The Enterprise 2.0 Conference is coming up next week in my adopted hometown of Boston. I’ll be giving a keynote speech on Tuesday, June 19 at 9:05, after which I plan to stop talking and start learning. Registration is still open, so please attend if you’re interested in the tools and approaches of Enterprise 2.0.
Before my keynote, however, there’s one other important piece of business to take care of. Tom Davenport and I are going to figure out whether we actually do disagree about the importance and likely progression of Enterprise 2.0. And we’re going to do so in an open forum.
Tom and I have gone back and forth on this a couple times (Tom then me last fall, then Tom then me this spring), but these point-counterpoints were written, sequential, and uncoordinated. Susan Scrupski and her employer BSG had the bright idea to stage an actual debate, and to hold it in Boston during the conference when interest will naturally be high. Conference organizers Steve Wylie and CMP graciously agreed to let us hold the event at the actual conference site (The Westin Boston Waterfront), and to open it to anyone who’s interested, whether or not they’ve registered for the conference.
So on Monday the 19th at 10 am in the Westin, Tom and I are going to go podium-to-podium for 45 minutes. The debate will be moderated by ZDNET’s Dan Farber, who’s fantastic at this kind of thing. My understanding is that Dan’s going to ask us questions for the first 20-25 minutes, then open it up to the audience. I also understand that the debate will be webcast and recorded. Watch Susan’s blog for details. I know very little about the debate beyond what I’ve written here, and Tom and I have not spoken about it at all, which seems exactly right to me. This will be a lot more fun, and more informative, if it’s as freeform and emergent as Enterprise 2.0 itself.
Those expecting a bare-knuckle brawl, or even an event full of thinly disguised scorn and Truman Capote-style barbs, are going to be disappointed. As I’ve said before (and I wasn’t just trying to be polite), I actually agree with what most of what Tom has written on the topic, particularly his points about how hard it’ll be to introduce egalitarian and boundaryless technologies in hierarchical and siloed companies. I’m eager to hear more from him, and to see if where our real disagreements, if any, lie.
Tom is a great colleague and a gentleman, so if and when I lob an insult at him it’ll all be in jest (okay, Tom?). To butcher one of Muhammed Ali’s great lines, "We gonna get it on, even though we get along!"
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I am in the process of writing a book to the Finnish marketplace and one of the things that I am including is the discussion of Enterprise 2.0 in the book. I did run into the comments of Mr. Davenport and it would be very interesting to hear your panel. I hope the results will be transcribed in some shape or form.
Thanks,
Petri I. Salonen, Ph.D(Econ.)
Sounds like fun – since I won’t be there, I look forward to the video. I would be particularly interested in Tom’s ideas on HOW we could overcome the hierarchy and silos …
I will bring a bucket, water bottle and sponge if you need someone in your corner.
Andrew — Sorry I won’t be there. I’m speaking also at Enterprise 2.0, at 11:30 AM to discuss this same topic from another point of view. I hope we meet at the conference. See you there!
I’m attending the Enterprise 2.0 conf., but will be seeing the “rebroadcast” of the debate later. Given the exchange thus far, I would call attention to a couple of thoughts.
1) According to the initial Web 2.0 paper, data is the new “Intel Inside”, and the power of that data will blend the power of the data inside the enterprise and outside on the web. Davenport’s emphasis on analytics is relevant for this 2.0 principle.
2) As well, however, is the tacit knowledge possessed by modern knowledge worker. That knowledge becomes relevant “in context” to a given business or organizational situation (business deal, product plan, genome project). In this instance, another Web 2.0 principle of harnessing collective intelligence is relevant. Some E2.0 will require supporting the interactivity necessary to release and aggregate collective intelligence, and the members of the work community will rely deeply on the data “inside.”
The original inventors of email thought that users would at most send up to five emails per day. We don’t yet know how these tools will ultimately be utilized and refined, but an important are of new productivity resides in effectively blending the data and empowering the interaction.
Looking forward to the rest of the conference and viewing the debate
Catherine Shinners
Definitely a great post. Hats off to you! The information that you have provided is very helpful.
regards
charcoal grill