Companies find hard to adopt the “2.0” attitude, just because it targets an unexploited field of the organization. Since novelty applies to an unexploited domain, why trying to understand it since we don’t use it. Saying that, the question is more about sensibilizing companies about exploring new performance and knowledge fields in order to face new challenges rather than adopting tools that don’t match current practices.
As I read in Social Media, it’s more important to explore new fields than evaluating it with our present certainties. Entreprise 2.0 discussion can be resumed this way : knowing how to take differenciation into account while we were only focused on repetition.
I say “take into account” because it’s not about replacement but about complementarity. And it applies to many fields.
As a legacy of industrial age, our organizations are built to repeat endlessly the same taks, the same product. Of course it’s still relevant in some activities. But “non repeatable” tasks are more and more numerous and, last but not least, more and more essentiel to create value/ Hence the need, not of throwing our “old” processes way, but to find a way of doing things that can apply to these tasks, where performance comes from knowledge and where solutions come from serendipity and not from planification. Have a look at this note thats show the difference between ERP (Easily repeatable process ) and BRP (barely repeteable process ).
But it’s important not to make the mistake that killed many good ideas : both must work together, it’s not about building new silos or replace the one by the other.
Once again, I hear so many time the same question : “I have to improve my intranet…do I have to build and 1.0 or 2.0 intranet ? “, which is like asking “do I have to chose between hemiplegia (and if so, which side), even though I can be in full possession of my faculties ?”.
To answer this question I think it’s better asking the right question : what are your intranet for ? I don’t think we have to throw our “old” intranet away, it simply shows its limits when asked to do what he’s not made for. In the same way, 2.0 is not made for normalized top-down communication or be used as a repository. Just build an intranet that match your needs, and you’ll realize you’ll have to use both. If “classic” intranet is made to store static information, intranet 2.0 is made to connect people threw living information. It’s obvious companies needs both, at least if they consider their intranet as a tool for working.
Considering what’s said before, we realize that management may “shift”. And so what ? Do we fear to go out of legacy ? Not to do “the way we’ve always done before” anymore ? Good news : HR people are working hard to attract digital natives and take the most from their potential.
History and management’ts gurus prove one thing : there’s no magic recipe that works everywhere and endlessly. So let’s dare to differenciate and make it a real asset which allows building a sustainable competitive advantage.
Employer brand and corporate culture
Remember the 80’s and 90’s when companies has to be highly “comparable” to their competitors, point by point, because it reassured analysts. It’s close to be over. The present trend is about differenciation : products but also culture, image… How to attract talents if they don’t feel we have something special ? How to find people who match with what we want to be if we don’t assume our identity ?
More could be wrote on this topic but the key idea is clear : it’s not anymore about cloning what exists but taking into account what can’t be standardizable, that’s to say furrowing the enterprise’s own way and leave room from serendipity.