Enterprise 2.0: Focus On Organizational Dynamics, Not Technology

In the movie "The Graduate", one of the more famous scenes occurs when Dustin Hoffman is given some very proactive and free advice regarding "plastics". Today, that advice might go like this:

Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Enterprise 2.0.

OK, technically this might count as two words, but I saw this quote recently while reading an article on innovation. It reminded me of the situation we face today. There are many people proactively offering advice to business and IT strategists concerning market, organizational and technology trends under the banner of "<xxx>" 2.0.

Whether it's Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Office 2.0, those with advice to offer parallel that scene in The Graduate. It's an answer to a question but we're really not sure what the question is and we're pretty sure that no matter what question poor Benjamin might have come up with, the answer was going to be the same - "plastics".

Today, that answer is a little more varied. Today, that silver-bullet ("plastics") has been replaced by "blogs", "wikis", "social networks", "RSS", "tagging", "social bookmarks", "anything-Ajax" and so on. In many cases, those terms are tossed around by vendors who just happen to sell either technology or professional services in that very same space. Shocking.

So off we go, chasing the "<xxx>" 2.0 technology hammer to whatever poor nail happens to get in the way.  What comes to mind then is another famous quote, this time I'll go back a little more into history and point to Homer: "To the Sirens first shalt thou come, who bewitch all men, whosoever shall come to them."

It's important to point out that my disagreement with the conventional wisdom surrounding all-things-suffixed-by-2.0 is entirely directed at the irrational exuberance some pundits have in recommending technology associated with this meme as a silver-bullet and panacea to problems faced by large enterprises. Often I find serious gaps in what they fail to mention around security, identity, records management, integration, interoperability and other concerns.

If you are going to point out the benefits, please take the time to point out the risks. If you are not aware of the risks, then at least put a disclaimer on your presentation or posting that such issues need to be addressed. That's a key message I think needs to come across more often.

On the positive side of "<xxx>" 2.0. I actually am quite excited that the industry is finally prioritizing the importance of understanding the behaviors, motivations and activities of people groups and networks of all kinds and how those interactivities and inter-relationships influence "work" (productivity, performance, innovation and so on). I am constantly looking for examples of studies where practioners have taken the time to examine organizational dynamics beyond the technology tip-of-the-iceberg. Some of the work I've read does a solid job at observation, analysis and recommendations. And the solutions sometimes include no technology at all. Shocking. No blog, no wiki. How can that be? 

I honestly believe that the more transformational "<xxx>" 2.0 solutions will be driven by changes that focus first on leadership, followership, decision rights, human capital management,  community-building, converging work/lifestyles and so on - not technology. And when technology does become an enabler to the solution (e.g., blog, wiki or mashup of some sort), due diligence regarding security, identity, compliance, records management, and alignment with existing infrastructure investments will still be required.

While it is important to enable users themselves to construct their own communication, information sharing and collaborative environments, they need to do so within policies and structures that do not put the enterprise at risk. And that's a key message I want to get across with this post. Technology needs a context; the history of IT is littered with mistakes when we fail to learn from history (perhaps thing of this as "Repeating History 2.0").

What I am most happy to see coming out of Hype 2.0, is the recognition of socially-oriented methods of research and analysis (e.g., ethnography, anthropology). IT groups will need to be as competent in these areas as they are in areas related to data, information and process. And that's another takeaway in this post: Elevating people, groups (teams, communities) and networks to the same level of importance as data, information and process is long overdue.

Comments

[Dirk Karl Maßat]

A very interesting site, I think. The Idea of Technometry was new for me but worth to be read and thought abot it (although I'm not a native english-speaker and have some difficulties whith this language)

[Susan Scrupski]

Hey Mike. Great post! When you consider the term "Enterprise 2.0" was really launched onto the tech scene in August of this year (Andrew McAfee), the rising visibility of the category in 4 months is worth noting. The excellent points you've raised here including your recognition of social underpinnings of the movement and the need for security, identity, records management, integration, interoperability, etc., demand a lot more study and user adoption before we can really tell how e2.0 solutions will impact the industry overall. Some say it's a revolution; some say it's merely another technology evolution... what we know for sure is the numbers of vendors starting up in this sector grows exponentially every month. These vendors are looking for homes in the enterprise. They may go through the front door of IT, or they may sneak in through the user-department underground. Either way, it's more like rational exuberance once we reach a healthy absorption rate. Time will tell-- cliched, but so true in this case.

[Susan Scrupski]

Whoops. I stand self-corrected. McAfee first started using the term, "Enterprise 2.0" in the spring of this year. It was validated in the tech sector in August as an official entry in Wikipedia.

[evbart]

Great post. I agree that the emphasis on technology may be too strong. Everyone wants to throw a wiki at the problem, without really considering the details first.

I've heard, seen, and believe that there are strong cases for businesses to blog, and I've seen great resources for people evaluating this option. They can easily learn about the benefits, and the situations in which blogging makes sense (one example is the book Blogging for Business)

Wikis, on the other hand, seem to have much less documentation on their practical applciations. I've seen many companies put them up, only for the wiki to lay dormant with only a few people adding content. The lack of structure has also made finding that content rather diffcult for non-technical users.

There needs to be some structure around that, and companies (especially ones with employees of varying levels of technical sophistication) need to train people on how to use them effectively.

If anyone has any case studies, or articles on best-practices for wikis I'd love to see them.

[Produktdesign]

There are so many useful and interesting informations on this site! Thanks and greetings from Thuringia in Germany!

[Anismodel]

Nice article. Greetings!