Home > Uncategorized > First hypothesis: e20 require less investment in organisational change than traditional enterprise apps

First hypothesis: e20 require less investment in organisational change than traditional enterprise apps

While writing the inception report, we are starting to come up with hypothesis to be validated in the course of the project. Would love to have other people views on this.

A first hypothesis I formulate is that the “organisational changes” cost related to Enterprise 2.0 are much lower than with traditional enterprise application. Because e20 focusses on emergent behaviour, there is no need for extensive investment in things like Business Process Reingeneering.

This has major consequences when calculating the overall economic impact. It is a well known truism that in order to deliver productivity impact, a company needs to invest in organisational change five times more than in technology. It is possible that enterprise 2.0 tools not only are cheaper in terms of technology, but also in terms of accompanying investment. This would challenge a lot of the traditional assumptions about the economic impact of ICT.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: ,
  1. February 19, 2010 at 11:43 am

    My work involves me with very small and small Enterprises. They fall, roughly, into two groupings and the line of demarcation is those whose turnover is below 150,000 Euros and those whose turnover is at or above 150,000 Euros.

    For those below it is not organisational change or BPR but understanding the concepts. There is a sense of seeking the silver bullett that will solve all problems. For those at or above 150,000 Euros there is a realisation that their enterprise is in their head and in order to move on they need not only to understand the concepts of enterprise 2.0 but also to get the workings of the enterprise in a form that they can give operations to employees and yet retain control. this is less BPR mire Business Process Understanding. It is here that the organisational change is most significant because it involves a change in management behaviour before it involves an organisational change.

    I would argue that this is different to the organisationssal change to be realised by Enterprises whose turnover is in excess of 500,000 Euros where there are established managemnt structures and an established infrastructure.

  2. March 10, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    I think your hypothesis is correct. At least, up to a certain level. The reason for this is obvious. All traditional enterprise solutions have a lot of “process” embedded. Most often, these processes are quite different from what already exists in the company, explicitly or implicitly. With the rollout of a new enterprise solution, there is no other alternative than to adhere to the new process rules, hence accepting the need for organisational change.

    With e2.0 solutions, this is different. In general, these solutions do not impose a specific ‘process’, but allow end-users to use the functionality to facilitate the operation of their own, existing processes (the so-called ‘in the flow’ usage). Since end-users will use these tools, according to their own habits, preferences and needs, no real organisational change is needed.

    This said, this only remains valid as long as the ’emergent’ behaviour that can result from the use of these tools does not cross-influence each others’ processes. To some extent, it is exactly there that e2.0 can deliver the greatest value. Unfortunately, it is also there that the habits, preferences and needs of individual process owners sometimes will run into each other with similar consequences as what we have seen for enterprise solutions.

  3. March 27, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    I think your thesis is correct (but I’m curious if this can be proven). I’m always surprised how easily millions is put into product data management and ERP projects. If we could put that kindof money in e2.0 projects… And I’m also surprised by the cranky business cases that are put together to be awarded those millions. And these projects solve a relatively small problem in the organization (supporting the operational, formal processes). All other processes aren’t supported or are hardly supported by tools (and policies).

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: