I am back from my holidays in Denmark (some pictures of Römö), and I finally found time to put some of the pictures together that I took during my Bangkok assignment. I’ve got a lot more to share, email me if you’re interested … (valid only for participants, of course). Then, I will try to summarize some of my learnings in one of my next posts (as soon as I’ve got more time – one shouldn’t take vacations, work just keeps piling up …)
In IT Conversations there’s this interview (mp3) Jon Udell does with one of the promoters of web 2.0 in US intelligence agenicies: Lewis Shepherd.
As senior technical officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency and chief of its requirements and research group, Lewis Shepherd has promoted and observed a remarkable transformation that’s occurring inside the U.S. intelligence community as analysts begin to embrace Web 2.0 practices. There’s a long way to go. But already thousands of analysts are contributing to Intellipedia, an internal system based on the same software that powers Wikipedia. And a vibrant internal blogging culture has evolved too.
In this conversation, Jon Udell and Lewis Shepherd discuss the origins, progress, and future of these initiatives. They also discuss broader IT efforts within the Department of Defense: service-oriented architecture, consolidation and virtualization, and the relationship between informal Web 2.0 and formal “Web 3.0” approaches to the semantic Web.
One might think yes when reading this report in TechWeb (“Younger Workers Demanding Web 2.0 Tech On The Job”).
I am not sure what to think of this line of reasoning, because I’ve seen both enough “old” people who get Web 2.0 and vice versa. Physical age is a dumb metric, especially when it is applied to knowledge workers etc. So judging employee’s ability to get Enterprise 2.0 by their age, is just like, well, judging books by their cover …
Moreover I am not sure whether I like this article for the analysis and the actions it recommends. While I am all for respecting IT governance, social software in the enterprise must be approached differently (as it’s not so much a technological than a social shift). So asking for …
IT managers better start preparing to deal with Web 2.0 technologies, like wikis, blogs, mashups, and social networking sites, because sooner or later — and it’ll probably be sooner — they’re going to have to deal with it.
And that means adopting technologies, managing them, and securing the network from the people who use them.
… is leading the wrong way.
For one, it’s not sooner or later, it’s now.
And it’s not about technology.
And “securing the network from the people who use them” sounds weird, they’re your employees not your enemies.
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.
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.
I’ve noted the excellent “Ask Charlie” slideshow on Enterprise 2.0 before. This seems to have triggered a round of look-alikes, take e.g. this slideshow on web 2.0 enabled knowledge worker productivity and work styles (“A new way to define a productive worker”):
Well, yes, this is worthy pointing out even when it’s not in the line of the burstyness vs. busyness discussion (which I’ve really liked) – oh, and just ignore the spotty spelling here and there.
Via Stewart Mader comes notice of an article in FastCompany on how Disney uses wikis in internal business model innovation projects (well, not all WDI employees seem so content as the folks of the digital-media department, but that’s another story …).
This is an excellent description of how a wiki can be the information, collaboration, and social hub of a group. Creating a directory of staff profiles helps people hone their wiki editing skills, tell others about themselves, and become more deeply connected to the rest of the community on the wiki. The flexibility of the wiki shows in the creation of that “Cool Stuff We’ve Done This Year” section, because people can start by informally listing things they’ve done, then go back and add descriptions, links, images, video, etc. and pretty soon they’ve built a better, more accurate, and naturally built report on what they’ve accomplished.
I like the use case and rationale of the people at Disney, this is obviously a good little case study. I wouldn’t place too much focus on the “maverick spirit aspects” anyway. Adaptivity and room for “emergent uses” are attractive enough – especially for the support of (business model) innovators.