Emergence in Enterprise 2.0 implementation

More on emergence as a principle behind enterprise 2.0 concepts (add this to my post here) in Miguel Cornejo Castro’s take on the McAfee/Davenport debate (Davenport’s pov):

Integrating this “emergence” paradigm into the management methods of modern business is darn hard. It will take time, it will take experiments and failures. It’s not just a technology awareness issue (as the previous implementations of e-business and other disruptive technologies), it’s a cultural issue. A business-practices issue.

Web 2.0 is just another enabler for a cultural change that was already under way with Web 1.0. Witness forums, online collaboration tools (not invented with tags et al), and the emergence of the idea of the knowledge worker. Witness the whole latest generation of Knowledge Management as a discipline.

Now I wouldn’t define emergence as a paradigm, but rather as a principle (building upon an underlying paradigm of “complex adaptive organizational systems” and in line with principles like connectivity and adaptivity). Hence, it becomes clear that we must not focus solely on culture – yes, organizational culture is playing an important part, but it is neither the only adoption and implementation lever nor the only thing to mind when bringing web 2.0 to the enterprise.

Value of Enterprise 2.0 … debated

So I finally am ready to collect some of the loose ends of the McAfee/Davenport debate and comment:

My main point is, that it’s always a good idea to debate with the contrarians/heretics/opponents especially when they’re polite, well-spoken and -educated. And Tom Davenport surely is, so his arguing against the flow is a good thing: it forces us enterprise 2.0 proponents to think hard why we’re so into this stuff, and it makes sure that we think more about adoption issues and implementation paths than about (yes, cool) technologies.

And Davenport made this really good point that collaboration doesn’t depend that much on technologies, when already existing technology’s capabilities may suffice.

Still, I am now very sure that we’re not in for a fad or an extension of what’s gone before. Social software technologies are allowing for connectivity, adaptivity and emergence – and these are principles that govern these complex organizational systems we call corporations. And these are the ways they change how we collaborate, i.e. through changing context and information supply, through enabling flexibility and agility, through giving room for self-organization …

Moreover, enhancing competitiveness and productivity of knowledge workers is long overdue. Here, social networks are only one part of the equation: there are also other aspects of Enterprise 2.0 like e.g. mashups and “as a service” applications that go together nicely with other enterprise software trends like SOA. In fact, I think that asking whether Enterprise 2.0 is really something new is pointless, some will always highlight its revolutionary parts, others will point out its ancestors in CSCW and enterprise software and the traditional set of technologies for collaboration, interaction, and information sharing.

Anyway, Enterprise 2.0 is definitely going to impact corporate culture, (knowledge worker) productivity and startegic competitiveness.

Assemble Enterprise 2.0 with Open-Source

John Eckman points to an Optaros whitepaper on Enterprise 2.0 technologies, specifically open-source tools.

I like their take and view of technologies for supporting knowledge management 2.0 and their criticism of “One True Architecture”-thinking. No wonder, as I too argue that adaptivity, connectivity and emergence are essential ingredients to knowledge management concepts …

Here’s the Executive Summary:

Enterprise 2.0 promises a new approach to creating, managing, and consuming knowledge within the enterprise, allowing patterns and value to emerge out of relatively freeform, experimental, unrestricted exchanges. Unlike knowledge management systems of the nineties, which locked users into strict taxonomies, enforced rigid workflows, and reflected hierarchical management relationships, emerging social computing systems rely on lightweight, adaptable frameworks designed to facilitate knowledge creation across traditional boundaries, enable rapid change, and foster contributions from throughout the management hierarchy.

This new knowledge management paradigm needs to be supported by new technologies and approaches. It isn’t, however, just a matter of selecting the right set of applications or the right platform; there is no “One True Architecture” which includes all the features and functions users could ever desire.

Wissensmanagement 2.0

Norbert Gronau hat in der FTD Enable Beilage einen Artikel zu (2.0-)Ansätzen im Wissensmanagement verfasst. Der kurze Beitrag kann naürlich die Herausforderungen für “Wissensmanagement 2.0” nur kurz anreißen, gut gefallen hat mir aber die deutliche Absage an Versuche Wissensmanagement (informations-)technologisch anzugehen.

Den Versuch KMDL (Knowledge Modelling and Description Language) als Analyse- bzw. Implementierungswerkzeug für Wissensmanagement 2.0 zu positionieren sehe ich dagegen kritisch. Aus meiner Sicht finden die wichtigsten Prozesse der Wissensarbeit in informellen Strukturen statt, die besser mit Werkzeugen wie Social Network Analysis angegangen werden.

Interessanter sind dann Instrumente zur Förderung des persönlichen, individuellen Wissensmanagements in komplexen sozialen Strukturen. Gerade Social Software lässt sich hier in das organisationale Wissensmanagement einpassen.

Ohnehin wandelt sich Wissensmanagement zunehmend von IT- und werkzeugorientierten hin zu personen- bzw. organisationsorientierten Ansätzen: Social Software ist die logische Infrastruktur für veränderte Strukturen, betriebliche (Informations-)technologien, Unternehmenskulturen und Mitarbeiter.

Es ist dabei empfehlenswert, personen-, d.h. mitarbeiterorientierte von “kulturorientierten” Maßnahmen zu unterscheiden, und das Konzept (und den Ansatz von Implementierungsvorhaben mit Zielrichtung Wissensarbeit) entsprechend zu erweitern: Social Software wird dann die Infrastruktur für ein zukunftsfähiges Wissensmanagement, das Wissensarbeit, wie bspw. die vielfältigen täglichen Interaktions- und Kommunikationsprozesse, unterstützt und verbessert.

In diesem Zusammenhang spielt dann auch wieder der Beitrag von Norbert Gronau seine Stärken aus: die Betonung der Integration von Wissensmanagement in die alltägliche Arbeit.

Interesse am Einsatz von Social Software? Hier das Kontaktformular.

Social Computing Upends Past Knowledge Management Archetypes

… or so Forrester Research holds in this report:

When knowledge management (KM) practices, tools, and architectures burst onto the scene in the mid-1990s, they looked a lot like the old economy businesses that built them, hierarchical and workflow-driven. Now, Social Computing tools are flattening those architectures and extending the reach of KM well beyond the walls of the conventional enterprise to touch customers and business partners. Information and KM professionals are becoming knowledge facilitators, and they must get smart fast to capitalize on this trend. Although disruptive, Social Computing will transform KM, shifting the emphasis from repositories, which are hard to build and maintain, to more intuitive, tacit knowledge sharing. Social Computing is becoming the new KM, moving it from an often too academic exercise into the real world of people sharing knowledge and expertise with each other naturally, without even thinking about it.

Overall I am glad that Forrester Research is pushing this specific application of social software, as this is good news for social software and knowledge management consultants like frogpond.

But I would elaborate on their argument, basically because when many past knowledge-management projects and initiatives did not work out as planned, they did so rarely because methods or tools lacked.

For social software to turn out successful, it can’t be sufficient to ponder, propose and promote (new) methods and tools.

What is also needed is appropriate groundwork and background, i.e. paradigms and principles that guide the selection and usage of methods and tools, and insight into the nature of complex organizational systems. Emergence, connectivity and adaptivity are traits of organizational systems that are supported and leveraged by social software – good for organizational knowledge management but not restricted to it.

If you’re eager to know more and are looking for social software support and consulting assistance, contact me.

Organization, ad-hoc or well-defined?

Jack Vinson has some thoughts on an issue Jeffrey Philipps brought up (and that was discussed yesterday evening in a local meeting of enterprise 2.0 folks I attended):

People don’t bother defining their processes because they can’t see how it matters. Maybe they don’t believe they have an impact on the overall business. Or they are trying to protect their “turf” by being purposefully opaque. Or they’ve had a dozen other improvement efforts come through and there has been no real impact on the bottom line.
[…]
Understanding processes is helpful, but it is just as important to know which processes need to be understood. This is a common complaint of flavor-of-the-day programs: the idea is applied to everything in the hopes that it will do some good. It makes much more sense to look at the business and find the few places to apply an improvement that will actually make a difference to the business.

I’d add that
– neat orderly processes are not that ubiquitous and
– that they aren’t as important as most people think.

Especially knowledge (or innovation) work processes can’t be standardized (granted you can support parts and pieces of these processes with standard workflow gear), so trying to manage them into (computerized) workflows and all is not feasible and no worthwhile goal, whereas more freeform tools and concepts like wikis can be easily adapted to variable requirements – and even allow (process) solutions to emerge from within the organizational system.

If you want to know more and are looking for social software support and consulting assistance, contact me.

Crossposting again …

Some more posts in my Business Model Innovation and Design blog that are worthy of being noted in this blog as well, same procedure as always.

Again, only posts that relate to innovation work, web 2.0 innovations, knowledge work and consulting:

The innovation fad is over … ah, not yet.

Payback on Innovation is what we need, listen to a podcast

Where the Coffee Shop Meets the Cubicle on co-working and here on the virtual workplace

Wikinomics @ brand eins german post, pointing to a german language interview with Don Tapscott

What is wikinomics? … learn more in a podcast

Innovationsmanagement @ Yahoo! german again, but some links to english language posts of interest

Storytellers make up the skills gap on storytelling (in knowledge work)

The Greatest Innovations of All Time on innovation management (and narrow-mindedness in innovation processes)

Teqlo zum zweiten on mash-ups, pointing to a nice screencast by Rod Boothby

Craig Burton in IT conversations … on the Enterprise of One, a discussion of how new technology has stripped the old business models away

A pointer to Henry Chesbrough on open innovation business models

It’s the strength of your business process versus those of your competitors … while implementation is hard

And last but not least, Russ Ackoff interview and some f-laws …