Some Questions You Might Get Asked

by Andrew McAfee on June 30, 2008

As I’ve talked with many different audiences over the past two years about Enterprise 2.0, I’ve noticed that the same questions keep coming up, and I wanted to capture them. I’ll talk about the best answers to these questions later, and also about which of them seem to be most legitimate — to reflect the real risks a company takes on when it deploys emergent social software platforms (which from now on I’m just going to abbreviate as ESSPs). For now I just wanted to list them, and to make sure that I’m not missing any common ones. 

For internal ESSPs, here’s the FAQ:

  • What if employees use the their internal blogs to post hate speech or pornography, or to harass a co-worker? 
  • What if blogs are used to denigrate the company itself, air dirty laundry, or talk about how misguided its leadership and strategy are? 
  • What if nasty arguments break out in a discussion forum and the whole thing descends into name-calling and flame wars?
  • Won’t people be tempted to use forums to talk about current events, review movies, ask for advice about camcorder purchases, and have other non work-related conversations? 
  • What if people waste time filling up their employee profile pages with pictures of their kittens and vacations? 
  • Will people just use social networking software to plan happy hour, rather than to get work done? 
  • Don’t Enterprise 2.0 platforms just yield another source of discoverable content –  material that must be turned over as part of a lawsuit or other legal action? 
  • If the information on these platforms really is valuable, won’t it be harvested by spies and sold to the highest bidder? 
  • Won’t hackers break in to our Enterprise 2.0 platforms and steal their content? 
  • Don’t these technologies make it easier to deliberately or inadvertently leak secrets to the outside world? 
  • Don’t they make it too easy for confidential information to leap over our internal Chinese Walls? 
  • If we give up tight control over our Intranet’s content, how can we possibly avoid running afoul of all potentially relevant regulations and laws around information sharing in all the places we do business?

The list of concerns grows when an organization also considers extending Enterprise 2.0 tools and approaches to external groups like prospective customers, actual customers, suppliers, and other community members:  

  • What if an unhappy customer uses uses our community site to air their grievances, and to talk loudly and often about our lousy products or Kafkaesque customer service? Or a supplier uses them to complain about how we never pay on time? 
  • Are we responsible and liable if people give incorrect information or bad advice on question and answer forums we host on our Web site?  
  • If we try to take advantage of lead-user innovation and ask people to submit their ideas to us, who owns the resulting intellectual property –  do we have to share resulting revenues and/or profits with the submitter?

What am I missing?  Are there frequently-asked questions that aren’t on this list?  If so, what are they?  Leave a comment, please, and let us know.

And if you’d like to share your favorite answers to any of these, we’re all ears.

 

{ 24 comments }

At Newsstands Now: IT and Competition

by Andrew McAfee on June 27, 2008

Harvard Business Review has recently updated its Web site to reflect the contents of the July-August issue, which is the second of two issues celebrating the Centennial of Harvard Business School. This one is devoted to "Honing Your Competitive Edge" and contains an article written by myself and MIT‘s Erik Brynjolfsson called "Investing in the IT That Makes a Competitive Difference." This is a descriptive title, but not a terribly interesting or provocative one. Erik and I tried to get the editorial staff brainstorming around titles like "Deploy, Innovate, and Propagate: How to Harness IT for Competitive Advantage." or "How, and How Much, IT Matters," but no dice. 

The title aside, we’re excited to see the article in print. It builds on and expands ideas we wrote about last year in Sloan Management Review and the Wall Street Journal, and that I’ve blogged about a couple times.

We present data showing that competition in the US has become significantly nastier, or more ‘Schumpeterian,’ since the mid 1990s, and that the increase in competitive intensity is biggest in the industries that spend the most on IT. To put it a bit more precisely, we found a positive correlation between nastier competitive dynamics and IT investment at the industry level since the mid 90s; the article includes graphs that show this relationship.

To put it a bit more loosely, we found that competition started to heat up in the middle of the last decade, and that it heated up most in industries that installed a lot of IT.

We use analogies, case studies, logic, and previous theoretical and empirical work to argue that this is not just an interesting correlation, but a story of cause-and-effect. We believe that IT is a primary engine of the observed changes in the landscape of competition. The article lays out why we believe this, and what the implications for technology-fueled competition are for companies and their leaders.

I won’t try to summarize our arguments, conclusions, or recommendations here. Instead, please read the article if you’re interested in the topic; It’s available for free for the next month on HBR’s site.

And please let me and the rest of this blog’s community know what you think. Are you persuaded by our evidence and arguments?  If not, why not?  What did we overlook or get wrong? What do you think of the paper’s recommendations to executives? Are they the right ones, or recipes for disaster? What questions did the article leave you with?  Leave a comment and share your thoughts; I’ll take up feedback in later posts. There’s a lot more to be said on this topic, so let’s start the conversation.

 

{ 10 comments }

Is Management the Problem?

June 19, 2008

Last week at the Enterprise 2.0 conference I moderated a panel of early adopters. The conference organizers assembled a true group of all-stars: Pete Fields, SVP in Wachovia’s eCommerce division; Simon Revell, Manager of Enterprise 2.0 technology development at Pfizer; Ned Lerner, Director of tools and technology at Sony Computer Entertainment, and my friends Don [...]

Read the full article →

Harbors in the Ocean of E-mail

June 16, 2008

As I’m writing this, the fourth most-blogged article from the New York Times website is "Lost in E-Mail, Tech Firms Face Self-Made Beast," which appeared on June 14. It describes how knowledge workers at many high-tech firms feel as if they’re drowning in e-mail, and how bad habits and etiquette (like reflexively using the ‘reply [...]

Read the full article →

Detente

June 9, 2008

The most recent issue of EMC‘s ON Magazine includes an interview with me and Tom Davenport. As the article’s subhead states, "One year after debating whether Enterprise 2.0 is truly a transformative technology or just an incremental evolution of collaborative tools, Andrew McAfee and Tom Davenport resume the conversation." Conversation is exactly the right word. [...]

Read the full article →

Eric Schmidt Reveals Google’s Secret

June 3, 2008

The organizers of last week’s Management Lab conference on "Inventing the Future of Managment" amplified the value of the event for us attendees by persuading Google CEO Eric Schmidt to speak with us over dinner on Thursday night. I’d not had the chance to hear him before, and was blown away; he was funny, direct, [...]

Read the full article →