This is my second and final post answering questions that were posed but were not answered during our webinar in which we over viewed The AIIM Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0. (See earlier post for additional Q&A).
Q: How much can/will technology DRIVE culture? Your survey showed that "KM Inclined" organizations adopt more quickly and in mass. But will the less "KM inclined" adopt Enterprise 2.0 as point solutions and perhaps the point/tactical adoptions move the culture needle?
A: Technology can drive culture, but as the study showed, culture can drive technology (adoption) far more quickly. That said, the low barrier nature of Enterprise 2.0 has allowed many organizations to experience the effects of the technology. As shown in Section 3 of the Market IQ, 46% of the organizations we polled indicated that Enterprise 2.0 technologies were being used in an exclusively or predominately ad hoc manner. This is a phenomenon that was highly unlikely or impractical in former collaborative or knowledge sharing technologies. (The complexity of implementation and cost typically kept experiments from occurring.) This allows groups within in the organization to develop solutions that can serve as proof of concept, real-life in context examples of how the technology can foster or facilitate real benefit and impact on the organization. These ad hoc implementations can provide a level of education or introduction to the organization that may very well invoke a change in attitude and thus drive a culture change. As the Market IQ also indicated, attitudes regarding Enterprise 2.0 are radically different than those regarding Web 2.0. Where adoption and opinions regarding Web 2.0 differ amongst age groups, attitudes and adoption of Enterprise 2.0 predominately does not. Where the bottom line benefit(s) to business are understood, adoption of Enterprise 2.0 seems to follow. Again, ad hoc point/tactical implementations of Enterprise 2.0 can provide the insight or education that will drive wider adoption and foster on going cultural change towards more openness and collaboration. It should be appreciated however (based on my 10+ experience as a Knowledge Management consultant), that in the severest of conditions, this may not be the case. A strong and pervasive culture that rejects openness and collaboration, especially one that emanates from the CxO level down, can be insurmountable, in spite of any rogue attempts and demonstrable benefit.
Q: When you say that market pressure is a driver, do you mean competitors driving business or the competition to keep employees happy?
A: There are several market pressures that are pushing the adoption of Enterprise 2.0, among these competition and employee morale. Competitive pressures come in many forms. The need to work leaner, to establish nimble extended enterprises that leverage the core competencies or talents of a community of partners (including the customer), across multiple geographic locations is a reality for today’s enterprise. Enterprise 2.0 technologies support and facilitate this approach to work. (An entire section of the AIIM Practitioner training on Enterprise 2.0 focuses on these business models and how Enterprise 2.0 supports them.) Similarly, leaner, more nimble and cost effective approaches to IT are in demanded, and supported by Enterprise 2.0. Lastly, for several years, the state of functionality on the Web has driven employee demand for functionality and interfaces within the firewall. These combined pressures or demands are behind the adoption of Enterprise 2.0. It is important to appreciate that these trends were not caused or instigated by Enterprise 2.0, but precede it. This is not a case of emerging technologies creating a new opportunity to drive business change, but vice versa.
Q: Section 4 of the Market IQ is titled “The State of the Market”. Do you see a market CATEGORY in the sense of Collaboration, ECM, etc.? Or is E2 more 'just' embedded in many different market categories?
A: Actually both. You are correct in stating that from a business perspective, the market is not an Enterprise 2.0 market, per se, but rather a market comprised of many initiatives or movements. (Your question correctly identifies two, collaboration and ECM.) The Enterprise 2.0 technologies do not embody these movements, but support them. On the other hand, there is an identifiable and measurable Enterprise 2.0 technology market, comprised of multiple technologies, structured in the SLATES and FLATNESSES frameworks. These are defined in Section 2 of the Market IQ.
Q: To what extent will Enterprise 2.0 strategies be led by IT managers and CIOs vs. line of business managers or even senior management?
A: The market data we collected, and present in Section 4 of the Market IQ, indicates that Enterprise 2.0 strategies will predominately be led by users and senior (non-IT) management. Each group garnered 24% of the surveyed community, as the PRIMARY driver behind Enterprise 2.0 adoption in the organization. That said, IT managers and IT Senior managers collectively were identified by 37% of the survey respondents as the PRIMARY drivers behind Enterprise 2.0. But, when asked to identify not just the PRIMARY driver behind the Enterprise 2.0 strategy, but all active forces, the survey respondents indicated an almost balanced mix of users (51%), Sr. business management (41%), IT managers (39%), Sr. IT managers (38%), and LOB managers (35%). As indicated in my last Q&A post, a hybrid team approach to Enterprise 2.0 strategy development is a best practice approach. Interestingly enough, our study also showed that budget authority over Enterprise 2.0 is nearly equally split between Sr. business management and IT. The latter is likely linked to a culture that predominately views Enterprise 2.0 as a technology play, which is OK, as long as business has a strong voice in dictating requirements, goals and objectives.
Q: (Note: The question posed here is representative of several that were asked. Rather than repeat each with an identical answer, the questions have rolled up into one and collectively answered.) Do you have any suggestions on how to get past the cultural hurdles that exist for companies where collaboration/sharing isn't the norm?
A: In a word, education. In two words, education and business alignment (OK that’s three words.) Our survey data indicated that when business benefit is understood, organizations begin to adopt and promote Enterprise 2.0. Where the culture is not yet there, rogue usage can provide that level of insight (see the first Q&A in this post.) Case studies from other organizations can also be beneficial in this regard. But, the important thing to remember is that the message needs to be tailored. Assess the current culture of the organization, looking for strengths or inclinations and build on these. Identify the overarching tenets of the organization and demonstrate how Enterprise 2.0 can specifically support and accelerate accomplishment of these goals. In this regard, Enterprise 2.0 is not unlike Knowledge Management. (As such I refer you to my book on the subject, and Section 6 of the Market IQ, for more detail.)
Q: It would be interesting to see how enterprise cultures have benefited positively after Enterprise 2.0. If it can be measured, even better. The positive benefit to enterprise culture should be part of ROI. It could also be possible driver.
A: I like this question because it sheds more light on the answer that precedes it. Yes, it would be very interesting to see how organizations have specifically benefited from the adoption of Enterprise 2.0. As discussed in Section 3 of the Market IQ, we were unable to define an effective way to capture this in the survey. Instead, as a starting point, we asked if the individual’s approach to measuring the value of Enterprise 2.0 was aligned to the organization’s approach. (54% indicated that the two were not aligned.) This led to 77% of those who were required to perform an ROI, unable to demonstrate an acceptable return on investment. The dilemma is likely due to the fact that there is no straightforward approach to demonstrating the “worth” of an application whose primary objective is “to increase collaboration.” The problem of measuring the impact of Enterprise 2.0 applications within an organization defies a simple answer. The potential benefits associated with an Enterprise 2.0 application are not only vast, but situational. They are likely tied to specific goals and objectives of the sponsor. Strategically, Enterprise 2.0 could be linked to the rate of product sales, product innovation/new product production, customer satisfaction and value derived from intellectual property, for example, but only if specifically targeted at that and in a way that could demonstrate the specific cause and effect. Instances in which the benefits are directly aligned with Knowledge Management goals and objectives also represent a vast array of possibilities. For example, “success” could be measured in the volume of content/knowledge captured over time, the rate of commentary, the volume of participants, the speed of developing new ideas/teams, the level of participants (roles), the level of participation and diversity of community. Such calibrations, however, typically do not have a hard dollar value associated with them. Associating a value with these metrics requires an agreement on their worth, or establishing a connection between these and a subsequent event (e.g. the strategic goals listed above).
We will be developing a series of case studies on this issue to help shed more light on this matter. We agree with the individual who posed this question, “It would be interesting to see how enterprise cultures have benefited positively after Enterprise 2.0.”
