We often say that implementing enterprise 2.0 is useless if it’s done in an 1.0. Said like this, even if “we” understand what it means, it’s still hard to get for many people.
That refers to enterprise models named according as two eras of the internet : one named 1.0 and the other 2.0. In practical terms it’s about opposing a top-down and directive model an emerging relying on the existence of an “invisible hand” that, in the same way as Adam’s Smith theory in economics, would make people personal actions and choices contribute to a collective purpose without the need of organizing anything.
Anyway, it’s an opposition between an out-of-breath dirigist model and harrowing one that means for businesses “it’s critical to your survival but you don’t have to do anything…just trust your employees and let them do what they decide to do”. In the same way that the economical word realized that Adam’s Smith’s invisible hand needed some guidance, the same conclusion is imposing upon businesses that can’t rely on serendipity to ensure their sustainability and success.
Here’s a quick comparison of “1.0″, “2.0″ and “2.0 rationalized” adoption principles.
| 1.0 | 2.0 | Rationalized 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Command and control | Let people do | set up goals, build a framework, give guidance and let people do |
| Adoption is order-driven | Adoption is driven by desire | Adoption is driven by sense |
| Everythings has to be scripted | People are free to make decision and act | A light script helps people being reassured and then they grow bold and become more autonomous |
| Only what can be used immediately and provide immediate benefits is allowed | Anything may be useful one day | Need to articulate in the flow and over the flow activities, give each a framework a timeframe |
| Everything is vertical | Everything is horizontal and networked | Horizontal and vertical articulate, verticality is a responsability and decision making model, horizontality is a model for getting things done |
| Focus on the organic structure (team, departments...) | Focus on communities | Organic and communities articulate. |
| What is not expressly authorized is prohibited | People should respect the "etiquette". Nothing is mandatory. | Everything that's out of a defined framework is subject to validation, the rest is authorized is possible. The "Don't be stupid" rule applies. |
Generally speaking it seems obvious that Serendipity and the Invisible hand, even if they can bring many benefits to excessively rigid organizations, aren’t viable business or organizational models alone.
You can find the "original" french version of this blog here
Enterprise 2.0 : less control and more leadership « Hypertextual // May 18, 2010 at 12:40 pm
[...] Duperrin (a main inspiration of Hypertextual …) makes an interesting analogy in his post Will Adam Smith drive business in the future ? His take : (…) Opposing a top-down and directive model an emerging relying on the existence [...]
Tech IT Easy » Enterprise 2.0 : less control and more leadership // May 18, 2010 at 3:50 pm
[...] Duperrin makes an interesting analogy in his post Will Adam Smith drive business in the future ? His take : (…) Opposing a top-down and directive model an emerging relying on the existence [...]
Enterprise 2.0 : less control and more leadership « Hypertextual « Fredzimny's Blog // May 20, 2010 at 5:28 am
[...] Duperrin (a main inspiration of Hypertextual …) makes an interesting analogy in his post Will Adam Smith drive business in the future ? His take : (…) Opposing a top-down and directive model an emerging relying on the existence of [...]
Recommended: Links for this week (weekly update Bertrand Duperrin) « Fredzimny's Blog // Jun 20, 2010 at 8:39 am
[...] Will Adam Smith drive businesses in the future ? I’m doubtful… | Bertrand Duperrin’… (duperrin.com) [...]