I met with a group of CEOs recently, and asked them in advance for their questions related to Enterprise 2.0. Many of these concerned definitions of Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0. There were also a number of queries around technology-facilitated communities on the Web, on companies’ public Web sites, and on Intranets — were they a good idea, should they be encouraged, can then be shaped or stopped, etc.
I got the impression that some confusion existed, and tried to think of how to tee up the points I wanted to make during our session. So one of the first slides in my presentation (yes, I still use PowerPoint) read
"You cannot greatly influence Web 2.0.
You can greatly influence Enterprise 2.0"
Is that the right message for senior executives, or did I greatly oversimplify or steamroll an important distinction?
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
I think this is exactly the right message. It establishes clarity around where the focus should be for an executive – i.e. the area that they can effect.
Having said that, I think we also need to recognize the relationship (influence?) that Web 2.0 has on Enterprise 2.0. It seems to me that the rate of “consumer” adoption of Web 2.0 is a very significant driver of employee expectations regarding Enterprise 2.0. I’m sure there are examples of this sort of relationship happening in the past – but I can’t think of any at the moment.
Andrew, I really think your messages about emergence, user control and UGC, and what I think of as the next generation of KM (Enterprise 2.0) are powerful messages. The message you listed here seems like fairly weak and not all that meaningful in comparison – especially if you are trying to differentiate the concepts.
I agree with the attempt to get them to think about DOING something – not just listening. But that doesn’t necessarily distinguish the concepts.
Maybe I’m missing it though.
Tony
I think this is a great bite-size summary of ’2.0′ for the CXO. And it would to some practical how-to discussions , I expect. But I would worry a bit about the possibility of oversimplication.
’2.0′ encompasses a very broad range of non-overlapping technologies (blogs, wikis, RIAs, and mashups, just to start). There are different to-dos and gotchas for each 2.0 technology.
If CXOs do not appreciate the not-too-subtle differences in these areas, they might get broadsided by missed opportunities or mistakes that their prior 2.0 experiences wouldn’t even begin to help them anticipate.
Andrew – interesting way to kick it off, I’m sure it sparked some interesting discussions.
Well, culture impacts both sides of that coin, clearly.
From the Web 2.0 front, conversations are happening with or without you. Participating (ala Cluetrain, Citizen Marketers, etc.) is key. Same from the Enterprise standpoint.
So, on that vein, and I didn’t create the cartoon (it’s from bokardo.com) see http://tinyurl.com/3co2ex – from an innovation presentation I gave this week. While Time talked about You (from a consumer standpoint, and really “Us”) as the “man of the year” in 2006, Enterprise 2.0 obviously has an Employee Generated Content (EGC) rather than User Generated Content (UGC).
Without systems to ALLOW (and foster) participation, and a combination of top-down and bottom-up direction and participation, in short, without both the WILL to allow and then DO something, neither Web 2.0 nor Enterprise 2.0 will find much success.
The illusion of control is much stronger within an enterprise, which I’d argue might be a stronger detriment to internal adoption. In both cases, having just enough control to help shape without killing the community, is the rub.
Cheers,
Dan
BTW – given your recent coverage of Awareness as a company, may want to take a look at Lithium and Jive in a similar vein. Just got off the phone with Lithium, and spoke with Jive this week in Boston at the AIIM Conference/Expo.
:coolsmile: Inspired! I wish I had thought of that. The only thing I would add is that although we can greatly influence Enterprise 2.0, we cannot control it.
Andrew,
Simple and succinct but missing one extra line. As I point out in my blog posting http://ekive.blogspot.com/2008/03/web-20-and-enterprise-20.html
“You cannot greatly influence Web 2.0.
You can greatly influence Enterprise 2.0.
Because of Web 2.0 you can’t stop Enterprise 2.0″
This then tees up the question of how you embrace Enterprise 2.0.
Actually, Andrew– I think that the message to CEOs should be different. How about:
“You can influence Enterprise 2.0 MUCH LESS than you currently hope or expect”
This emphasizes the role of individual employees and managers in driving the adoption of Enterprise 2.0.
Hey, Andrew,
Check this out: http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2008/03/democratization-20.html.
Paul
2.0 is about interaction and communication
Web 2.0 is outer environment, is your market and is your Feedback
Enterprise 2.0 is your inner ecosystem, a tool to develop Enterprise culture, business integration, and a way to match information and knowledge all over the organisation to the places and teams that need it at every time.
I think the “firewall” distinction of Employee Generated C ontent (EGC) and User Generated Content (UGC) is a fair but can blur. A focus on EGC can help limit the seemly endless litany of worse-case ,what if scenarios about employees “blogging all day and making “profane wiki pages” by shifting the argument toward the evidence, which over-whelming suggests that people at work know they are at work and thus act accordingly.
Internal wikis, blogs, tagging software, etc. within the firewall can reduce email and attached PowerPoint and Word documents, but does the “W” in Web 2.0 apply if you use the world as your research department such as Proctor and Gamble does when it posts chemical problems on the net for anyone to solve. In this case, there is some “E” and some “W.”
I think the distinction is spot on. Though, it might also be important to make the distinction between influencing and controlling. Control over E2.0 is something which I dont see coming anytime soon, though the direction of the enterprise can be influenced. Having said that, though, it might also be worthwhile to add that the influence from the top is somewhat diminished compared to the “pre-E2.0″ world.
I’ve been trying to figure out Twitter. And reading NYT (!) articles on how texting is all about power, privacy for 14 year olds (know what POS, PRW, and KPD mean? Substitute B (boss) for P (parent) and you’ll get the drift for your company.) And seeing sites like chorewars.com pop up — talk about a next move into corporate transparency, equity, efficiency… Can you *really* influence Enterprise 2.0? Only perhaps if you envision the enterprise as having those same iron-belt control structures and levers. But it won’t. The “cloud” out there of web 2.0 suggests the entire play is going to be different. More like, “With, or without you…”
The message is short but sweet. But begs the question, how do I influence?
I have been working to establish a large scale collaborative environment in a hierarchical business setting. We were able to compare two approaches: an open emergence model in which execution relied on a pure democratic approach coupled with self organization – (a limited/no influence model) and a controlled emergence model in which a framework was established and people contributed within the framework – (a “more” influence model). In this business setting, the controlled model generated more value for the company.
I would argue that a business operates with variety of attributes and social states many of which do not exist externally. Creating an environment that accounts for those attributes and providing guidelines for operating within that environment are at the core of what influence companies can have. Set the tone, open the doors, invite everyone in and let it rip.
What did the second slide say?
On your definition, seems very “consulting-ese”, which probably works quite well with Mr. and Mrs. CEO. Regarding its effectiveness, it depends on the context of your presentation. I assume that you further lead with your presentation on how Enterprise 2.0 would help solve these CEOÂ’s problems.
I guess that I would say the Enterprise 2.0 is a branch of the Web 2.0 tree, and that their buy-in is crucial for company wide adoption and to achieve the benefits of such a system.
I would be interested in actually seeing your presentation, if you don’t mind. Not to mention some takeaways you many have on the receptiveness of different industries to internal social communities. For instance, I believe that a company like 3M would greatly benefit from an Enterprise 2.0 product. It is company with a strong core competency (thin substrate/coating manufacturing) that has many mechanical/chemical engineers widely disbursed dealing with the same engineering process issues, just using different materials. For instance, making blue painting tape in Minnesota probably has similar manufacturing issues to making red dot adhesive coated electrodes in Missouri.
Maybe that could be the next step in your research, to uncover what industries/company type would benefit most from these enterprise 2.0 products. I am not sure if you know him, but Prof. David Croson at SMU is starting to think about this. I think that both of you may have been at HBS at the same time. Could be a good resource.
Well more discussion is around the corner…http://itiswhatever.com/2008/03/05/web-20-and-enterprise-20/
I think this is trying to hard. I would imagine the key problem for business re the social web is how can organisations be sociable.
People are social, not products or companies. What does that mean for how they invest, buy, sell?
So isn’t the key distinction here for them is that the web is becoming genuinely persoanal, not ersatz marketing personal. The technologies that shape that are less important than the culture shift they permit/support.
By the way i found this site cos of the top 100 listing you were mentioned on.
Information Technology has brought the revolution in the Business sector around the world. Local Businesses have come on international platform due to a simple website. People who barely check their emails may suddenly have a pop up at their page ends with sales up to 60%. CEOÂ’s and higher executives of many companies are not directly involved with IT related issues; however they have some kid of knowledge to deal with those situations. Many will understand what is web 2.0 but many will be of those kinds whom are not familiar with latest IT terms.
Information technologies, however, had left their biggest impact on the productivity of American business as a whole. Talk about any industry whether it is truck or real estate to health care to manufacturing, all have incorporated new technologies that helped make doing business more efficient and affordable.
Re: “technology-facilitated communities on the Web, on companiesÂ’ public Web sites, and on Intranets— were they a good idea, should they be encouraged, can then be shaped or stopped, etc.”
I think communities are great for the net. It creates groups, collaborations and innovations. Then you run into intellectual property roadblocks. I am all for it though.