Andrew McAfee Talks About Enterprise 2.0 At Harvard’s Berkman Center

Found via aka George Dearing

Great discussion (and hilarious at times, too – just see how David Weinberger explains the rationale behind the IRC back-channel and see Doc Searls fight and conquer a sandwich as a bonus).

But what happens in this relaxed athmosphere is nothing less than a crash course in the motives and context of Enterprise 2.0 – and one can learn a lot from Andrew’s approach (eg. how he goes about to explain the benefits of E 2.0 to regular executives, think strong, weak and potential ties / Mark Granovetter; how business opportunity management can profit from “supported and facilitated” serendipidity; …).

Posted via web from frogpond’s posterous

Stumbled upon – innovative organization and organizations …

Klaus Eck interviews CoreMedia’s Sören Stamer (german language) on what is his definition of Enterprise 2.0, and how it gets “on the road” at CoreMedia, i.e. agility, organizational culture and more:

Als vereinfachende Formel könnte man sagen: Enterprise 2.0 = Web 2.0 in the Enterprise + Privacy + Relevance

Sören himself has an interesting post here, pointing towards Toward High-Performance Organizations: A Strategic Role for Groupware by Douglas Engelbart:

[who] makes a strong case for Enterprise 2.0 long before this term was coined. Especially his framework for improving the improvement process is eye-opening. Inventing hypertext to share information easily was definitely a great C activity. And I guess the same is true for Wikis, Blogs and Micro-Blogs.

When he describes the interdependencies between the human system and the tool system, Douglas Engelbart captures the whole challenge of transforming a conventional Enterprise into an Enterprise 2.0. Without changing our paradigms, organizations, procedures, language and attitudes we won’t see the benefits of new tools.

We’re not alone in this, Vineet Nayar, CEO of India-based information technology services HCL Technologies explains why he believes that in the future, democratic companies will outperform the command-and-control dictatorships that have persisted since the industrial revolution, his learnings include:

– Let go of command and control. In business, as in nations, dictatorship is out. Democracy is in.
– Business leaders must be open to criticism, just as elected officials are.
– Customers don’t come first, employees do, because employees are the product that your customers are buying.
– Democracy and feedback allow employees and managers to gravitate toward their strengths.

One Reason Why Knowledge Management Fails

Well, comes at no surprise, via Mike Gotta:

[…] blogs, wikis, social networking – none of this matters if companies treat people poorly and worse – institutionalize such actions.


With all the talk about Enterprise 2.0 and the resurgence of knowledge management, we tend to forget that employees are influenced (in terms of attitude, behavior, engagement) by both the macro messages that a company sends to its workers as well as the micro messages that come from a worker’s day-to-day management channel.

Yes, clearly not all organizations are ready for the roll-out of social software of any kind. So techno-crazy-high-flying expectations about social softwares impact on organizations should be seen critically, as Tom Davenport rightfully notes.

Then, knowledge cannot be conscripted, it can only be volunteered, and people know more than they can say. So caring and thinking about change management and ways of implementation is really essential … ever considered “adding” (social software sphere) change management consultants like me to your implementation efforts?

Enterprise 2.0 is not about technologies, and not about wikis alone

What makes this BusinessWeek wiki feature outstanding is that it doesn’t restrict its approach on the technology.

Too often, people talk about social software in techno-gabberish, while we know that the main tasks are organization related and have more to do with change management, implementation and persuading people, i.e. finding promotors, followers, early adopters.

Supporting fitting organizational structures, through supportive management and coaching, maybe even rewards and benefit systems (I am no friend of this approach, yet, it has its merits), was not really discussed, but one could feel these issues lurking in the background in most articles.