Saw your tweet. I’m no author but I have written a sermon or two where they typically end in a similar fashion. I find one crisp quote at the end with some comments to be rather effective both when writing and listening/reading. I particularly like your second quote and your comments about the journey and need for dialog.

I wish you well on the book. Is the info on Amazon yet? I want to make sure its in my (every growing) wish list.

Kinds Regards

I think Havel’s quote is obscure and does not adequately support your concluding thought; it leads the reader briefly down a wrong path, whom you then rescue with the quote from Michael Oakeshott. And Mr. Oakeshotts words are robust and to the point, enough so that you need no other quotes.

One of the most fascinating aspects of Enterprise 2.0 for me is that there is no ending. It’s like a permanent and joined effort of a crew’s members to discuss and find the best ways “to boldly go where no man has gone before”.

I think the Havel quote is brilliant and represents Enterprise 2.0 well because much of his most powerful writing was done when he was, as Chris Gift says, obscure. Part of what social technologies do is give a voice to those who otherwise wouldn’t be heard. Or to rephrase the title of another Havel essay, they give power to the powerless.

Part of what educational books should do is present insights which otherwise might have been missed. The modern corporation, unfortunately, is not so different from the Communist state. This is an idea Havel explored. On many levels, I think, the quote is brilliant.

Andy

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Gift. As someone who’s trying to push the envelope on this at a big, old, established (aka: arrogant – but in a good way) company.

These technologies do appeal to the innovators in your organization who reject status-quo, and run screaming from fundamentalism in the enterprise. They rarely appeal to people who have all the answers.

The 1st quote is necessary to help people understand who to enroll, enable and energize with emergent patterns and how to deal with the objections that will undoubtedly arise as you begin the powerful conversations that the 2nd quote describes.

I think that although the ending is clever and even somewhat insightful, its too geeky for lack of a better word.

There are several stylistic issues here. And since you asked for it, I will elaborate:

Paragraph 1 is not readable. Long sentences. Too many quotes and punctuation marks. Too many unpronounceable names. Content-wise, I am not even sure if I want to take Enterprise 2.0 advice from a former Czech President.

I would in stead lay out a challenge to the reader in plain words – decide whether they want to embrace communities and what it implies – a questioning mind set. Or do they simply want easy straightforward answers.

I agree with Chris. The Havel quote dilutes the message.

You might think of providing the reader with a link to this blog as a way of keeping your “conversation” with the reader going.

The book, after all is an Enterprise 1.0 means of communication, even if the best books engage us in an author-reader dialogue. This blog and forum enable an Enterprise 2.0 means of continuing discussion of the issues you raise.

By a completely bizarre coincidence, I posted something earlier today on the issue of answers.

Anyway, I personally believe that your final two paragraphs are an excellent choice for a wrap up section on enterprise 2.0

“To listen well, is as powerful a means of influence as to talk well, and is as essential to all true conversation” Chinese Proverb.

Andrew – simple, true , and can be used in the enterprise as well as for the individual.

Looking forward to the book!

Peter

I think the first sentence is a slap in the face of the premise of Enterprise 2.0. If E2.0 doesn’t facilitate answers then it has little place in the enterprise and the CFO’s and CEO’s will kill it off in the next season. Perhaps it should have then been called Academia 2.0.
But Enterprise 2.0 can provide answers and those of us who have been instructed to “make it so!” look to the ways we can functionally provide answers to the problems of people who work virtually around the world. People who need the support and development that a shared community can give. People who want input to their ideas to take them far beyond where an isolated mind would commonly go without the interaction that the old fashioned workplace provided.
Enterprise 2.0 can backfill for our loss of that community and provide a new wide vista that only voices from far beyond our previous scope can provide. But it has to be a vehicle that helps find answers, not one that just distracts us with it’s confusing tag clouds and contextless ratings. The toys of 2.0 need to evolve to the tools of 2.1 and then E2.0 will be about answers.

Fix the first paragraph, it’s cute but mindless. ;-P

I saw your tweet on this topic. I think using a quote can inject a somewhat poetic tone into writing and lets the reader hear a new voice. But the conclusion should flow with the tone of the rest of the book, so I can’t say if it works as a whole or not. On its own, I prefer the poetic close; it’s more inspirational, although I agree with Chris that Havel’s quote doesn’t seem entirely on target.

Second quote is good, much better than the first. I also like some of the military quotes out there talking about the need to flatten information flow (e.g., Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (recently deceased) and General James Cartwright (now Vice Chairman of JCS; former Commander of USSTRATCOM)). But understand these may not do well here. There’s a quote in Wikinomics (which I loaned out) that said “2006 was the year when the programmable web eclipsed the static web every time: Flickr beat Webshots; Wikipedia beat Britannica; Blogger beat CNN; Epinions beat Consumer-reports; Upcoming beat Evite; Google Maps beat MapQuest; MySpace beat Friendster; and Craigslist beat Monster.” “What was different? The losers launched web sites, the winners launched vibrant communities. The losers built walled gardens. The winners build public squares. The losers innovated internally. The winners innovated with their users. The losers jealously guarded their data and software interfaces. The winners shared them with everyone.” See http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2007/10/anecdote_news_o.html

Second quote is good, much better than the first. I also like some of the military quotes out there talking about the need to flatten information flow (e.g., Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (recently deceased) and General James Cartwright (now Vice Chairman of JCS; former Commander of USSTRATCOM)). But understand these may not do well here. There’s a quote in Wikinomics (which I loaned out) that said “2006 was the year when the programmable web eclipsed the static web every time: Flickr beat Webshots; Wikipedia beat Britannica; Blogger beat CNN; Epinions beat Consumer-reports; Upcoming beat Evite; Google Maps beat MapQuest; MySpace beat Friendster; and Craigslist beat Monster.” “What was different? The losers launched web sites, the winners launched vibrant communities. The losers built walled gardens. The winners build public squares. The losers innovated internally. The winners innovated with their users. The losers jealously guarded their data and software interfaces. The winners shared them with everyone.” See http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2007/10/anecdote_news_o.html

I like this passage.

As someone coming to the end of a one-year development and sustained roll-out of a heavily socially-moderated “web 2.0″ intranet at a mid-size financial services firm, Havel’s quote resonates. Assuming the preceding work does not already frame the issue, I think Eric’s observation is important, however. The quote touches on the prismatic quality of post-modern information exchange, where there is usually not an absolute truth and those who collaborate under such circumstances can often find their work undone by all manner of “Catch-22″ like absurdities.

I like the quote because I think it captures that dilemma. But I don’t think you adequately accommodate or describe that. Again, perhaps the book as a whole has already accomplished it.

I’ve been reading the blog for a long while; look forward to the book!

@Chris Gift – well said!

While doing research on Enterprise 2.0 and the plethora of tools emerging in this space, I stumbled onto this quote (in Wikipedia) from Philip Rosedale, the creator of Second Life:

“I’m not building a game. I’m building a new country.”

I like this because:
1. It’s short & memorable (as best quotes are).
2. It illustrates the magnitude of change that E2.0 can deliver.
3. It hints at the crossover capabilities of Web 2.0 tools into the enterprise. I.e., don’t dismiss these tools as “toys” — they can provide the foundation for an entirely new form of social interaction that will eventually work its ways into more “serious” interaction like work and government. (Businesses & governments use Second Life for “real” work now.)

These quotes could potentially lead the reader to believe that enterprise 2.0 is for intellectuals, the “idea” guys, and leave the readers with a question in their mind. I would potentially reinforce how enterprise 2.0 can add to the bottom line…

Hi Andrew, I saw your tweet too. I agree with the above two comments. The Oakeschott quote is strong enough on its own. I’d also like to see the opening sentence in the positive, which would make better sense without the segue into the Havel quote. e.g. along the lines of… “Emergent social software appeals to those who prefer questions to answers, and journeys to destinations. Enterprise 2.0…”

Looking forward to hearing more about your book, and thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Hi Andrew, I tend to agree with Chris Gaft, I prefer Oakeshott’s quotation much more and find the Havel quotation a bit akward.

As for other authors… I’ve often talked about the ideas of Jim Collins (Made to Last, Good to Great). I don’t have the exact quotations readily available. But I’ve taken this piece out of one my most ‘popular’ postings around how participation rates/adoption rates are not good sole measures of success when it comes to e2.0.

http://rexsthoughtspot.blogspot.com/2008/04/5-social-computing-benefits-that.html

“Jim explains that the role of leadership is NOT to motivate. If you have to motivate and convince people to do something, you’re already starting in a bad position. Instead, if you have the right people and the right opportunity they will be “self-motivated”. The role of leadership then becomes making sure you don’t let people become “de-motivated”. Jim goes on to explain the importance of making sure you find the right people. But how do you do this?

One way is to leverage the power of self-organization. For example, we run on-line “jam” sessions and invite 1000′s of people to participate. Not everyone will, but those that do tend to be “passionate” and willing to take on accountability. And those concepts that rise to the top tend to be well thought through. The point… Even if you only have 10% participation. It’s likely that the 10% you want!”

I am not sure if it’s suitable for the flow of your book but I thought I’d share.

Cheers, Rex

“Innovative companies don’t waste time fighting for openness or debating ROI because they are too busy living Enterprise 2.0 and finding creative ways of integrating these social tools into their daily workflows.” ~ Todd Pitt

I like the Havel quote, it is more succinct while providing the same idea. Using both did not disturb me.
Good luck with the book.

Andrew,
I feel this proposed ending highlights the difference in approach between you and I, as far as attempting to introduce social software to the enterprise is concerned. You are painting a picture of some sort of collegiate nirvana, which might be common in universities but IME is rare in corporations. I’m afraid I believe this will always be so, and that if social software is to find a place in corporations it will need to be for reasons other than the ones you give. Sorry to be such a sceptic. I do really wish corporations could have the openness you seek. But I just don’t see it happening anytime soon.

First mixing Enterprise 2.0 (modern technologies) with “quotes” is unique and interesting. The choice of quotes is nice.

Secondly, the targeted audience looks like professionals, may be decision makers of organizations. They might be not very well aware of the benefits of social softwares. It should add more taste and making it easy understanding author’s message.

Hey folks, maybe we could garner even more ideas and great quote submissions by broadcasting McAfee’s quest through our blogs, twits, etc? I’ve posted a quick blog… what say you?

http://jesserwilson.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/harvard-professor-andrew-mcafee-seeking-help-on-web-20-book-via-blog/

The ending should be a clarification of channels and platforms and your vision of their convergence..

It’s funny as I read the quote, it reminded me more of a quote you might see on a syllabus at a liberal arts college course. Isn’t it funny that Enterprise 2.0 generally falls under the auspices of IT when in fact many of the skills needed to facilitate it are right-brain skills that technicians and analysts (and MBAs by the way) often do not possess?

An an MBA, an analyst and IT Manager (but graduate of UVA’s liberal arts program), I ought to know!

We’ve all heard the expression “content is king.” I agree with Cory Doctorow that this mantra is incomplete. More refined, “Conversation is king. Content is just something to talk about.”

This focus on conversation is Web or E 2.0 greatest strengths: to enable a continuing broad and diverse conversation through transparency and serendipitous interaction.

Of course, your ideal concluding paragraphs will summarize what you’ve spent the whole book saying. I don’t find either quote to be particularly applicable. I think Enterprise 2.0 is more than just about a conversation, but that’s just my opinion. However, if that’s what you’re going for, Chris’s quoting Cory Doctorow is short and sweet.

I think the ending should be a clarification and vision of their convergence..