Comments on: Can Enterprise 2.0 Afford to be Boring?

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:23:51 +0000

I have mixed views to your article.

I agree, that all standard business/enterprise work is boring, but I don’t think Enterprise 2.0 is boring, if anything, it should make things more interesting (when done properly).

There are 2 things that Enterprise 2.0 software should do to make work less boring.

1. It should replace a human task, and the software should do it itself. This includes crunching numbers, analysis. For example, a company ordering system that automatically places a new order with the supplier when stock is low is an example of something done by Enterprise 2.0 systems, that before would have had to be done by a human, and that is a boring task.

2. Enterprise 2.0 software should also make work transparent, as in the data and information we manage as part of our business lives should be seamlessly connected between our daily tasks, and between our colleges. CRM systems, online billing sites, call centres, sales peoples mobile devices are all able to connect and share the same data with Enterprise 2.0 software, something that was impossible before it came about.

Even the the UKs biggest supermarket Tesco has an API for people to write software for now, an Amazon has had one for years, and in their case has resulted in additional sales. The UK popular bookseller Waterstones, actually used Amazon to run their own branded website via an API for years instead of running their own, this is an example of something achievable with Enterprise 2.0 semantics.

So work is very boring yes, but Enterprise 2.0 can be a solution to that. Good interfaces are the beginning of jazzing things up.

By: Kevin Leversee

Kevin Leversee — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:43:24 +0000

Remember Xerox was a pioneer in Blogging, aka John Seely Brown having Xerox Repair Men Write War Stories…

Stories are how we remember things, rather than training programs, rather than boring internal stuff.

honestly bro if you think Enterprise 2.0 is boring, you need to dig deeper, it is the new bastion of tattoo’s, culture, music and weezer songs.

seriously check out internal social nets, such as Best Buy and ‘ Blue Shirt Nation’

this is something I have been pushing for over 5 years.

Enterprise 2.0 is fun bro! But sometimes the clients are not, we just want to get out of our chairs and slap them in their ego glorifying face…

-Kev

By: Nate Nash

Nate Nash — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:24:48 +0000

Was in a few of the sessions at e2conf with you. I have a bit of a dissenting opinion on the matter though…

http://www.e2oh.com/2009/06/25/stand-a-little-closer-when-you-call-me-a-band-geek/

By: Venkat

Venkat — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:19:04 +0000

Robin:

A major point missing in E 2.0 debate is precisely to address this difference. See for instance, Malone’s “Future of Work” that argues that the workplace is democratizing. So as this trend intersects the E 2.0 trend, your point will no longer be true, but I suspect “boring” might still be :) I am not sure.

I’d use the word “democratize” myself. Not necessary open/equal.

Venkat

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:47:40 +0000

Interesting article but I think it misses an important point. People are accountable within a company in a way that they are not in open society.

The ’society’ of most companies is still closer to a feudal hierarchy. Most people in a company do not feel free to speak completely openly and interestingly.

Social networking in the outside world reflects the openness of society where peers are essentially equal. This is not the case within the most larger enterprises.

By: gregorylent

gregorylent — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:05:46 +0000

it’s been boring forever, long before “enterprise” replaced the word “company” .. boring boring boring ..

By: Lawrence Liu

Lawrence Liu — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:29:20 +0000

Adam, re: your comment “we’ve generated real business results” - pray tell specifics. :-)

By: adam zais

adam zais — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:03:38 +0000

Very interesting post. And comments. Since I’m coming in late, I’ll just add this: we’ve generated real business results from our efforts in the E2.0 arena - paying customers. Sure, we’ve boosted awareness, inquiries, web traffic, etc. But, as it is said, money talks.

By: Lawrence Liu

Lawrence Liu — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:57:55 +0000

Also, the goal should be to get the 80% of the employees using E2.0 tools because the top 10-20% are already quite resourceful, communicative, and collaborative. Catering to them would only create a deep divide within an org. That 80% has plenty of ideas and can do some great work, but they just don’t know how to focus their energies. They need encouragement, camaraderie, community! Then from within communities of interest or practice, some of that 80% will form teams either with each other or with some of that 20% who can provide leadership and guidance to pursue a shared idea or objective. And that is when E2.0 starts to get exciting.

http://twitter.com/lliu

By: Lawrence Liu

Lawrence Liu — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:46:04 +0000

Interesting analogy and perspective. You ever watch “Breakfast Club” the movie? Well, I would say those kids, who had to stay after school, are the early adopters of E2.0 tools. The jocks are the middle or senior managers, who have the organizational power and fat enough paycheck to not want to learn a new tool or deal with empowered subordinates. The cheerleaders are the subordinates who rather kiss (the jocks’) asses to get promoted than to collaborate with their peers. Put all that together, and you’ve got a very tough challenge to get E2.0 tools adopted broadly within a large org.

That’s why I contend that E2.0 initiatives can only be successful if there’s C-level sponsorship, ideally the CEO him/herself with the CIO and Head of HR having joint stakeholdership and a direct report of the CIO having ownership. See my blog for more of my thoughts about Enterprise 2.0 strategy.

http://twitter.com/lliu