Dreaming of Enterprise 2.0 is good, getting there is better. It’s a subject that came back to the forefront last week with a post by Euan Semple proposing three ways to make the transition to Enterprise 2.0 as a manager:
1°) Do nothing: don’t change anything, don’t install any new software…and you’ll find all your employees on external platforms, behind the firewall.
2°) Make things happen in your organization: install a couple of open source software packages and let users find their own uses…provided the organization leaves them in peace.
3°) Choose option n°2 by involving those who would have been the driving force behind solution 1°), ask them to help you….and roll up your sleeves to keep the momentum going.
I might as well tell you that it’s a position that has led to a lot of reflection. From people in the know, who felt that it reflected the reality of a concept so innovative that traditional deployment methodologies were ill-suited to it…and from those in the business world for whom, however well-founded, such a position was untenable in the eyes of decision-makers.
Recognizing that there was some truth in both, I ended up with far more questions than answers.
First of all, what do we call the “transition to Enterprise 2.0”?
I think this is an essential preliminary question. If it’s just a question of adopting 2.0 tools internally, I agree 100% with Euan. Let’s let it happen… It’s obvious that no company can tolerate the introduction of new tools, and that this must be done on the bangs of the organization, whose inertia will hopefully prevent any counter-fires until such time as practices take hold that no one will question.
Because what characterizes the adoption of 2.0 tools is not the tool itself, but the way in which it is used. It’s not a question of installing a web browser other than the official one certified by the company’s IT department…it’s a question of changing the way individuals interact with each other.
Such a change can only take place without (not to say against) the organization. Which, by definition, limits its effect, since the “2.0 adopters” will interact with each other in ways that run counter to the way they interact with other employees. We can expect this to spread, but I’m afraid it’s going to take a long time.
So adopting 2.0 tools can only be done without the organization, or even against it?
Yes. Unless… Unless the company itself decides that adopting new modes of interpersonal interaction is necessary to remain competitive in today’s world. And the only way to make these practices effective in the discontented company is to make them effective on the only common meeting and exchange place for all company members: the intranet.
At this point, the tools would be the support for a company strategy, and they would immediately find their place there by the very need of the organization.
In other words: Strategy 2.0 implies ==> Management 2.0, Tools 2.0, Marketing 2.0, Recruitment 2.0, HR 2.0 in order to build ==> Enterprise 2.0.
To limit Enterprise 2.0 to tools is to play on the margins of strategy. This is unacceptable for an organization, which runs the risk of seeing Enterprise 2.0 as a danger, when in fact it’s an asset.
Playing the Enterprise 2.0 card together with the company can motivate the entire organization. We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the acceptance of any change in change projects comes from encouraging individuals to change. Incentives, to use the term generally employed. And the incentive, whether moral or financial, will only come from the organization. The enterprise 2.0 project must therefore be a corporate project.
Failing this, the company will enter into a logic of obstruction from which no one will emerge a winner (see also Nitin Karandikar’s article).
Enterprise 2.0 can and must be implemented, within the company, with the company. After that, it’s all a question of knowing what to include in the concept.
