One of the great benefits of teaching via the case method is serendipity: students often come up with better insights or teaching points than the ones I have in my notes when I walk into the classroom. This can be scary, as can all things emergent, but once you embrace it it’s great fun and the semester becomes an opportunity to learn, not just to teach.
It’s also great fun when students bring up facts, discussions, and conclusions from previous classes. Their doing so gives me some confidence that the course is cumulative, rather than just a string of class sessions. One of a professor’s nightmares is the thought that students walk out of each class and empty their minds of the previous 80 minutes, at least until it’s time to study for finals. References to previous classes keep this nightmare at bay.
Both of these happy phenomena occurred during a discussion of Enterprise 2.0 in my recently-completed MIA course. Earlier in the semester we’d discussed the Wikipedia case I wrote with Karim Lakhani. The case touches on the issue of deletionism vs. inclusionism in the Wikipedia community, using the encyclopedia’s article on Enterprise 2.0 to illustrate the tension.
I told the class how I asked Jimmy Wales at a conference whether he was an inclusionist or deletionist. Given his recent experience initiating an article only to see it nominated for speedy deletion, I thought he’d condemn the ascendancy of the deletionism, acknowledging that it had gone too far.
Instead, he gave a brilliant answer. He said that he was neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist, but an eventualist. He had faith in the Wikipedia community and its processes, values, norms, deliberative abilities, etc., and trusted that it would eventually get this issue right, even if at present the community were leaning too far in one direction. I told the MIA students this story in class, and we had a great discussion about whether Wales’s faith was well-founded.
Later in the semester I asked students to read my initial Sloan Management Review article on Enterprise 2.0 and a couple blog posts. I then asked them to rate their optimism (on a 7-point scale) about the potential benefits for companies of E2.0 ignoring all adoption challenges as well as their optimism about the actual benefits taking these challenges into account.
For most students the gap between the two numbers was large; they were optimistic (often highly so) about potential benefits, and much more guarded about actual ones. In class we started talking about why.
As this discussion progressed I felt that it was proceeding at too low a level – focusing on details and single data points ("wikis are too hard to edit," "We could blog behind the firewall at my last company, but almost no one did," etc.) rather than on the ‘big picture.’ More troubling, I didn’t quite know what the big picture was, or what I wanted it to be. Did I want my students to leave class thinking that Enterprise 2.0 was as inevitable as the tide, or that it would be throttled by weak software?
As I was turning this question over in my mind while simultaneously trying to guide class discussion, one of my students bailed me out. "We should all be like Jimmy Wales," he said. "We should all be Enterprise 2.0 eventualists. We see the benefits of adopting these new tools and approaches, and we should have faith that at least some companies will also. I feel like we’re at the Friendster stage with Enterprise 2.0, and we’ll get to the Facebook stage eventually."
I picked up on this great analogy by asking students how many of them had opened Friendster accounts. About two thirds raised a hand. I then asked how many still used them; one hand went up. I then asked how many had Facebook accounts. All hands went up, and stayed up when I asked about regular use.
My student saw that Friendster showed the latent demand for social networking software, but that for a variety of reasons it wasn’t quite ready for prime time. Facebook’s enormous growth and popularity showed the demand for social networking software that got it right. It might be hard to identify, even in retrospect, what that ‘it’ is, but there’s no denying that people want whatever it is.
His point was that we should be similarly patient and optimistic about Enterprise 2.0, and that rather than concentrating on current shortcomings we should be impressed that early efforts are succeeding at all. I think that’s a pretty sharp insight, and a great takeaway from the class. Do you agree?
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Eloquently said, Professor. You have reminded me why I have benefited so much from By Barnes’ programs, PCMPCL and case teaching…I never stop learning from my students. I like the idea of an “eventualist” and I suspect from an org behavior perspective that sort of steady confidence brings many benefits to those who champion 2.0.
I look forward to seeing your prediction markets case. Cheers!
Wonderful point Professor. I have often said that the most innovation within a process, be it education or business, is brought about by fresh eyes. Those dedicated and experienced in a specific field of study view from the whole “forest” perspective, while the newbies question the leaves on the trees.
I agree that there is a strong latent demand for an enterprise to become more “open” or “social” in it’s internal (employees) and external (partners/customers) interactions. However most of the tools, I have seen, that touted as Enterprise 2.0, are very primitive and focused on technology, rather than real use case portfolio. I am faithful however that in time we will figure out how these, or better, tools can be pieced together to support meaningful business interactivity in a meaningful ways. It is only a matter of time and efforts.
I commend you on using the case method for teaching your classes. When I was in business school, the classes that used real world examples always seemed the most interesting to me and as a result I retained much more of the information. It also enables more collaborative learning between teacher and students.
As for the Wiki example, I think Wikipedia is somewhat of a disaster for the exact reason you present above. There are a small group of people who control who can post and edit content on Wikipedia and they keep that control to the exclusion of others. Not to mention how dubious much of the information posted there is…
On the Friendster/Facebook W2.0 issue… I think what makes Facebook so much better was that they were the first to provide an open API so that anyone can develop applications and new functionalities that they could then share with other users without being penalized or shut down (a la myspace). You can even profit from it as they let you include ads in your facebook applications. Howeve I think friendster caters to a different audience than Friendster and Myspace do. Friendster is the social network for adults over 18, whereas myspace (although many adults are members) is mostly for kids and teens.
Although Facebook is gaining on Myspace as the leading social network, there still could be something else that comes out in 5 years or so that beats them all out. MMORPGs is a good example. A massively multiplayer online game is fast becoming the new social network, where people can interact using virtual avatars in a social/game environment. So things are constantly evolving.
Great post!
Haven’t been to any classroom the last few years partly because of the need to earn a living and the lack of interest in curricula that seem too inflexible in incorporating discussions that are grounded in realities.
But often by visiting your posts, I feel transported and privileged to sit in class and participate without being there. I realize that it’s not the curriculum or subject that is often limiting but it is the person in front. It takes courage to believe and lead the discussion(and its not about having all the answers appear instantly).
So things do have a way of correcting itself and finding even keel. Call me a Jimmy Wales convert as I am a Prof. McAfee true fan.
Best.
alain
At their core, social networking sites are driven by the ego of both users and the management of the companies themselves. In the case of Friendster, their early exit from the forefront of social networking was the result of slow response times. At issue was a lack of concern for site performance to support their rapidly growing network of users and a slow response to user’s demands for new functionality and application development.
Their disastrous confidence prevented them from seeing what their users demanded and ultimately instilled a false sense of security that no one could steal their momentum and lure away their millions of users. History shows how wrong they were.
A great majority of internet users are not loyalists to any one site or product. If something comes along that offers greater functionality or new tools that promise to improve our online experience, the great majority will jump at the chance. Perception is a key ingredient in the success of online services as tools that I find narcissistic and pointless like Twitter, succeed almost entirely on buzz alone.
As it relates to Enterprise 2.0, the moral of the story in my eyes is business must keep a zen-like detachment from any one platform or application. Today’s buzz application may be tomorrow’s Friendster. Remaining open to change, no matter how radical, is a key component of effective Enterprise management for the liquid age.
Well said Professor.
I believe that the social web is ready for it’s introduction to the enterprise. LinkedIN is showing a lot of promise. I think it will survive and adapt to the pressure from head hunters and become an increasingly vital tool. It certainly helps me connect with the right people when collaboration with the right subject matter expert at another corporate entity is required.
If you think about wikipedia from a “expected value” standpoint, how can wikipedia be any better than an average resource? 50% of people are above average in knowledge/intelligence and 50% of people are below average knowledge/intelligence. Mix them together and boom, wikipedia’s content.
Right now, I feel like I’m Neitzsche with his thoughts on God. Maybe Wikipedia is Dead.
The Friendster —> Facebook analogy is a nice way of hammering home the way good ideas are inevitably refined and improved.
Once upon a time, we kept track of a dozen favorite directories to find good information online. Then, we moved to Yahoo. Then, we all realized search engines were a bit handier…
Remember HotBot or any of the dozens of once-popular search engines? Nah, everyone Googles now.
We don’t drive Model-T’s, either.
If recognizing that good ideas serving a substantial demand are inevitably improved makes one an Eventualist, sign me up!
Thanks,
Xavier
I agree that the Web 2.0 space is evolving – actually VERY FAST!
Talking about Friendster, this seems like ancient days to me now. And mentioning about Facebook, i think that in time to come, it will be like Friendster as well – if they do not continue to evolve.
People are slowly feeling that Facebook is losing its appeal. And guess what FaceBook is going to do ? The next wave i heard will be incoporating live chat function into their profiles! Allowing collaborative efforts within groups to take place effortlessly.
I am not surprised at this move anyway. If things are still evolving, then it better be good. And the enterprise space is still slow to adopt agility and openness like what FaceBook is doing. Pershaps eventually they will! Such an evolution can mean that disruptive technology like facebook, google, etc…will eventually pose a challenge/alternative to main players (Microsoft, Telecommunications sectors) in the tradittional IT space
Excellent post Professor,
I agree with you. Might I add that as of the current moment, more and more innovative approaches to collaborative management are being discovered and implemented.
For instance, Microsoft, traditionally, a tightly coupled organization is launching has formed a new work group to manage collaborative product design – incorporating all possible stakeholders to the product including the end users. For instance, in the current development phase of Dynamics, it is “trying” out a system of allowing customer collaboration on all aspects of the project including design specifications and handling.
Businesses are traditionally focused on creating the structure needed to serve certain specific functions. As functions change, old businesses die and new ones arise. Or old ones by new ones, expand, lop off old pieces, etc. They are, by nature, not very adaptable.
Tie that in with the fact that social networking technologies are rather young, were originally targeted at individuals, not enterprises, and are in a phase of rapid evolution, and you’ve got a pretty clear picture of slow adoption.
And the idea of targeting enterprise technologies towards the users’ needs, rather than the enterprise’s needs is still fairly new. Businesses around the world are discovering that intranets need to be designed around common user tasks and workflows and the “user perspective”, not just enterprise systems.
Additionally, many businesses are not currently geared towards creating a connective and supportive environment for their workforces. The larger change of which we speak is not just about adopting enterprise 2.0 technologies, but about shifting to a more human-centered business approach.
I believe that’s a great philosophy! You see that sense of eventuality (also combined with survival of the “fittest”) in the opensource movements. I also believe there’s further proof of it in the “del facto standards” that often exist (or perhaps persist).
I would say “unfortunately” the enterprise adoption has been slower, but personally I don’t want my bank rapidly assuming something like OpenID until there’s a lot more vetting…
So the eventuality of it is a good thing, even if sometimes it’s still frustrating.
On the Facebook analogy, I don’t believe Facebook got it right either. They got it better than Friendsters. It’s too early to tell if they got it right. They may be like AOL and be dominant today and gone tomorrow when something better comes out. I believe most likely they will get crushed in 5 years time when the next thing comes out and spam overtakes Facebook. It’s hard for them to hold on when most of their users are at an early stage in their life when things change daily.
I think that the face of the internet will develop in a similar way to how offline technology has, progress is inevitable, there will be plenty of failures that will pave the way for the eventual successes. I don’t see any reason to doubt this, whilst there is a more agile environment online I believe this will just lead to a more rapidly maturing climate which is a great thing!
Competition brings many advantages, in most circumstances it will result in the users of these Enterprise systems reaping the benefits, the eventual conclusion being simple to use, powerful and aesthetically pleasing.
I wonder what’s life going to be like after Facebook? What will be simpler, more interactive, more ubiquitous, that it will actually replace facebook’s current prominence as the de facto social networking platform?
Their disastrous confidence prevented them from seeing what their users demanded and ultimately instilled a false sense of security that no one could steal their momentum and lure away their millions of users. History shows how wrong they were.
I think the Gartner hype cycle is a good framework to understand the impact of E2.0.
New technologies often go through the following phases:- Technology trigger, Peak of inflated expectations, Trough of Disillusionment, Slope of Enlightenment, and finally Plateau of Productivity.
Since companies are typically slower to react, I think E2.0 will lag behind Web2.0 in this cycle. Therefore, by monitoring where Web2.0 is at this point, and where its headed to, we could make intelligent guesses of where E2.0 is and when it will be headed to in the next couple of years.
According to Gartner, Web 2.0 is at the peak of inflated expectations 2 years ago. Therefore, I think E2.0 is somewhere there today. At some point, it will probably go down the trough of disillusionment. But I’m pretty sure that it will hit Plateau of Productivity eventually. If Web 2.0 can reach there, E2.0 can as well.
facebook can be heard anywhere and from anyone. but just like friendster, when something better than facebook comes out, it would not be so dominant like its status as of today. all things on this world don't always stay on top. every passing day, better things happen.
facebook can be heard anywhere and from anyone. but just like friendster, when something better than facebook comes out, it would not be so dominant like its status as of today. all things on this world don't always stay on top. every passing day, better things happen.