Bertrand Duperrin's Notepad

Thoughts on management, HR, social networks…and enterprise 2.0

" The most successful companies are those that think jointly technological change, work design and the changes in internal social relationships.” Antoine Riboud.
Bertrand Duperrin's Notepad header image 2
← →

What I didn’t miss in Boston

June 21st, 2007 · View Comments · enterprise 2.0

First I was very disappointed not to have time to attend the  Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston. As a lot of people I was very interested in the Davenport Vs McAfee debate, hoping we’ll learn a lot of things from it.

Finally I don’t have the impression I missed anything because the debate didn’t point on what I think is really important about enterprise 2.0

I don’t really see in what asking whether 2.0 tools are an evolution or a revolution is relevant. The fact is there are tools and demands to use them in a professionnal context. Saying similar tools already existed and didn’t change a think is neglecting what really matters : there is now a demand for new organizational practices that didn’t exist before, for the simple reason that business has changed, production has changed, immaterial is exceeding material, people have different needs to achieve their work, the way people use computers in their private sphere radically changed too, building a new emerging culture.

The question is not about tools, it’s about the demand tools meet. Perharps, since there’s no “official” definition of enterprise 2.0 with which everybody agrees, can I suggest that “enterprise 2.0 is the meeting between demands for a new king of organization and the availability of tools that can support it”.

Tools won’t to anything by themselves…and without tool the demand would stay unsatisfied.

Another point is they talked a lot about tools, a little about people..and not about the enterprise by itself. That’s neglecting what I think is central : enterprise 2.0 is to make people more efficient to do their daily job that’s to say to achieve enterprise’s driven goals in an organizational pattern defined by the enterprise itself.

Since we talk about change in organization, changes in the way people interact for business purposes, enterprise has to be associated. One can’t say enterprise 2.0 is a “win-win” deal between enterprise and employees and say enterprise has nothing to do, nothing to say and just have to wait to see what will happen.

In fact that’s the missing point in a lot of enterprise 2.0 discussions : focus on tools, saying it’s all about people (but never say anything about managament and organization issues), and totally ignoring enterprise’s constraints and stakes.

We won’t give enterprise 2.0 any credibility if we don’t pay enterprise any attention and don’t involve it in the process.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • FriendFeed
  • Diigo
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Netvibes
  • Identi.ca
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Print
  • Wikio
  • PDF
  • email
Tags:

Related posts

Tags:

  • An interesting discussion. I too wasn't able to attend the conference (although the value of attending conferences in my opinion is diminishing considering the speed information is replicated on the web and combined with the use of social tools that mimick coffee break chatter. But that's a different point)

    I think you have a good point Bertrand, and I also like Martin's additional comments. The need to to understand drivers, business value can't be glossed over. I've heard "arguments" such as "adoption of such tools is inevitable therefore we should offer them... I know some would argue Web 2.0 is all about emergent this and emergent that... But in an enterprise, you can do far more to help things emerge in the areas that benefit the enterprise.

    The accomplishment of this as Martin points out, requires several considerations and is not a trivial excercise. Take compensation systems as an example. Several companies actually incent sales people in a competitive fashion, to say "hey here's a wiki please help us create the ultimate sales manual" without changing the compensation model will fail.

    I think Andrew McAfee also had a good blog on "It's Not Not About the Technology" which points to the other side of the spectrum. Too many people are also forgetting about the role technology does have.

    Just my 2 cents...
  • Thank you Oscar. I often wonder why this kind of debate didn't emerge earlier. But I really believe that sensed people (and executives) will embrace our position because it's the only one that make sense in a corporate vision.
  • Bertrand, sorry for misspelling your name. It was a typo.
  • Hello Betrand, I agree with you 100%. quoted a couple of your insights worthy a separate post my blog. Let's move the Enterprise 2.0 debate to an enterprise level.
  • Nothing to add... I was about to say "middle management experience the real enterprise life and I understand they may be cautious about change (which is most often seen a potential loss than a gain...) but decision belongs to CxOs"...but you said that very well.
  • Hi Bertrand, don't worry about your english, it's certainly better than other peoples french ... mine included

    Speaking of CxOs ... I would argue that they aren't the real problem in implementation, it's middle management that stands to lose (and gain!) the most and is cautious (to put it nicely).

    But to get middle management to support and live the idea what we need most is top management support - they are setting goals, distributing jobs and responsibilities, etc. ... sometimes they can set an agenda even for middle management.

    And they have a say about budgets, so consultants (who don't have a product to push and begin with) must choose their "vocabulary" and approach wisely ... playing the techno addict surely is no way to begin ;)
  • Yes Martin you're right (really need to improve my english ;-) )

    Perharps it's because of my past (I'm a management consultant who, one day, found social tools very useful to solve management and organisation problematics) and not a techno addict whose pleasure is to make new tools adopted.

    If enterprise 2.0 is about people, it's also about the way they work together so it's about organisation and management... To build a social organisational pattern we need CxOs to take it over because they are the ones who decide how people work.
  • Bertrand, I think you're up to something here. I understand your intention and see what you're missing in the discussion (not only of E2.0 in Boston).

    In my mind the missing ingredients were

    - organizational structure (includes processes too)
    - strategy
    and
    - capabilities

    Much ado has been made about organization culture, yes, it's important but this is not sufficient.

    For Enterprise 2.0 to succeed these other aspects must be included in implementation efforts, proposals, conversations with the CxO, etc. as well.

    While we can't argue with any ROI numbers (or at least we shouldn't), we should make clear where and how social software will support or modify (enhance ..) strategies, ways of working, business models etc.

    Think of e.g. open innovation strategy, this is strategy on a corporate scale and the opportunities to support it via social software that spans organizational boundaries.

    These aspects weren't reflected as far as I can see (hmm, I haven't been to Boston but I've followed a ton of write-ups and wrap-ups) ... and it's something I missed.
  • Enterprise is an entity which pursues its own goals and determines its organization, choose its people, defines its process in ordrer to reach those goals.

    Today people are looking for a different kind of organization, more flexible, informal, based on quik connection to other people and information to do their daily job.

    Social tools within the enterprise are the ideal support for this needed kind of organization (i'd rather say social behaviors).

    The point is, since the demanded organization doesn't match the existing one, social tools are often seen as "dangerous", downing productivity, without any proved ROI... As an entity pursuing its own goals, the enterprise will protect itself against whatever may be seen as a danger....

    It means that, since enterprise 2.0 implies changes in the way people work, on the way they interact, the enterprise has to consider it as an opportunity and allow some things to slowly change. If not, enterprise 2.0 is stillborn and social computing will be restricted to under the radar projects.

    What I think is, when talking about enterprise 2.0, people always forget the enterprise whom will becomme fully 2.0 only if it wants, not because people want it to.

    The needed alignment starts from strategical goals, then organization and management (with the demonstration that social practices are good to reach goals) and then only tools that will be justified by all the above.

    As I always say, E2.0 lives by the bottom but is born from the top. Anything else would always be "2.0" projects but not E 2.0 which is much more than just about people using blogs and wikis.
  • Hi there. I'm a regular reader of your blog and have really grown to appreciate your unique POV. I really think you're on to something here. Not sure if it's the translation, or if it is me not quite getting it... Can you expand on the point you're making here or clarify the argument?

    Are you saying the "enterprise" with its management and organizational dynamics/issues should be viewed as an entity of its own- apart from the individuals that comprise it (or the tools that enable its transformation?)

    Interesting-- please expand on this?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Tag Cloud