Enterprise2.0 Loyalty

The Enterprise 2.0 Executive Forum in Sydney yesterday proved to be a great half day of case studies and discussion.

One of the emerging themes was the need for Enterprise 2.0 implementers to “let go” of content structure, instead shifting focus to content support. The tendency for IT Managers or Business to micro-manage web2.0 projects often compromises the original purpose of promoting collaboration; the good intent of creating categories of information on a wiki or make things “look nice” inhibits employees from potential engagement with the content and tools.

The emphasis was made that participation is elicited from employees when THEY have a say in creating content and categories of content. Speakers discussed the benefit of letting people experiment and encouraging User Generated Content (UGC) as a means to develop a web2.0 workforce.

I wonder if UGC is key to developing the Enteprise 2.0 brand in your organisation? If you want your web2.0 project to develop a positive reputation, word of mouth, loyalty and higher levels of participation, what are you doing to “let go”? By focusing on a well planned, supporting structure to direct the flow and integrity of content (instead of planning the content structure), it appears the risk might just be worth it.

14 thoughts on “Enterprise2.0 Loyalty

  1. Andy Piper

    This one challenged the “two word title” rule, huh? :-P

    I think this is a fair point. It’s also difficult to make a start on a blank slate though, without some seeding of content, don’t you think?

  2. wonderwebby

    hi Andy! heh, yes I kind of squeezed in that 2.0 didn’t I??

    Agree there needs to be some purpose to it all, as a seed for ideas. I think the point was not to rush ahead and populate a wiki, or try to control something that should be organic, at least in the first instance of implementation.

  3. ringlerun

    hey ww,

    thanks for telling me about e2ef… some of it was rather brilliant… especially the guy from the j&j subsidiary was brilliant…

    the main point i got out of yesterday too was that relinquishing imposed structure was critical…

    on the “look nice” though… i walked away with the impression that they said it was critical to make it look nice… not the content, but the design part anyway…

    the whole 2.0 usage thing annoys me to no end though… how i was fuming when Andrew (the so called “coiner” of the term enterprise 2.0) spoke!!! arrrr!!!! they just don’t get it… tim o’reilly coined the term web 2.0 in *retrospect* (as a realisation of transformation, not as marketing speel!!!!!!). Andrew also thought the definition of web 2.0 was too vague.. i guess he has not bothered to read Tim’s explanation at: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
    i’ll stop ranting now, will save it for my blog :-)

    Thankyou for telling me about it though… well worth going to :-)

  4. wonderwebby

    Hi Ringlerun! Yes I really liked what Nathan Wallace from Janssen-Cilag had to say (and what a fun presenter!)
    Yes, they did say simple design is important, easy to use, the desire for WYSIWYG wikis etc. I think Nathan made the reference to the problem of trying to make content look nice, having nice short lists of content on a wiki, trying to control something when you just need to let it evolve.
    What do you mean about the 2.0 usage? I really enjoyed Andrew McAfee’s presentation and agreed with much of what he had to say.

  5. ringlerun

    ah yes… Nathan… i had forgotten the names from yesterday already… he was the guy that was just brilliant :-)

    Andrew seemed a bit too full of himself to me… this whole 2.0 fad is something that really bugs me – and he was the epitome of it yesterday – as he himself claims to have created the term “enterprise 2.0”. Tim (O’reilly) very clearly wrote that his use of the terms web 2.0 is not an aspiration, not a reference to how things might evolve in the future, but how things changed from the past to the present. He distances himself from the term web 3.0 very much, claiming its all marketing guff and hype.

    The way i see the term 2.0 being used – when not used in a way that was originally intentioned, all i can see is marketing fuffy duffy’s using it as a term of future evolution – eg. enterprise 2.0! not a retrospective look at how things have come to the current point – but an aspirational look at how things could be – or should get to! the whole 2.0 thing is used by daffy ducks to hook in managers that want to be “part of the fad” and “not miss the boat”! – whereas web 2.0 was never ever about a boat going towards a destination – but about a concept that had already evolved!

    I guess the one thing i have to come to terms with is that when “real innovators” come up with new things (eg. Tim with the use of the term web 2.0), if what they come up with gains traction – goofy ganders like Andrew will try to capitalise on other people’s hard work by firstly, misunderstanding and misrepresenting the original idea, and then coming up with fluff on the basis of the real term, and marketing it.

    In terms of what Andrew was actually saying… i think the content of it was relatively good… but the “who” as well as the “what” and “how” are very important to me… as an analogy, if dinner at a restaurant came presented on dirty plates, i’d be a little suss!

  6. wonderwebby

    Ringlerun you always make me laugh, daffy ducks and fuffy duffys, oh me oh my!
    I think I understand where you are coming from about web2.0, avoid jargon for the sake of marketing guff appealing to drooling hype hunters, instead focus on some common sense value and application, understand the real problems an organisation is facing, don’t over-complicate a solution with buzzwords??

  7. Ric

    Sounds like a shame I missed it – other axes to grind!

    On the “Enterprise 2.0” – just because O’Reilly used the ‘2.0’ suffix in retrospect doesn’t mean we CAN’T use it aspirationally, particularly in the enterprise. We can hope/work toward/evangelise that our workplace take a similar journey to that already taken by web denizens, as described by O’Reilly.

    As for whether or not Andrew McAfee is ‘full of himself’ I can’t say … “fullness”, as is beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, I guess

  8. mage ringlerun

    hi ric,

    lemme guess… you are a solopsist right? in any case, this is only your imagination speaking… as everything is just in the eye of the beholder (tounge in cheek of course, but that’s just part of your imagination again :-)

    the meaning of words and bits and pieces do change over time, what “offends my sensibility” is the use of currently popular buzz words to gain some “market share” for your own brand (in this case, Andrew McAfee is his own brand). the term is currently *mostly* being used (and by used, i actually mean abused) by the latecomers wanting a slice of the bandwagon… they are manipulating the situation rather than coming up with real stuff…

  9. wonderwebby

    Hi Ringlerun, again I am laughing (your comment #4) “i’ll stop ranting now, will save it for my blog”…hee hee. Oh that’s right, then I asked you a question and here we are at comment #10. oops!

    I’m not quite sure which direction this conversation is going (and it could go down several paths of discussion.) I hear your point about abuse of a technical term for personal benefit, I believe you are concerned with the integrity of an idea. I also think, as Ric has pointed out (hi Ric!) that reworking, or even putting some gloss on these ideas can still lead to great things (despite any ego involvement, intended or not) as the cycle of development and innovation continues.

    Imagine this, an idea (any idea), seeded by an individual with high integrity, is hijacked and exploited by others for different purposes and sold to the masses who want the shiny thing. Is the shiny thing more valuable or less valuable than the original embryonic idea? Perhaps, all in the eye of the beholder ;)

  10. ringlerun

    the beholder is a scarry monster though… :-) (well, at least he was when i last played “the eye of the beholder”

    i personally think that the integrity of the person building the idea is paramount to it succeeding in a good way. dubbya could tell me all he wanted about world peace, but how much impact would it really have based on the heart motivation of the person giving (and to quite an extent, receiving) the idea.

  11. epredator

    Letting go and letting people just get on with self organization is certainly a theme I often try and get across to people.
    We are all too dispersed and too connected now to have organizations expect to actually be in control as they used to be.
    The command control structure will not like letting go, but they have to be part of the user generated self organization too as they are also part of the enterpise.
    Restrictive approaches, locking things down, stopping communication is a sure fire way to kill and enterprise. It will not get things done, people will not choose to follow leaders in those organizations and they will cease to exists.

  12. wonderwebby

    @epredator yes that certainly seems to be the way things are going, it will be interesting to watch the metamorphosis of the Enterprise as we know it. Nicely put.

    @ringlerun integrity in the context of “enteprise 2.0” is worth considering. I believe integrity in our work and lives is something we should all aspire to; how it plays out in a collaborative framework and social networks is something I need to think about and research. To have integrity as the backbone of an idea, from conception through to development and further through the market lifecycle is an ideal sceanario. Still, the work of a rogue maverick can uncover exciting new functionality never intended for the original purpose of an idea or product. Breaking the machine to fix it, if you know what I mean. Perhaps I need another post… :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *