Thanks Andrew, Could you expand on “explicitly social”? Does it need to be explicit? Does it refer to the need for dedicated tools for “socializing”? If so, I am not sure it is a key factor to success. It may actually impede “driving support for the initiatives”.

For example, we’ve had some good success for our idea management application that provides all 40,000 employees opportunities to suggest, vote, and comment on ideas (regardless of job, level and title). The top voted ideas are then regularly harvested by an executive council for deeper assessment and potential implementation. It doesn’t explicitly offer “socialization” but as one reads through the comments, you see the emergence of personality via conversation. The purpose is still clearly focussed business needs but benefits from subtle socialization.

It is relevant, in my workplace we are already using few of the social networking tools for business collaboration and information exchange and we begin to realize that they are actually benefiting us.

Nice summary, thank you.

Technology:
There are no “advanced” tools for information sharing.

For example, we have eroom and so there is no interest for another information sharing/mass collaboration tool.

Maybe this point is already under “Effort has official and unofficial support from the top” or even better under “There is pent-up demand for better information sharing”, but maybe not.

Enterprise 2.0 is more likely if…

Technology
Tools are same or similar to those people are accustomed to.

Support
Effort is understood by and has support from the bottom.
Why should evangelists be patient? I like ‘em with hair on fire.
Goals are clear at the meta- level; specifics will emerge.

Culture
Slack exists? Rarely. This is n outcome, not a pre-condition.
Helplessness can be a self-fulfilling prophesy which inhibits cultural change.

To make an organization successful or convert it from good to great, you need 3 key elements.

1) Disciplined people (A category leader + dedicated employees)
2) Disciplined thoughts (find out what your company is good at) &
3) Disciplined action (integration of innovative technology)

Evangelists sometimes might be “too willing to help” and their help can lead to a direction that might not be the most suitable. What if there is a mismatch between the trajectory they have in mind and the one which would be really appropriate?

Dear Andrew, you got the point.

A company, in order to take advantages from using web 2.0 technologies, must pay attention on the tangible (i.e. easiness to learn and to use) and intangible (i.e. trust and openess) aspects involved in these technologies. It’s not only a matter f training people!

Moreover, I strongly agree with the idea that users should be incentivated and motivated by the management because, sometimes, a lot of skepticism may arise around the effectiveness of web 2.0 technologies.

Nadia

We have some comments regarding some of the bullets points you highlight as fundemental points in order to successfully implement web 2.0 in your company.

technologies;

- Tools are intuitive and easy to use!

We think that if the tools are to basic and easy to use, you can not use them to solve caomplex and specific tasks. Also, high-skilled users would not put too much effort in exploiting their potential into technology.

- At least some of the tools are explicitly social

We think that the way people would use the technologies in social relationships would discourage the right use of the technology since emploies would not focus on the job itself.

The implementation of E2.0 might not be always benefited by slacks in the workweek. A structured working schedule will not necessarily be of harm, and in some cases it might even be of help to lead the transition, the usage of E2.0.

Andrew,

Since the analogy of “in and above” the flow, I’ve been thinking how this sounds disturbingly like “above and beyond” (the call of duty). I think one of the impediments from both the kids, IT, and Management is the dread of “Knowledge Management” as a new and yet-to-be assigned responsibility from E2.O. What if this is an incorrect assumption? What if a properly co-mingled social and technical network has, at any given moment, the best information available…kind of like an electron cloud (or Farenheit 451). Without immediate need for information, we can assume it remains relevant but we cannot know who has the latest version. If we insist on putting it in a fixed location, it will become static and begin aging. Perhaps the social network is what is needed to keep the “balls in the air”, and not a formal library.

Hello Rex,

I am very interested in this topic. Over the past 10 years I have worked with software developers and great minds. Several discussions resulted in software products, training products, portals and more. I see several ways to accomplish Enterprise 2.0 based on corporate culture and the emergence of new technology. I can see a Sharepoint type of portal, a Document Locator storage facility, widgets and gadgets for individuals to chat, create profiles and define expertise. I can see a Google type of search engine scoring mechanism to track back to great dialogs pertaining to specific topics. I can see LinkedIN/Facebook concepts coming to bare within a corporation. I have a vision. I know how to motivate people and paint the vision of the possibilities.

Thank you for your work in this space. I am very interested to read through the evolution of this topic. Thank you and take care.

Kind regards,
Julie White

Correction: Thank you, Andrew McAfee for your research and hard work.

Thank you Rex for your continued interest.

Andrew,

Good list; but, the security issues that you and others have written so well about seem to be missing from here. Overcoming these by use of appropriate enterprise-class software? Related to this could be “support from the IT organization” getting an explicit mention, although that might be implied with “…support from the top.”

Ray

Thanks for this nice short post on the E2.0 success factors. To comment on some of them:

* Tools are egalitarian and freeform

For the first time I thought: should the admin rights to these tools also be given to all? I don’t mean ‘read/write’ access, but also: being able to add participants/accounts, changing access rights for internals and externals, etc.

* The toolset is quickly standardized

Yes, I would agree with this statement. But I wonder if this will hold in the future. People have been writing about employees being able to select their own tools inside and outside the organization. (I posted about this topic on my blog.)

* Excellent gardeners exist

Interesting, is this a.o. the new role of the traditional Information Management department?

* Slack exists in the workweek

Love this one. This is true: we need slack in our work to share, learn and act.

And this post (and the related presentation) seemed to have convinced Davenport too!

Hi Andrew

I do very much agree with you on you “trust” perspective in your post.

We’ve “done” a little whitepaper on “trust”, Social Capital and E2.0 which I think you may find interesting:
http://wexploration.com/whitepapers/

All the best
Hans Henrik

Hello Andrew — btw I heard your talk at Xerox PARC recently — very interesting. I esp appreciated that your language and models are appropriate to a business audience. In my own work on B2B tech (1.0 and 2.0), one of my biggest challenges is framing the issues in terms that make sense and matter to business leaders.

Suggestions for your “More Likely” list:

Under “Technologies”: might add a bullet on “Tools support the company’s security requirements.” Perhaps this can be assumed…but I’ve been in multiple discussions with businesspeople who were all excited about adopting some 2.0 (consumer use) application inside their company — and then the project was derailed because of lack of tool support for necessary corporate security/controls.

Under “Culture:” might add a bullet on “Management tolerance for public informal communications and range of opinions.”

The key here is that 2.0 apps all rely on *written* comms. The written aspect is key, since orgs typically treat them very differently from spoken comms. Also, 2.0 comms are widely available (unlike a person-to-person email).

So the combination of written and widely available, can lead to desires by management to pre-screen, or be overly directive, or critical of comms that are evaluated as “not approved by management” or “not polished, poorly written” or “not relevant to the workplace”.

Range of opinion: org cultures have different sensitivities to (perceived or actual) conflict. The fact that 2.0 is public written material is an issue here too. Managements that get concerned about different perspectives coming up from the grassroots, or visible differences of opinion, can have issues with 2.0 apps.

btw there’s a good article in the NYT today March 2nd on WalMart’s employee bloggers.

- Mary

http://www.linkedin.com/in/marywalker

Great list. I agree with one of the other comments about “the flow”. I was going to suggest adding the following under the technologies list:

- Tools work in the normal flow of work and don’t require extra effort or maintenance

I don’t think something necessarily needs to be “social” to be effective. In fact, I’m not even sure what that means. Does a tool being “social” mean it fun, it allows me to express myself, or something else?

Under support, I’m not sure the incentives need to be “soft”. In fact, I think some of the leadership MBOs should be quantitative and very measurable. For example, how many people on your team utilized the tool per week or how many contributions did you make per month?

I agree with all the culture points. Great list. Thanks for sharing.

nice synthesis

I’d like more detail on examples of soft incentives

Andrew

Recently posted on Enterprise Wiki Pitfalls and Best Practices:

http://www.e2oh.com/2008/03/02/a-banana/

On your point of goals being clear and well-explained, I would add that the more discreet and specific the goal, the easier the change management chasm is to jump. Our experience implementing for various organizations has shown that a goal of “share project management information” may be understood and clear, but is too large for users to readily consume. Something like “create risk management plan in wiki” is an excellent starting point for long-lasting success.

Hans Henrik, is that whitepaper available without signing up for some newspaper? Or is my email save with wexploration.com?

Hi Andrew,

Interesting post.

What do you mean with “lateralization” in this context? The dictionary is not very helpful: ” Localization of a function, such as speech, to the right or left side of the brain.”

Is this special “business” talk?

A culture conducive to knowledge sharing and therefore fostering innovation is probably the most important factor for E2.0 to become pervasive within an organization.
And the most effective way to change an organizational culture is with strong top mangement drive and leadership.

Peter-Anthony Glick

Andrew,

Nice article. I agree with all your analysis. Thanks for the post.

Why should time in the week for reflection, learning, innovation and networking be referred to as “slack”. These activities should have time allocated to them – the use of the word slack reinforces the idea that using social media in the work environment is somehow not ethical and ought not be approved by management.

This leads to staff being made to feel guilty about activities that benefit their employer, but are not seen by all as ‘real work’.

Nice post.

I would like some more information on your examples if possible.

By no means am I an expert but after deploying knowledge stores for the past 10 years and 2.0 applications since 2004, there are a few things that I would add to the list.

First and foremost is the imperative need for a Client-Support organization. While culture issues, social issues, and political issues get the majority of the press the real world is a tad simpler. The aforementioned issues can be overcome with mass adoption and natural pressure placed on people when everyone else is doing something. However, you will never get to that point until you solve the first two issues. While it may seem obvious, the first thing to come to grips with is your awareness issue. Perhaps, if you are a 20 person firm then awareness wonÂ’t be an issue but in a 300,000 person firm then it will be. DonÂ’t assume that if you send out an email or get some executive to announce the program that everyone will hear. As many people have stated that the biggest problem with communication is the assumption that it actually happened. You need to survey your users and ask them. When we were going to survey our user community, one of the members suggested that we use the collaborative tool to survey the community. That way they could get a taste of the application. My response was that would be like sending someone a Coke and then asking them if they had ever heard of Coca-Cola. Bottom line that after a year of communications, we still have a 35% awareness issue which has now dropped to less than 5% with a variety of programs.

The second issue is education and training. Even if people know these tools exist, they may not know how to use them in a business setting. ItÂ’s a huge mistake to assume that if you hire a bunch of young people that they know how to do this in the business world. No? Ok, how many types of blogs exist in the corporate world? Hmmmmm, one? See! There are many types of blogs or use cases for blogs including product blogs, topic blogs, event blogs, personal blogs, executive blogs, and program blogs. What type of information should be posted on these blogs? Well, for a product blog you would focus the information on things like releases, announcements, tips and techniques, upcoming training events, etc. Not sure I would hold a discussion on the merits of Agile Programming on a product blog. People want to know what to expect when they read.

I would also add to this list a solid business plan with growth projections. At the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the mass adoption and business value delivered.

Interesting post

The difference is that traditional enterprise software, which imposes structure prior to use, Enterprise 2.0 tends to encourage use prior to providing structure…..

I agree with Ben – some more information on your examples would be great to see.

Thanks.

The implementation of E2.0 might not be always benefited by slacks in the workweek. A structured working schedule will not necessarily be of harm, and in some cases it might even be of help to lead the transition, the usage of E2.0.

nice post… I agree with all the analysis… this blog inform us the strong part of Enterprise 2.0
thnx..

i like your post.. i agree on you.. These conjectures were not developed from any rigorous or comprehensive research.. nice blog..

Normally I wouldn’t comment on posts but I felt that I had to as your writing style is actually good. You have broken down a tough area so that it easy to understand.

Normally I wouldn’t comment on posts but I felt that I had to as your writing style is actually good. You have broken down a tough area so that it easy to understand.

[...] 2.0 successes, it is important to highlight the associated critical success factors. According to Andrew McAfee, these factors basically involve Technologies, Support and Culture. Carefully selected tools which [...]