This is one misunderstanding that comes very often. Someone asks “what strategy is needed to become an enterprise 2.0 ? ” and you feel like answering “but it’s obvious…you just described it !”. Strange, isn’t it ?
Let’s start from the beginning. There is one undisputed principle : any enterprise is here to produce, its employees to participate in and, consequently, enterprises have to continuously try to find and implement the operating models and tools that fit the best their current context. One example : Cisco.
One questioning has been rising for years : according to the evolution of economy, of the demand, of the context : how to to decompartmentalize
enterprises, make it more flexible, make people more autonomous and tool them to be more more efficient with flows that are not physical anymore but informal ?
All these things, taken as a whole, are what is called “enterprise 2.0”. I tried to find a wordy definition years ago, defining it not as a stactic situation, a resultn but as something dynamic, moving, a set of means .
Trying to find a strategy for enterprise 2.0 is like thinking constantly without any chance to get out of the loop since enterprise 2.0 is the name of the strategy.
An enterprise 2.0 strategy, and the Cisco case demonstrates it, consists of using traditionnal toolboxes to implement the component of a project called enterprise 2.0 and , in no way to implement enterprise 2.0 hoping its component will implement themselves miraculously, allowing not to deal with sensitive issues.
As a matter of fact there are many tools that are known by HR people and by mamagers in order to define an implement a leadership model, to improve the management model, to use consistant evaluation and rewarding models that are sensemakers and favor alignment. Same here for IT depts that know how to implement tools and assist users. The list may be long but there is really nothing new for trained professionals in the enterprise 2.0 toolbox.
It seems to me that “how to built the enterprise 2.0” often means “I don’t want to deal with all these sensitive issues so I’ll focus on enterprise 2.0 and the issues will disappear”. But building the enterprise 2.0 is about tackling “all these sensitive issues”.
Enterprise 2.0 is not a magic wand that avoids tackling important issues. It is exactly le the consequence of tackling these issues. Giving it a strategy is useless because it’s a strategy itself. It’s the name given to what has to be done so there’s no need to search anything else.
This reminds me of some kind of patients…
