TakingAIIM

aiimQ&A: Collaboration and Enterprise 2.0

This is the third and final Q&A post related to the recent webinar on collaboration.  (See previous Q&A posts.)

Q: Do any of the presenters have statistics on use of collaborative technologies e.g., should we be expecting a 100% use rate, a 50% use rate, 25% use rate, or other)? I'm thinking in particular about why we have some challenges getting collaboration off the ground in large organizations (e.g. government). Thanks.

A:  Oh do I ever have data.  The upcoming AIIM Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0 has over 80 data points in it.  (The report should be available for download on March 24.)  That is why I have been a bit remiss in making posting to the blog.  Dan Keldsen and I have been heads down wrapping up the analysis. (Register now for the webinar complement to the Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0).

There are many ways to answer this question.  Let me start by stating there really is no such thing as an expected use rate. 

Many factors influence the rate at which a community uses collaborative technologies.  Foremost, there must be a need for collaboration, a targeted, valued need. 

Secondly, there must be a culture of trust and respect for other opinions.  A knowledge management-inclined culture is imperative to the adoption of collaborative technologies.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, “…organizations that can be characterized as Knowledge Management-oriented are further along in their adoption cycle of Enterprise 2.0 technology, perceive fewer barriers and are more aware of the potential benefits that Enterprise 2.0 can provide.”.

That said, I can offer some statistics that are relevant to your question and shed further light on the impact that culture can have on this issue of adoption rate. 

As the first chart shows, use of blogs, an Enterprise 2.0 technology, is still relatively young, in general.  The blue/upper bars represent responses from all survey respondents (414 of them).  The green/lower bars represent respondents that we profiled as working in a knowledge-management oriented culture.  Overall, adoption of blogs is relatively low.  But, the rate of adoption is dramatically more advanced within KM-oriented companies. (Click on thumbnail to view chart.)

The chart below illustrates the level of involvement with collaborative technologies (taken very broadly).  This chart represents responses to all 414 respondents. With few exceptions, no single technical approach to collaboration is in use in more than 50% of the organizations. (Click on thumbnail to view chart.)

But, look at the chart below.  This is the same chart/question as above, but includes only the responses from KM-oriented companies. (Click on thumbnail to view chart.)

Within these KM-oriented companies, adoption of technologies is markedly greater.

So back to your question:  There is no need, necessarily to strive for 100% adoption of collaboration across your organization. Adoption should not be contrived or mandatory.  It should be driven on an as-needed basis.  This is a case of "Build it and they will come".  But, I am not speaking of building the solution, but the culture.   If you focus on establishing and nurturing an open and collaborative business culture, then the adoption of collaborative technologies will naturally follow.

I hope this helps.

_______________________________________________________

aiimQ&A: Collaboration and Enterprise 2.0

This is the second  posting of answers to questions remaining from our recent Collaboration webinar.  (A posting was made earlier this week with 4 questions answered, and the subject introduced.  The recorded webinar is available for download. Training on Enterprise 2.0  is also available). 

Q: What new businesses are being created to bridge the gap between the technology knowhow (systems supporting web 2.0 apps) and big corporations?

A:  I am not sure if I fully understand this question - but will take a stab at it.  I believe the nature of the question is regarding the availability of professional services to assist in the introduction of Enterprise and Web 2.0 into big corporations (?).  If that is the case, then the answer lies in  various consulting organizations, system integrators and education and training.   There are many such firms, but of course not all of them will have a great deal of experience in Enterprise 2.0 specifically, given its relative immaturity.  When interviewing such firms, be sure to get specific examples of expertise with Enterprise tools and systems.  If this is lean, look also into examples of leading knowledge management and innovation management projects - from both a technical and culture/change management perspective. (I hope this answers the question.  If not, top whomever posted it, feel free to re-ask it in this blog.)

Q:
Which should drive the other - culture or tools?  Today, the tools seem to be driving the culture of an
organization, but it seems it should be the other way.

A:  To whomever asked the question - you are very astute.  Yes, an enterprise is always better off if culture is driving the adoption of technology.  Any tool, no matter how powerful has to be embraced by users, or its powerf is drastically minimized.  Implementations of Enterprise 2.0 can occur in environments where the culture is not yet fully aligned or receptive, but the rate of adoption will  drastically decrease.  More than likely, specific efforts will be necessary to drive adoption, changing the underlying attitudes and approaches to collaboration and knowledge exchange.  Our recent research (slated for publication on March 24th - with a webinar on March 27th), confirms this.  As I asserted in an earlier post, organizations that have embraced Knowledge Management are far ahead of the rest of the industry in adopting Enterprise 2.0 and leveraging its benefits. That said, I do agree with your observations, that in most instances today, it is the IT group that is predominately behind the introduction of Enterprise 2.0.  Again, our research shows that  lack of understanding (from a business perspective) and business case studies is a major impediment to the wider scale adoption of the technology, and related practices.  This is likely to change as the market matures.

Q:  What about collaboration where the entities involved do not share a common perspective? How does this affect collaborative activities?

A:  In a word - negatively.  in 2 words, powerfully negatively.  AT the risk of being redundant - Enterprise 2.0 is more about culture, leadership and structure than technology.  If individuals within a team are involved in what they think is a collaborative process, but there is no leadership establishing ground rules and a common perspective, it is likely that the team may spin out of control or come to a pre-mature halt.  Why am I sharing?  What should be sharing?  What's in this for me - for us?  These questions will loom and dampen cooperation.  In the best case, users may attempt to be cooperative, but without a clearly defined and acknowledged common goal, without luck, it is likely that shared content and efforts may misfire. 

aiimQ&A: Collaboration and Enterprise 2.0

As I mentioned in a post earlier today, the AIIM webinar "Be First to Market with Effective Collaboration) (available for replay) was a great success, so much so that we did not have time to handle all the questions that our 200+ audience submitted.  Over the next 2 weeks, I will be answering those questions, here in this blog, and, in the spirit of Enterprise 2.0, encourage you to continue to feed questions and comments to these postings.  I promise, all questions/comments will be addressed.

So here goes, the first 4 questions:

Q: Are there ways to identify or retain different versions of a collaborative document?

A:  Given the high volatility of collaboratively created documents, the capability to maintain version control is important in most situations, lest the creation process be marked by chaos .  Recognizing this,  wiki (collaborative content creation) tools provide at version control functionality as part of the platform.  This typically is rudimentary, however, and may not include desirable functionality such as contention control, check-out, rendition and revision control, and automated version comparisons. If such functionality is desired, then you need to integrate your wiki/collaborative content development tool with a ECM platform tool.   

Q:  Can you lock down a document and apply a retention rule for eventual disposition?

A:  The answer to this question is very much related to the answer to the previous question.  Yes, you can subject Enterprise 2.0 related content (e.g. wikis and blogs) to a records management system, but that takes deliberate integration between the tools.   It is worth noting that depending on the focus of the content being collaboratively developed it may be highly desirable (dare I say mandatory) to apply this level of control over the content.

Q:  When a business uses an online tool such as Google Apps, how are that business's documents and resources made available to business employees and no one else?

A:  Enterprise 2.0 tools can be integrated with various levels of security (on application, user and content) to control  access rights.  Many of these tools do provide some level of security.  It is important that each use of such tools be scrutinized to determine if there is a need to control access, content and/or users/permissions, and then to apply the appropriate level of technology controls on the applications.  This may require integration of separate technology (such as the records management tools  introduced in the previous answer.)

Q:  You mentioned that in order to avoid a chaotic situation, there needs to be some overarching structure.
Beyond tools, how do you see companies recognizing the need for these new "governance" roles? Who do
you typically see taking the lead at large companies in these cross-functional roles (i.e. IT vs Business Lines)?

A:  Well put, beyond technology to enforce the rules and structure, there needs to be "governance".  According to our research, to be published in the end of March, typically this leadership comes from the business side of the enterprise, not the IT side.  This is logical, as we are addressing business rules that may be enforced by technology, not technology rules.  That said, our research uncovered a rather puzzling and potentially alarming situation.  In most cases, its not a matter of whether IT or business is driving the management, and defining structures, its - is anyone?  Nearly 84% of our survey respondents believe that Enterprise 2.0 projects require a champion or leader, but 64% also indicated that there was no such role within their organization.  Only 20% of those organizations that are involved with Enterprise 2.0 have established  a formal role for managing its application.  This is likely due to the nascent state of Enterprise 2.0 in many organizations.  As adoption accelerates, it is hoped that so to is formalized leadership.

Enterprise 2.0 - By George I Think They've Got it

Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to address the topic of Enterprise 2.0.   I was the featured speaker at an AIIM Webinar, entitled "Be First to Market With Effective Collaboration. “ (For those of you who are thinking, “collaboration – I thought you said it was on Enterprise 2.0?”, – come to our training – or listen to the webinar).

The slides from the presentation are posted to slideshare and available here.

| View | Upload your own

As is often the case, the webinar experience not only gave me a chance to share my opinions and insights, but to learn as well. 

First, I was pleased to see that nearly 900 people registered for this webinar. Collaboration (and by association Enterprise 2.0), is highly relevant to business professionals (or at least AIIM members.) Its always nice to know that our work over the last few months has not been in vain.

But the real pleasure came when the Q&A portion of the webinar began. The level and diversity of questions posed were wonderful.  There were actually more questions posed than we had time to answer during the session.  Therefore, as I have done in similar situations in the past, over the next few weeks, I will be posting to this blog, questions from the webinar that were left in the queue, along with my response.  So, if you are interested in the topic, keep an eye out.

But, back to the focus of this post, what I learned during the webinar.  Among the many questions posed, a significant number were focused not on the technology side of Enterprise 2.0, but the cultural and business model perspectives.  Initially I was a bit concerned that the enthusiasm expressed by myself and my co-presenter, Jeremy Milo, might leave too many  listeners to believe that Enterprise 2.0 is a foregone conclusion, another case of “Field of Dreams.”   I am pleased to say that this was not the case.  Many questions challenged the ease and speed with which the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 can be realized, not technically, but procedurally and culturally.

To this I say BRAVO – I think you've got it.

Attendees were obviously interested in evolving collaboration models in the workplace.  But those that posed the questions concerning issues such as security, intellectual property rights, compliance and incentives are my brethren.   Like them, I believe that the zeal over transparent and open collaboration, among and between inter- and intra-corporate teams must be tempered.  (My first testament to this opinion was made in a post to the FastForward blog, nearly a year ago.) 

Those that understand that culture, process and control are important and very real issues within the realm of Enterprise 2.0 are not antagonists, laggards or even roadblocks to the adoption of the technology.  My assumption is that they are seasoned business professionals that have been down this road before with knowledge management, instant messaging, portals, online communities and e-mail. Sure evolving technology models are making open collaboration easier.  This should lead to an acceleration in innovation and a decrease in functional and knowledge silos.  But, if corporate culture and practices are  not aligned with technology  – don’t bother.

As I indicated in my last blog post, in our recent Enterprise 2.0 survey, we found that respondents that were affiliated with an organization that had embraced Knowledge Management were more aware of obstacles and challenges to Enterprise 2.0, but also further along in their adoption of and understanding of  Enterprise 2.0 technology and practices. 

KM: It's Good for Enterprise 2.0

Over the past weeks I have posted several times  to this blog regarding the market research Dan Keldsen and I have been conducting on Enterprise 2.0.  The survey component was completed by 400+ individuals.  We have been poring over the data and we are finding some great pearls of insight, on everything from what works (what doesn't), to how age effects  perception (or not).   

For me personally, one of the more interesting findings is the fact that organizations that have embraced Knowledge Management are far ahead of the rest of the industry in adopting Enterprise 2.0 and leveraging its benefits.  Those of you who follow my musings know that I am proponent of Knowledge Management.  Unlike many consultants and analysts who turned tail when the vibrations from the buzz when silent, I have continued to pontificate on the virtues of this business model.   Knowledge Management continues to thrive in many organizations, manifesting under many other names such as portals, collaboration, innovation management, and now Enterprise 2.0. Our survey findings indicate that adoption and realization of benefits from Enterprise 2.0 is greater in organizations that have embraced Knowledge Management.

How do I know this?  Among the  80+ questions in our Enterprise 2.0 survey,  we inserted 12 questions from the Knowledge Assessment methodology I have used in my consulting practice.  These questions were used in the survey to profile the culture of the respondents’ respective organizations. The profiling identified a sub-group of respondents that worked in a Knowledge Management embracing environment.  The responses provided by this group to other questions, substantially differed from the other respondents,  in many instances.

The data shows that organizations that can be characterized as Knowledge Management-oriented are further along in their adoption cycle of Enterprise 2.0 technology, perceive fewer barriers and are more aware of the potential benefits that Enterprise 2.0 can provide.  Behind this rift likely lies the criticality of corporate culture as a component to a successful deployment of Enterprise 2.0.  Knowledge Management-oriented companies typically have a collaborative, inquisitive and transparent culture, an environment in which Enterprise 2.0 thrives.  Those who have yet to embrace Knowledge Management will find themselves perhaps unimpressed with Enterprise 2.0, and/or scrambling to affect the requisite change in culture in order to maximize the benefits these emerging technologies can provide.

Its just the tip of the iceberg.  We are waist deep in data at the moment (which is why I have been so silent of late), but still on track to release the report at the end of next month.  If interested, you can register for the respective webinar we are holding on March 27th, now.  We are also providing Enterprise 2.0 training, which includes much of the survey findings.

In any case, stay tuned - there is more to come.