After reading 10 Social Media Commandment for Employers, I was reminded of Blogging Policy = Blabbing Policy, a blog entry I wrote back in 2006 when the the "conversation" in the blog-o-sphere started to center on corporate blogging policies.
I don't care to debate the merit of each of the commandments, but do take issue with the concept at all.
Companies don't need a FILL IN THE TREND HERE Policy, they need a Communications (Blabbing) Policy and a related Conduct Policy which governs employee behavior with respect to trade secrets of all forms and terms for legal and ethical conduct.
There is one facet of Social Media policy that could be worth special coverage in a communications policy.
So, if the formation of an incipient business to business relationship is covered by an NDA (or should otherwise be confidential), company employees ought to be careful about forming "following" or "link" type connections with individuals from the counter-party and, I believe, its perfectly in-bounds for a corporate "communication policy" to specify ground rules for "public gathering," rather than calling out social media specifically.
Professor Andrew McAfee posted a very good business analysis of points made by Garry Kasparov in his Feb 11, 2010 New York Review of Books article on Diego Rasskin-Gutman's book Chess Metaphors: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Mind.
My favorite aspect of these 'freestyle' competitions was the specific type of human creativity that led to victory.
Instead of pure chess genius, it was something much closer to business process design brilliance. The overall winner was a team that contained neither the best human players nor the biggest and fastest computers. Instead, it consisted of "a pair of amateur American chess players using three computers at the same time. Their skill at manipulating and "coaching" their computers to look very deeply into positions effectively counteracted the superior chess understanding of their grandmaster opponents and the greater computational power of other participants. "
Kasparov was surprised at this outcome and I have to confess that I was as well, despite my deep conviction that a well-designed process is a potent weapon.
I didn't think that smart process design — in this case, a process for determining the "best" chess move — could overcome both cognitive and computational deficits. But it did, even in this domain where brains and calculations would appear to be the only things that matter. As Kasparov writes of this amazing result, "Weak human + machine + better process was superior to a strong computer alone and, more remarkably, superior to a strong human + machine + inferior process. " I think that's my new motto. - Andrew McAfee, Harvard Business Review, Feb 18, 2010
Read McAfee's Did Garry Kasparov Stumble Into a New Business Process Model for his excellent analysis and conclusions.
The Kasparov quote also gets to what I believe is the heart of the Enterprise 2.
• ERP /
• Enterprise 2.
I believe the two points are connected.
Doug Engelbart | 85th Birthday Jan 30, 2010 Augmentation quotes and links
Augmenting Human Intellect: Remove the brick
In 1962 Doug Engelbart wrote the paper he calls his bible: AUGMENTING HUMAN INTELLECT: A Conceptual Framework.
"DOUG Engelbart sat under a twenty-two-foot-high video screen, "dealing lightning with both hands.
Doug Engelbart has been recognized as a great figure in the history of technology with awards including the National Medal of Technology presented by President Bill Clinton for: ".
Doug is also noble figure.
Doug's research focuses on how computers can aid people's ability to think and work as groups as well as individuals - what Doug refers to as Augmentation rather than Automation.
I'll let Doug speak for himself in the opening paragraphs of what he calls the bible of his research agenda, AUGMENTING HUMAN INTELLECT: A Conceptual Framework from Oct 1962:
By "augmenting human intellect" we mean increasing the capability of a man to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems.
Man's population and gross product are increasing at a considerable rate, but the complexity of his problems grows still faster, and the urgency with which solutions must be found becomes steadily greater in response to the increased rate of activity and the increasingly global nature of that activity.
This report covers the first phase of a program aimed at developing means to augment the human intellect.
And notes from a conversation with Alan Kay - one of the two thousand people who attended Doug's Dec 1968 Demo, and went on to shape the world of technology as we know it.
Alan Kay At PARC one of the goals was to do NLS as a distributed system and all of the ALTOs had the five-finger keyboards as well as the mouse on them.
Now, the abortion that happened after PARC was the misunderstanding of the user interface that we did for children, which was the overlapping window interface which we made as naive as absolutely we possibly could to the point of not having any work flow ideas in it and that was taken over uncritically out into the outside world.
Doug Engelbart Well, strangely enough, I feel the same.
So, moving your way around those thought vectors in concept space - I'd forgotten about that
Alan Kay You said that, right?
Doug Engelbart I must have, its so good.
One of those boxes on that paradigm map about deployment was really coming down and showing you that special purpose teams are one kind of thing in the way that they can propagate and very different from moving a group of people who have an existing set of staff and processes and methods and skills and equipment and trying to move them all together.
Doug Engelbart Resources
Douglas Engelbart Interviewed by John Markoff of the New York Times Outracing the Fire: 50 Years and Counting of Technology and Change Computer History Museum oral history interview, March 26, 2002.
Doug Engelbart Video Archive: 1968 Demo - FJCC Conference Presentation Reel Dec 9, 1968 Internet Archive, the so called Mother of All Demos.
Video Archive MIT / Brown Vannevar Bush Symposium: A Celebration of Vannevar Bush's 1945 Vision, An Examination of What Has Been Accomplished, and What Remains to Be Done.
Tuesday Dec 9, 2008 | Forty years after the Mother of All Demos Engelbart's demonstration of the Augment shared screen hypertext and video system developed by a team at SRI under Doug's leadership.
AUGMENTING HUMAN INTELLECT: A Conceptual Framework By Douglas C.
And yes, Doug also invented the mouse, and used it in his 1968 demo.
Update Dec 17, 2009: Facebook's controversial ex-post facto revision of member privacy settings along with the revenue driven rise of apps like Farmville (as well as sleezy internal promotion) lead me to revisit this, see Blog1232: Facebook: A Carnival Midway not a Neighborhood?
Oliver Marks wrote a very good post: Facebook: The Legal Rumblings Start Dec 17, 2009, on the Facebook's potential legal exposure due to its controversial changes to member privacy capabilities and settings.
With over 70 million folk apparently hooked on "social" games like Farmville, targeted ads that seem to belong on late night TV, and incredibly lame attempts to nag folk get their friends to use Facebook more (giving "viral" a new and flu like meaning), I see Facebook becoming a downscale carnival midway more than a neighborhood.
Originally I thought the equally lame and manipulative privacy changes would just contribute to the downmarket feel of the place.
But as you point out - EU privacy laws may land them in legal entanglements too.
Facebook is becoming a bad example rather than a good example for use of social software in the enterprise - or anywhere for that matter.
My point is that Facebook has every legal right to attempt to develop, market and monetize a site with whatever privacy and promotional rules it wants - and let customers vote with their feet.
Facebook seems to be floundering and flailing into the greedy vision of "a closed Internet with ads" that has been the graveyard of AOL, Friendster and others, see the Onion Video Internet Archaeologists Find Ruins of 'Friendster' Civilization.
I believe that the popularity of social sites on the public Web and the value of internally and externally facing Enterprise 2.
The Social Facebook Fiasco Oliver Marks, Dec 15, 2009.
Facebook's Privacy Move Violates Contract with Users Kaliya Hamlin, Dec 15, 2009.
Privacy groups file complaint with FTC over Facebook settings Larry Dignan, Dec 17, 2009.
Explaining Twitter - One of Three Places for People I decided to describe Twitter as one of three distinct places on the Web where I socialize every day: the public commons.
Clarity Amid the Hype What's different about enterprise Twitter? Most of this carries forward to consideration of What's different about enterprise Facebook?
Borders, Spaces, and Places How to model permissions and borders to enable collaboration where there's a natural expectation of privacy crossing many spaces - for example a law firms simultaneous collaboration with each its clients as well as internal groups.
I'm flattered that Professor Andrew McAfee cites Enterprise 2.0 Schism in his Nov 20, 2009 blog post Enterprise 2.0 is Not THAT Big a Deal, kicking off a neat discussion on serious points behind my tongue in cheek analysis.
I yield to almost no one in my belief about the power and utility of ESSPs [ Emergent Social Software Platforms ], but I just don’t think they’re going to transform the structure or purpose of the enterprise.
As I wrote earlier, I don’t see E2. 0’s tools, approaches, and philosophies making obsolete managers, hierarchies, org charts, and formal cross functional business processes. . .
I want to be clear: Lloyd’s post is fantastic: grounded and very thoughtful.
He’s not in the enterprise-as-slime-mold camp. And I definitely agree with him that Enterprise 2. 0 is a big deal. So what’s the right way to describe its impact?
Here’s my take: ESSPs will have about as big an impact on the informal processes of the organization as large-scale commercial enterprise systems (ERP, CRM, Supply Chain, etc.
) have had on the formal processes.
This is not a conservative statement.
Enterprise systems have been a huge deal for organizations. They’ve turned reengineering from a whiteboard exercise into an unignorable reality for many, many companies. And Drucker was right when he said that “Reengineering is new, and it has to be done. ” - Andrew McAfee Nov 20, 2009
I happily replied:
Andy -- Thank you for the kind words as well as the thoughtful analysis.
I differ a little by including daily working communication, awareness and alerting (the way people work - not workflow or transactional communication) along with the ESSPs as having a large impact on the informal processes of organizations.
It's an interesting - Peter Drucker style - question to see how this plays out over time see my Drucker Centenary post which really should have been titled: "What questions would Peter Drucker Ask about Enterprise 2.
On the 2.
I wouldn't expect organizations to use "2.
Euan Semple commented:
Great post Andrew.
I think what is happening IS a big deal but have been wary of labelling it Enterprise 2. 0 as this makes it too easy to make it "other" and ignore it or assimilate it - bit like what happened to KM. I don't think our current methods of organisation are inevitable and I don't think we have even begun to see the effect of networked ways of thinking on how we relate to the world. This is why when asked recently how long I thought it would be before the full impact of what is happening works itself into organisational life I said fifty years.
I agree with your 50 years - if you start the clock running with Doug Engelbart in 1968!
More seriously - for a major shift in enterprise use of technology I believe 10 years (from early adopter to common use) is closer : From "We have a Web Page" in 1993 to Web Commerce Bubble of 2001; Rare use of inter-enterprise email 1988 to universal by 1998; "Enterprise 2.
The evolution of the Web itself is an great example of an emergent phenomena.
I believe the motivation for changing informal processes of organizations will come from a combination of: 1) people's expectations on how things can and should work from their direct experience with the public Web (as well as internal examples); 2) a measure of strategic thinking about how patterns of work and management can change based on new technology and expectations - in the spirit of Drucker and Engelbart.
Very few individuals in an enterprise are experts in ERP /
However everyone is a social animal and brings that experience to work every day.
I'm sticking to 50 years from now! I was thinking of the impact on how we structure organisations rather than just common adoption of technologies.
Still think that will take a long time.
If I'm wrong I hope I'm around to settle the bet in fifty years!
Earlier this week Oliver Marks wrote an excellent post on his Collaboration 2.
Thank you for the kind words and for pointing out the HBR Drucker Centenary issue.
For me the key Drucker quote is: "The purpose of an organization is to enable ordinary human beings to do extraordinary things.
The scale shift that ubiquitous Web tech enables as well as bottom up participation in E2.
By definition an enterprise is a purposeful undertaking that generally requires many hands, expertise and capital that aren't easy for a non-purposeful group to gain and apply over time.
In saying "2.
I believe that emergent phenomena which Prof Andrew McAfee includes as a core part of his definition of Enterprise 2.0 are significant and different in kind and structure from anything seen before in any enterprise - based on the speed, scale, simplicity and ubiquity of the technology combined with expectations and experience grounded in the public Web.
But I also believe that the most likely path to large scale adoption and use of this enabling technology will come from small to mid size groups within an organization who intentionally use it to improve their own ability to get work done - rather than in direct pursuit of emergent benefits.
I believe this bottom up and pragmatic adoption model parallels lessons learned from bottom up Knowledge Management versus the failure of top down KM, and lessons learned from the history of the simple, practical Web itself versus failed dreams of more sophisticated universal hypertextuality.
The benefits that are new in kind are emergent, but the path to broad adoption and acceptance will be based on mutual consent, compelling benefits to those who do the work, leadership, and experimentation in activities that have a clear business purpose - designing, building, selling, maintaining products, providing services to clients, customers and partners.
It's presumptuous to guess what Peter Drucker would say about the relationship between the technology, techniques and phenomena we call Enterprise 2.
But I believe it's fair to ask: "What sort of hard questions might Peter Drucker ask?" David Rendall (of the UK's National Health Service, Orkney) tossed a nice Druckerian question to Carmen Medina during the followup discussion to her Enterprise 2.0 and the Context of Work keynote at TUG 2009 last month:
#tug2009 Question for Carmen: how do those collaborative networks balance with clear lines of responsibility e.
g. in healthcare? 10:06 AM Oct 14th from TweetDeck @davidrendall
For example, the decision on course of treatment for a particular patient is yes or no and may be life and death.
See the video (time 68:20) for David's question.
Drucker would hold management ultimately responsibility for the course of action and outcome.
Drucker makes the point that innovation in how an enterprise (profit or non-profit) works - how it provides motivation, support, leadership and resources to its members to "Create a Customer" - is as important as innovation in whatever else an enterprise delivers.
I hope we'll see more good work (like John Hagel & John Seely Brown's The Only Sustainable Edge) that focuses on E2.
PS - My second Peter Drucker bumper sticker quote for the day: "A manager's task is to make the strengths of people effective and their weakness irrelevant--and that applies fully as much to the manager's boss as it applies to the manager's subordinates.
Peter Drucker Centennial
'The Purpose of a Business is to Create a Customer' - Peter Drucker Centenary Oliver Marks, Nov 16, 2009
The Drucker Centennial - The Drucker Institute, Claremont Graduate University
The Drucker Centennial: What would Peter Do? How his wisdom can help you navigate turbulent times - Harvard Business Review, Nov 2009
Books and articles by Peter Drucker
Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices - Peter Drucker (Paperback edition 1993)
The Essential Drucker: The Best of Sixty Years of Peter Drucker's Essential Writings on Management (Collins Business Essentials) (Paperback 2008)
The Theory of Business - Peter Drucker, HBR Sep-Oct 1994 ($)
Schumpeter And Keynes - Peter Drucker, Forbes May 1983 (cover story) A superb essay comparing the two greatest economists of the 20th century, written in the centenary of Keynes birth.
CIA and the NHS: Common features of “high risk, high reliability” organisations - David Rendall, A Web that Works, Nov 3, 2009
Mind, heart and hands: Lifelong learning and teaching in the digital age - Jon Udell on what he memorably calls the principal of Observable Work April 2009
I have to confess that I've enjoyed watching recent rounds of Enterprise 2.
I hereby declare myself an Enterprise 2.
I further declare: No, it is not "all about the people" - which is what an Enterprise 2.
I believe that although both technology and broad bottom-up participation are necessary to achieve the Drukerian vision, neither element alone is sufficient to achieve the noble end of re-engineering how ordinary people work together to achieve the ends of enterprises they choose to affiliate with.
As Peter Drucker said: "The purpose of an organization is to enable ordinary human beings to do extraordinary things.
I nominate Peter Drucker and Douglas Engelbart as Patron Saints of Enterprise 2.
Peter Drucker constantly advised businesses to give employees direct control over their own work and environment, with teams of "knowledge workers" responsible for work toward goals stated as broad business objectives rather than prescriptive plans.
"Marketing alone does not make a business enterprise.
In a static economy there are no business enterprises. There are not even businesspeople. The middleman of a static society is a broker who receives his compensation in the form of a fee, or a spectator who creates no value.
A business enterprise can exist only in an expanding economy, or at least in one that considers change both natural and acceptable.
And business is the specific organ of growth, expansion and change.
The second function of a business is, therefore innovation - the provision of different economic satisfactions.
It is not enough for the business to provide just any economic good and services; it must provide better and more economic ones. It is not necessary for a business to grow bigger; but it is necessary that it constantly grow better. . .
Above all innovation is not invention.
It is a term of economics rather than technology. Non technological innovations - social or economic innovations - are at least as important as technological ones.
In the organization of a business enterprise, innovation can no more be considered a separate function than marketing.
It is not confined to engineering or research, but extends across all parts of the business, all functions, all activities. " Peter Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (1974)
At a 1934 Cambridge seminar by John Maynard Keynes, "I suddenly realized that Keynes and all the brilliant economic students in the room were interested in the behavior of commodities, while I was interested in the behavior of people.
" Peter Drucker, The Ecological Vision, p. 75-76, (1993)
"A manager's task is to make the strengths of people effective and their weakness irrelevant--and that applies fully as much to the manager's boss as it applies to the manager's subordinates.
" Peter Drucker, Managing for the Future: The 1990's and Beyond (1992)
In an equally distinguished career, Douglas Engelbart has been enormously influential in creating and inspiring the creation of technology we use today (far beyond his invention of the mouse), but Doug's goals have always been expressed in terms of improving the abilities of groups to address complex, difficult and important problems:
"By 'augmenting human intellect' we mean increasing the capability of a man to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems.
Increased capability in this respect is taken to mean a mixture of the following: more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that previously was too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of finding solutions to problems that before seemed insoluble. And by 'complex situations' we include the professional problems of diplomats, executives, social scientists, life scientists, physical scientists, attorneys, designers--whether the problem situation exists for twenty minutes or twenty years. We do not speak of isolated clever tricks that help in particular situations. We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human 'feel for a situation' usefully co-exist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids. " Douglas Engelbart Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework, Introduction, (1962)
On the term "social software", I believe it's fair to blame it on Clay Shirky - who had the misfortune to introduce a term that's perfectly respectable for a sociologist who studies how technology influences group behavior:
“It's software that supports group interaction.
I also want to emphasize, although that's a fairly simple definition, how radical that pattern is. The Internet supports lots of communications patterns, principally point-to-point and two-way, one-to-many outbound, and many-to-many two-way. ” − Clay Shirky, A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy O’Reilly Conference (April 2003)
If the term "social" must be deprecated, I hope its banishment takes with it all Social X marketing buzzwords, job titles, twitter tags, and the well-earned disco ball reputations of the so-called Social Media gurus.
On "Return on investment" debates, I believe that Taylorist time-and-motion studies would show gains that exceed the modest costs of introducing and using Enterprise 2.
"A very important surgeon delivered a talk on the large number of successful procedures for vascular reconstruction.
At the end of the lecture, a young student at the back of the room timidly asked, 'Do you have any controls?' The great man hit the podium and said, 'Do you mean, "Did I not operate on half the patients?"' . . . The hall grew very quiet and the voice at the back of the room very hesitantly replied, 'Yes, that's what I had in mind. ' The surgeon's fist really came down as he thundered, 'Of course not, that would have doomed half of them to their death!'. . . The room was then quiet, and one could scarcely hear the small voice ask, 'Which half?'" - Dr. E. E. Peacock, Jr. , University of Arizona College of Medicine; quoted in Medical World News, p. 45 (September 1, 1972) quoted by Edward Tufte in Beautiful Evidence (2006)
I believe the value of Enterprise 2.
Finally - having demonstrated the unerring truth of the Strict Druckerian position regarding the nature of Enterprise 2.
Nike does "email archeology" to decompose email thread to expose one part of a specific collaboration.
:>) @lehawselive (4:20pm Nov 4, 2009)
So if you don't agree with me, I hope you spend the the rest of your corporate life decomposing email threads from your corporate archive into Google Waves or Traction TeamPage comments where others can benefit from your labor if not from your ideas.
- Enterprise 2.0: What a Crock - Dennis Howlett Aug 26, 2009
- Denial is a river full of crocks - Gil Yehuda August 31, 2009
- Enterprise 2.0 is a Crock: Discuss - Andrew McAfee Sep 2, 2009
[ And so much more.
- How big a deal is Enterprise 2.
0? What do you mean by "Big"?
- Peter Drucker and Enterprise 2.
0 | Drucker Centenary
- Doug Engelbart | 85th Birthday Jan 30, 2010
- Having versus Using Enterprise 2.
- Reinventing the Web
- Tuesday Dec 9, 2008 | Forty years after the Mother of All Demos - Doug Engelbart
- Connections - Clay Shirky and Social Software
- The Rise of Enterprise 2.
0, Andrew McAfee | Video | Enterprise 2. 0 Summit 2008 Tokyo
- Schumpeter and Keynes, Peter Drucker, Forbes magazine (cover story) May 23, 1983 - This is great!
This was far too much fun to write.
I also value the term Enterprise 2.
"I wish the software I used every day at work allowed me to find what I want; discover what I need to know - along with surprises; and connect with people I don't even know to get my job done, learn more, and work in an enjoyable place.
This is a grounded wish since everyone in business has a direct basis for comparison - what they or their children see, use and enjoy on the public Web every day.
To the extent that corporate barriers dash expectations, read Peter Drucker on how to get rid of those barriers or find a better employer.
To the extent that enterprise technology differs with respect to needs for privacy, finding information in a link-deprived environment and sharing access to confidential sources or legacy applications, Enterprise 2.
I'm not sure where Professor Andrew McAfee sees himself in this ecclesiastical model.
Update 6 Jun 2013: In the original version of this post I used Strict Technarian to refer to those who believe there is a purely technical - specifically Web or Internet - solution to every problem.
Although I don't agree with all of what Morozov says - or the way he says it - I believe solutionist is a useful term.
Update 21 Nov 2014: Enterprise 2.
Traction Software Director of User Experience Michael Angeles introduces Traction's new Google Web Toolkit (GWT) based Proteus user interface with a brief tour (video below).
- Google Web Toolkit (GWT) and Proteus - Andy Keller, Traction Software Director of Engineering Video | interview
- Customizing Proteus - Michael Angeles, Traction Software Director of User Experience Video
- 2 Nov 2009 | Traction Software Showcases New Collaboration Capabilities at Enterprise 2.
- TUG 2009 Providence | Keynotes by Carmen Medina, Chris Nuzum and Stewart Mader
I'd like to thank all of the Traction customers, partners and friends who traveled to Providence last month to make TUG 2009 Providence as enjoyable as it was enlightening.
You're also welcome to review the the TUG 2009 dinner menu at Gracie's Restaurant in Providence.
You may have noticed a slow down in blog posts by Jordan and myself, and attributed that to our work for TUG 2009 Providence last week, and you'd be partially right (but it was fun - as you'll learn).
I'll continue to blog notes that take more than 140 characters here.
On Twitter you can also follow the Traction-Software List of Traction's team members, customers and friends.
Bas Reus started the discussion with Self Organization Defined which gathered 42 comments.
In fact, structure lays the stage for the emergent outcomes - and can lead to very different consequences.
Similarly, the Emergence page in Wikipedia, uses the example of ripple patterns in a sand dune.
Emergence is especially appealing to people who've come from rigid software systems which demand that work flows go through a prescribed process.
As one concrete example, I just got off the phone with a Fortune 100 customer who has happily made the transition from a document approval process done in a workflow system, to an approach where documents for approval are posted for anyone to comment and then considered approved when enough of the right people have weighed in.
In a project management case, Glen Alleman, the blogger at Herding Cats, just posted PM 1.0, PM 2.0, How About Just Project Management where he argues that "irrational emergences has little chance of succeeding, no matter the current buzz word tool or process.
To enable a collaborative culture, all arrows seem to point to a conclusion that Control Doesnt Scale, but that you have to balance best practices and starting structures to achieve the most fluid, most intuitive outcomes that facilitate collaboration rather than confuse it with starting structures (or lack thereof) that misalign the natural processes that are used to work in the flow of communication and collaborative content development.
Thanks Susan! Susan recently founded the 2.0 Adoption Council to bring together managers of large enterprises who are early adopters of Enterprise 2.
We are a collection of managers in large enterprises that are charting the course for 2.
0 adoption. Although we may use different platforms and tools, we all share a common enthusiasm for bringing a new way of working to our representative companies. We call ourselves “internal evangelists” and some say we have one of the most difficult, yet exciting jobs in the global marketplace. . .
0 Adoption Council is a self-service community of passionate early adopters. From members with over 100K seats under management to members experimenting with departmental deployments, we all share a common goal of delivering 21st century collaboration and social connectivity to the enterprise. In a recent survey, our members indicated 36% are managing budgets between $500K and $1M; although another 40% is still in the planning stages and can’t assess their total budget spend.
. . We are not admitting sellers of IT software or hardware products, consultants, agencies, press, or analysts into the 2. 0 Adoption Council. The group exists as strictly a peer support channel for customers to help each other and share experiences. We will be launching an external community soon for all friends and fans of the global enterprise 2. 0 movement.
To apply to become a member of the Council, send us an inquiry on LinkedIn and we will get back to you in 48 hours.
We're delighted that Traction TeamPage customers are active and articulate members of this Council, and encourage Enterprise 2.
To hear more from Traction TeamPage customers - and two great Enterprise 2.
9 Months later, I have an answer: 300 Million Users.
On April 17, 2008 Professor Andy van Dam of Brown University delivered the keynote address of the Enterprise 2.0 Summit 2009 Tokyo.
I've known Andy since 1967 as a teacher, friend and trusted advisor, and thank him and Rosemary Simpson for their thoughtful work on this presentation.
Bill Ives posted an interesting post Is Twitter Like Going Out for a Smoke?, responding to a Twitter /
The most interesting groups seem to be cross-functional and distributed - with some difficulty before the Web and email, with less difficulty now.
A few examples:
1) Watercooler - physically collocated, somewhat cross-functional (but often cube neighbors)
2) Smokers - physically collocated, cross-functional and cross-hierarchical
3) IT Tech support, Admin Assistants - folk who talk a lot with a wide variety of others in the enterprise, and have their own network or grapevine of contacts with their peers.
4) The NCO /
With the advent of cheap and ubiquitous Web technology, it has become easier for networks to form, keep in contact, and scale beyond previous limits of space and number of participants.
Is there a Doctor of Sociology in the house with a few good references?
A few of my notes with links on
Connections & McAfee Bullseye model of strong, weak, potential ties
Twitter: world's largest floating cocktail party, coffee break, and trade show happy hour
Explaining Twitter - One of Three Places for People
[ In the interests of non-smokers and former smokers everywhere - no smoking photo with this post! Join the followup conversation on Twitter ]
Glen Alleman at Herding Cats offers really nice distinctions in Risks and Issues Are Not The Same. In the course of working with a lot of teams as they deploy TeamPage as a project wiki, I've seen a wide range of terms for project artifacts.
To risks and issues, you can add questions, requirements and ideas.
In some contexts, the terms are changed but mean the same thing.
Quoting a DOD Risk Management Guide, Alleman describes risks as "a measure of future uncertainties in achieving program performance goals and objectives within defined cost, schedule and performance constraints.
He describes an issue, by contrast, as "impediments to the progress of the project.
As he notes, people often have a hard time distinguishing between risks and issues.
When I helped John Evans at ShoreBank deploy his TeamPage system for IT Project Management, we spent considerable time figuring out which artifacts he would need in his project wiki and blog.
"John, what's the difference between a Question and an Issue?"
Issues are showstoppers. Questions are accelerators. "
That was as good a distinction as any, so we included both items.
Here is a list of basic project team artifacts that teams may include a in a blog or a wiki:
- Milestone: A point in time (that often moves!!) around which a set of requirements and other project artifacts and activities are aligned.
- Requirement: A description of a actions or processes that must be taken to solve a problem.
Alternate terms may (accurately or inaccurately) include feature, specification, or objective.
- Risk: Defined above as a measure of future uncertainties in achieving program performance goals and objectives within defined cost, schedule and performance constraints.
- Issue: An impediment or showstopper along the road to building against the requirements associated with a milestone.
An issue may be the manifestation of a Risk.
- Idea: The alter-ego of an issue, an idea is a suggestion for actions or changes that will improve a system that is working or otherwise on track to be built.
An idea may turn into a requirement or be referenced by a separate requirement.
- Question: A knowledge accelerator.
Usually, a person can figure out the answer to a question through experimentation or research - but can get a faster, better answer by asking a crowd.
- Status Report: An update on progress against requirements, issues, and other activity.
- Bulletin: A resource that is an important touchstone in the project.
This may include a basic working policy, documentation of a team process, or other key information.
When it comes to wiki and blog technology as the basis for project team collaboration and communication, there is a good fit because of how all these artifacts are continually updated, reflected upon, and added to a system.
At our market launch in 2002, I recall all kinds of skepticism passing off the wiki and blog markets as a fad.
Burton Group analyst Mike Gotta writes Compliance Doesn't Sell E2.0 … But It Should in his personal Collaborative Thinking blog.
Can an enterprise leverage collaborative software like blogs, wikis and microblogging platforms and retain compliance? It can, if collaboration platforms are built in-house from selected technologies, as opposed to an all-in-one suite from an Enterprise 2.
0(E20) vendor. Enterprise 2. 0 compliance, in other words, is something best baked in from day one?
"The enterprise is tougher than consumer environments because of so many contrived regulations.
There should be higher expectations of the enterprise 2. 0 vendors to prioritize the features that will help enterprises manage compliance. "
When asked if E2.
"Nope, not yet.
It may be overkill, but spending 10 minutes with enterprise content management vendors or the IBM collaboration group exposed how little E20 has attended to this. "
I certainly agree that Enterprise 2.
And I'll claim that Traction Software really "gets" compliance for reasons that accept, but go beyond regulatory requirements.
An ad-hoc wiki used solely within an IT department may not need much more than the basics.
Boundaries that make sense, WebDAV file versioning, Page /
It's great to have wiki pages open for general editing wherever possible.
But it's also important to be able to distinguish pages that represent an agreement at a specific time - the approved budget, product specification, reseller agreement in a way that can't be confused with casual work-in-progress (or prankish) change.
People who want to be able to use wiki pages for reliable reference to the current approved budget, specification etc need to be able to distinguish the "last stable /
Traction TeamPage has permissioned activity streams - for tag clouds, search results, email digests, RSS/
"Baking in" support for these capabilities makes it possible to support wide open draft collaboration as well as "latest stable version" publication in the same collaboration space, as well as permission boundaries that disappear when you have permission to cross them but act as secure and reliable barriers when privacy counts.
Try to do this by slapping separate Social Software and ECM products together and you'll likely end up with something that works like JFK's description of Washington DC: "A city that honors the traditions of Southern efficiency and Northern hospitality.
We didn't go to all this work just to satisfy checklist requirements - I honestly believe it's what's necessary for widespread use and adoption of Enterprise 2.
For more on related TeamPage features, see:
Boundaries that make sense - Patterns of collaboration.
Permissioned activity feeds - Including tag clouds, search results, email digests as well as rss /
Moderation and work-in-progress collaboration - Enabling collaboration on content where consensus - or binding agreement - counts.
Audit Trail - Edits, tags, names, email and more.
And where this comes from Traction Roots - Doug Engelbart
I found Tom Davenport's discussion of Why 1.5 is Greater than 2.0 by way of Bill Ives in Mixing Old and New School Communication.
The Social Side of 1.
Reinforcing the social example, Davenport says that when seeking therapy "You'd listen to what the medical establishment prescribes for your ailment, but you'd probably also check out blogs, wikis, and other patient-generated content and communities.
This cuts to the social issue where the Health 2.
The "Web 1.
The Structural Side of 1.
The evolution of the Web 2.
From a structural perspective, the "web 1.
That a flat, disorganized web of pages and links published by people operating independently could outperform a well planned information infrastructure was shocking to many but is a clear and obvious outcome.
In the "Web 2.
Enterprises will lag as most haven't even gotten from KM 1.
Innovation starts with words, and ways to convey them.
Given a platform for communicating, Communities and Project Teams come together around the identification and discussion of problems and facts.
Blog & Wiki page based publishing, with integrated discussion and tagging, open the door for innovation at a scale and with fervor we can only imagine.
See my presentation from Enterprise 2.
Gil Yehuda wrote a very good post today Enterprise 2.
Businesses (or vendors) who say “We have a wiki; we have a blog; we’re an Enterprise 2.
I like Andrew McAfee’s analysis in general and his specific observation - backed by studies that he cites: “… since the 1990’s a combination of the Web and IT spending on enterprise information systems has shifted the ability of businesses to recognize and deploy good ideas; that this has raised the pace and level of competition, making effective innovation more valuable, and more strongly differentiates winners and losers in competitive markets.
McAfee further claims that the Web and IT changes they analyze appear to be step functions:
This new, nastier competition does not depend on continued IT innovation.
It only depends on continued managerial innovation. If all the technology vendors were to close up shop tomorrow competition in all industries would not eventually revert to where it was prior to the mid-1990s. The current IT toolkit lets companies propagate business ideas faster, more broadly, and with higher fidelity. That’s all that’s necessary to increase the pace of competition, and to keep it high. Of course, the tech vendors are not about to shut themselves down and we’ll see a lot more innovation from them; this will only serve to further increase competitive nastiness. But technology innovation is the icing on the cake of managerial innovation. - Andrew McAfee; Curb My Enthusiasm
The technology of Enterprise 2.
- No need to curb your enthusiasm .
.For a bit more analysis .
- The Rise of Enterprise 2.
0, Andrew McAfee | Video | Enterprise 2.Professor McAfee discusses E2. 0 Summit 2008 Tokyo 0 and Japanese business practice.
- Enterprise 2.
0 - Letting hypertext out of its box
- Reinventing the Web
May 12, 2009 5:38pm rotkapchen Great explanation: Traction Director of Engineering Andy Keller tells why Traction's chose GWT (Google Web Toolkit) for TeamPage's new interaction layer.
And particularly Traction TeamPage Videos
#E2L09 Innovation Starts with Ideas.
Wiki will Cross the Work 2. 0 Frontier When TeamPage 5. 0 Carries Ideas into Action.
These case studies are a taste of how ideas and issues turn into action, how tasks evolve from conversations and how boundaries have to appear to disappear for W2.
On April 16 2009 Oliver Marks wrote The CIA's Collaboration Growth Curve & IBM's Lotusphere ecosystem connecting three topics: 1) the transformation of the CIA's collaborative practices; 2) how this relates to the concept of the collaboration curve introduced by John Hagel III, John Seely Brown (JSB), and Lang Davison, and 3) his reaction to IBM's Lotusphere Comes to You roadshow event in San Francisco that day.
I've added one key quote for context on my comment - please read Oliver's full post for his insightful analysis.
John Hagel III, John Seely Brown (JSB), and Lang Davison discuss their concept of ‘the collaboration curve‘" on harvardbusiness.
org, and there are some interesting parallels to the cultural and process challenges of the CIA’s historically deep rooted processes, as they relate to Intellipedia.
There’s a classic story in economics primers illustrating the power of network effects.
It tells how the first fax machine gave little value to its owner–after all, there was no one else with whom to send and receive faxes. As time went by, however, the value of that first machine increased as other people bought fax machines, and soon its owner could send faxes to the far corners of the earth, and receive them in return.
The point of the story is how the value of a node in a network rises exponentially as more nodes are added to it.
These are called network effects.
Now let’s add a twist to the story.
What would happen if, at the same time more fax machines joined the network, each machine rapidly improved its performance? The result would be an amplifying effect on the first level of exponential performance. One exponential effect occurs from growth in the number of nodes. A second amplifying effect arises from the improving performance of the machines themselves.
Fax machines, of course, don’t perform better as you add more of them to a network.
But people and institutions do. And that’s where the concept of network effects gets more interesting–when we apply it to how people might perform better.
Oliver -- I think the three parts of this post fit together very well, particularly the network effects and the collaboration curve theme.
The JH, JSB, and LD quotes make the point: People and institutions are the 'nodes' that can enable a collaboration network to perform better as you add more of them to a social network ('social' in the broad sense - not party time).
But I think it's also important to note that the Web has become an open platform that allows the work product of collaboration networks to be created, linked, annotated, signaled, searched and analyzed at scale that would have been unimaginable in the heyday of Lotus Notes.
You muse: ".
I believe that's right.
Ironically most successful collaboration box that the Web allowed people and institutions to escape was -- Lotus Notes.
See Enterprise 2.
based on a 2007 debate /