Special Enterprise 2.0 event in Paris on Nov. 13. Join us !

You all know my creeds : tools must be made to improve the way people work, companies must improve their agility by working as networks (and even more in these difficult times…) etc. ect. and this vision seems to be shared by many people who often ask me how to put it into action.

Many of my readers often ask me questions in order to know more about blueKiwi, what we are doing, what we are planning to do…

Some also often tell me I’m lucky to meet high level specialists, to be able to talk with them and share our thoughts “in real life”

Well, I think you’ll be happy to know that your expectations about these three points may be fulfilled in nothing more than one evening.

[Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0 : success comes from organizational approach

This is what to conclude from this McKinsey Survey (by the way, it confirms what I’ve been thinking for years) that tries to bring us a view of the state of the art in enterprise 2.0 adoption. At first sight I really didn’t like the title “building the web 2.0″ enterprise because it would suggest tools are central in organization. Fortunately, their survey shows it’s really the opposite.

First conclusion : bringing web 2.0 within the enteprise is not a fad but a heavy wide-range trend : internal, external, variois tools, wide perimeters of experiment. Second conclusion : promises are not as easy to be delivered than many thought.

It’s not a suprise for me and it matches what I observed. Two kind of companies are emerging : those who had a tool-centric view and thought the rest will follow, and those who used tools as pieces of an organization change process. [Read more...]

The art of mistaking means for goals

I often worry when I see companies that mistakes means for goals. It’s a common issue on enterprise 2.0 : “put people into networks”, “share information”, “collaborate” are not goals, they are only means that help to achieve goals. Reduce the time of response, innovate more and quicker, devilver something that exactly meets client’s needs, reusing people’s knowledge are goals

This post [fr] is obviously a good example

Sudden thought during a meeting.

Training’s goal is not the training, it’s the company !

Evaluating the training is relevant only if it measures the impact on the company !

Right said ! It’s one of the consequences of a disease that affects organization, which causes are nearly twins :

- mistaking means for goals

- evaluating a on local scale although the benefits take place on a global scale

It can be linked to my series on the impact of enterprise 2.0 on intangible assets (here, here, here, here and here ;-) ), which may be useful when discussing the ROI of enterprise 2.0. As a matter of fact, even if I’m convinced that a “Soft ROI”, unquantifiable, exists, I don’t think the hard ROI topic is taboo and, on the contrary, I’m sure it exists. No need to complicate the issue : the ROI has to be measured at the level of the business processes that are supported by intangible assets, and strategy maps and BSC indicators make it very easy to visualize.

[Read more...]

Enterprise 2.0 according to SUN

It’s simple, cleaver…I like it



IT will matter…but differently

While social computing platforms emergence within the enterprise seems to be unavoidable, the debate on “does IT (still) matter” is coming back at the forefront of the actuality. Not directly but because, since it’s said that enterprise’s wealth is in people, we can wonder if IT sill matter.

The debate was reopened on Wikinomics, in response to Nicholas Carr’s famous scepticism. I agree with Carr to some extent, being convinced that ERP and CRM never helped enterprises to build a real competitive advantage. It doesn’t mean they didn’t improve operational performances, the point it this added performance didn’t impact competitive advantage as expected.

As for stating that IT won’t matter, it’s, according to me, going too far. Of course what counts in 2.0 world is people. But without the appropriate tools, people won’t deliver their full potential. And, although those tools are easy to install and manage, integrating them in global IT strategy will still need a lot of attention.

More, le 2.0 sphere is completing what already exists : we’re adding a right hemisphere to the existing information system. In the same way I keep repeating informal activities have to be reused by formal business, tools may make this connection possible, and once liquid information became solid it has to go back to traditional channels. Connectors between social platforms and legacy tools will be crucial and that’s why IT will matter even more.

At last, traditional formal business activities will still need process-driven tools. Even if they won’t remain the only ones.

So IT will still matter, and even more. But with an added dimension : besides tools which value is in what they do, we’ll see the emergence of tools which value is in how the make it possible for people to interact. Tools that allow people to treat information, and tools that treat information by themselves.

Even in the people-centric era, IT will still be key because it will allow people to deliver their full potential.

How to make emergence not to disturb the enterprise

It seems that more and more people agree on the point that the enterprise cannot be formal or informal but has to use those two levers in aan integrated global schema. Following that direction I read attentively this note from Bill Ives who synthetized various thought on that topic.

Globally it’s full of good sense : tools have to make sens regarding to people’s day to day practices, projects have to start where those practices are needed by both those who produce and those who decide…and don’t believe that the levers that were key in web 2.0 success outside the enterprise will be key inside the enterprise. As Dion Hinchcliffe said “enterprise is not the web”.

And why is enterprise different from the web ?

Simply because people’s motivations are different : people change paradigms as soon as go through their companie’s door (whether we find ir relevant or not), then because their environment and the companie’s context in general make them acculturate (whether we find it positive or not). [Read more...]

Worrying wikipedia debate on enterprise 2.0

There’s an ongoing debate not only about enterprise 2.0 definition on wikipedia but also on whether such a definition has to exist or not.

There’s what it seems to me being the “original” definition by A. McAfee :”enterprise 2.0 is an enterprise that uses blogs and wikis”. AlthoughI consider this definition is too restrictive because it  doesn’t embrace the full range of enterprise, it’s, at least, a good and common starting point (my definition’s here).

Wikipedia choosed to redirect E2.0 definition to “enterprise social software”. It’s even worst than McAfee original restrictive definition : it means that enterprise is software !

And what about the individual who use the software ? Enterprise is made of people who use software not for their pleasure but for business purposes. We can’t say both “it’s about people” and “it’s software”. A tool centric approach for a people-centric phenomenon is a nonsense.

Wake up !

What would you say the day when the “car” definition will redirect on “gas” or “highway” ?

NB : French wikipedia has it’s own enteprise 2.0 entry. ;-)