis McDonald Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:43:10 +0000 #comment-3047 One reason I like this article is that it's written in plain English. I'm getting tired of all the jargon that has grown up around "web 2.0" and "enterprise 2.0" applications and processes so this is a pleasure to read. I have not read the full article yet -- I shall. Since as a consultant I am helping organizations plan for and implement collaborative technologies and processes, I recognize a lot of what you say here, especially the point about distinctions between internal and external groups becoming much fuzzier. This blurring makes some people very uncomfortable, but I'm undecided about what makes some more accepting than others. The usual comment that "the younger folks are much more accepting of these new systems" is much too simplistic, in my opinion. How innovation is defined and managed has a lot to do with adoption rates for new technologies and processes, I think, but I don't have a lot of data points on this yet. Another point concerns the role of technology and how it may no longer be (assuming it ever was) a key determinant of competitiveness. With so many applications being generic and with the spread of powerful tools through remotely hosted services, I find it hard to believe that technology by itself is any longer a differentiator. One reason I like this article is that it’s written in plain English. I’m getting tired of all the jargon that has grown up around “web 2.0″ and “enterprise 2.0″ applications and processes so this is a pleasure to read.

I have not read the full article yet — I shall. Since as a consultant I am helping organizations plan for and implement collaborative technologies and processes, I recognize a lot of what you say here, especially the point about distinctions between internal and external groups becoming much fuzzier. This blurring makes some people very uncomfortable, but I’m undecided about what makes some more accepting than others. The usual comment that “the younger folks are much more accepting of these new systems” is much too simplistic, in my opinion. How innovation is defined and managed has a lot to do with adoption rates for new technologies and processes, I think, but I don’t have a lot of data points on this yet.

Another point concerns the role of technology and how it may no longer be (assuming it ever was) a key determinant of competitiveness. With so many applications being generic and with the spread of powerful tools through remotely hosted services, I find it hard to believe that technology by itself is any longer a differentiator.

]]>