![\"IMG_5266\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/timoelliott.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sapweb20\/2009\/11\/img-5266.jpg?resize=690%2C290&ssl=1\" "\\"IMG_5266\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a sunny Fall morning in San Francisco, and Steve Wylie<\/a> of TechWeb kicked off the first San Francisco version of the E2.0 event, talking about the changes he\u2019s seen over the last few years. In particular, he pointed to the the rich case studies, larger vendors, and dedicated service providers that are present at today\u2019s event as evidence of the industry\u2019s increasing maturity.<\/p>\n Tammy Erickson<\/a>, President of nGenera Innovation, started her keynote with a prediction that this year will be seen as the \u201cah-ha\u201d year, when organizations really started implementing Enterprise 2.0 technology. She explained that, as with every new technology, the early focus is on the technology itself, but it will ultimately lead to big changes in the the way organizations work. For example, the invention of the telephone enabled management at a distance, and the creation of head offices far from the plants and factories.<\/p>\n She went on to outline the changes she sees in the future:<\/p>\n Over the last 100 years, we\u2019ve developed organizations perfectly adapted to prior challenges \u2013 but not the challenges of the future. The icons of the future will be those organizations that have harnessed the power of Enterprise 2.0 technology in organizations, bringing information together in powerful new ways.<\/p>\n The organizational structures of today\u2019s organizations are not adapted to the new methods. We need more flexible team structures that have ability to effect change. And beyond the structures, there are a series of deeply-embedded assumptions that need to be surfaced and addressed.<\/p>\n For example, there\u2019s assumed to be a tradeoff between loyalty, and protection and care. Most corporate policies \u2013 such as pension plans and promotions \u2013 are based on this. But we know as employees that we can no longer companies to protect us \u2013 but as yet, there\u2019s no replacement pact yet to take its place. Another assumption has been about individual autonomy \u2013 the notion that \u201cyou do your job, I do mind\u201d, and that peers don\u2019t have any right or ability to comment on my work.<\/p>\n Today, almost all the unwritten rules in our organizations actually discourage collaborative behavior, and this has to change. The future will see a move to more of a \u201cPlug and Pay\u201d structure, where employees can come in for specific roles for which they are best qualified.<\/p>\n nGenera\u2019s research shows there are ten behaviors that enable collaborative capacity<\/a>:<\/p>\n Executive concerns about Enterprise 2.0 are clearly diminishing \u2013 fewer people consider it a luxury, or simply a sop to Gen-Y employees. Organizations are realizing that these are business tools that have substantial implications for the way we carry out activities.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s still confusion \u2013 we lump together a very wide range of different activities and technologies under the \u201cEnterprise 2.0\u201d banner. The reality is that Enterprise 2.0 can take many forms \u2013 and it\u2019s not always<\/em> worth it.<\/p>\n So what do people mean? There are typically \u201cten collaborative intents<\/a>\u201d:<\/p>\n One of the biggest future challenges is engagement: you can\u2019t make <\/em>anyone collaborate. You don\u2019t really know if I\u2019m really putting forth my \u201cbest effort\u201d. So the way we\u2019ve learned to manage, by setting directions and controls, and monitoring success \u2013 has to change. The new management challenge will be engagement: the job of a manager is to help employees want <\/em>to share, to collaborate. This requires a very \u201cauthentic\u201d organization \u2013 one that is true to \u201cwhat it means to work here\u201d<\/p>\n Tammy outlined four common corporate positions today:<\/p>\n In each of these cases, the approach isn\u2019t yet balanced \u2013 one of the elements dominates over the others (strategy, structure, culture, technology, or engagement) \u2013 or, in the skunkworks case, there\u2019s only some development in each area..<\/p>\n Microsoft\u2019s presentation featured a mock \u201csocial speed date\u201d between Christian Finn<\/a>, Director of SharePoint Product Management at Microsoft, and Alina Fu<\/a>, SharePoint product manager.<\/p>\n Andrew McAfee, first coined the term Enterprise 2.0 in an article in 2006<\/a>, and literally wrote the book about the subject<\/a>.<\/p>\n He agreed with Tammy that there\u2019s been a sea-change in interest in Enterprise 2.0, and that executives have moved from skepticism to awareness, or resignation, or even some enthusiasm. But there are also some danger signs \u2013 hence the title of his presentation: \u201cWe have the opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory""<\/p>\n First, the evidence that Enterprise 2.0 is thriving. Andrew\u2019s favorite case study comes from the intelligence community<\/a>: \u201cif they can do it \u2013 with a strong \u201cneed to know\u201d tradition of information sharing \u2013 then anybody can.\u201d When he asked a member of that community what had \u201cPhilosophy used to be that if we shared information too much, people would die. But after 9\/11, we realized that if we DON\u2019T share information enough, people could die.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Andrew pointed to the growth of case studies and organizations such as the Enterprise 2.0 adoption council<\/a> as an example of the increasing maturity of the industry (plus, they have great swag!)<\/p>\n Andrew quoted from various studies including one from McKinsey called \u201chow companies are benefiting from Web 2.0<\/a>\u201d, which showed big increases in access to knowledge, to internal experts, employee satisfaction, increasing innovation, and customer satisfaction.<\/p>\n What are the dangers? What could we do to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Here are some common mistakes Andrew sees:<\/p>\n Declaring war on the enterprise.<\/strong> As Andrew points out, this is a really bad sales pitch \u2013 if the goal is to make the executives go away, they are unlikely to sign up for the plan. Plus, and more importantly, it\u2019s flat-out empirically wrong \u2013 there\u2019s still need for some hierarchy, there\u2019s still need for management. To illustrate the point, Andrew pointed to a news story from the satirical journal, the Onion — \u201cMarrxist\u2019s apartment a microscosm of why Marxism doesn\u2019t work<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n Allow walled gardens to flourish.<\/strong> Create mutually inaccessible silos of information. The web works because there\u2019s \u201ca\u201d web, not lots of different webs. He illustrated this with a picture of walled fields from Normandy France.<\/p>\n Accentuate the negative.<\/strong> The risks are manageable, and shouldn\u2019t be ignored, but shouldn\u2019t stop things going forward. For example, one organization implemented a \u201cflag\u201d that could be set to show a potential problem \u2013 but so far it\u2019s never been used.<\/p>\n Try to replace email.<\/strong> We\u2019re not going to replace email any time soon. It works well for a lot of people, and in particular, senior decision-makers are happy with it, especially the \u201cone stop shop\u201d aspect of the inbox.<\/p>\n Fall in love with features<\/strong>. Users don\u2019t want more bells and whistles. We have a tendency to cram in more features \u2013 but this doesn\u2019t make it any easier to use. The phrase to retain is \u201cwhat\u2019s the simplest thing that could possibly work<\/a>?\u201d<\/p>\n Overuse the word \u201csocial\u201d.<\/strong> The word is technically accurate, but \u201cI\u2019ve rarely come across a work that has so many negative associations for managers\u201d \u2013 it sounds like \u201ctechnology to organize social hour\u201d (cue picture of Woodstock: chaos, despair, etc.)<\/p>\n![\"IMG_5270\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/timoelliott.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sapweb20\/2009\/11\/img-5270.jpg?resize=690%2C300&ssl=1\" "\\"IMG_5270\\"")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
![\"IMG_5272\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/timoelliott.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sapweb20\/2009\/11\/img-5272.jpg?resize=690%2C460&ssl=1\" "\\"IMG_5272\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"IMG_5279\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/timoelliott.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sapweb20\/2009\/11\/img-5279.jpg?resize=690%2C301&ssl=1\" "\\"IMG_5279\\"")
<\/p>\n
\n changed, they said:<\/p>\n\n
![\"IMG_5281\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/timoelliott.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sapweb20\/2009\/11\/img-5281.jpg?resize=690%2C460&ssl=1\" "\\"IMG_5281\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"IMG_5283\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/timoelliott.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sapweb20\/2009\/11\/img-52831.jpg?resize=690%2C364&ssl=1\" "\\"IMG_5283\\"")
<\/p>\n