Here is the final report for feedback. We thank all contributors and welcome comments on the project and on the policy recommendations.
Tuesday 14th September we presented the results of the E20 study to the EC.
The workshop provided not only validation but real insight. All the presentations are available on Slideshare .
My take-out from the workshop (on top of the study findings) were:
– Ken Ducatel, EC lead on the digital strategy, provided the big picture and stressed that the study was actually more important than the EC originally thought
– it’s quite clear that E20 has not yet delivered large scale impact. Lee Bryant described the current status as early, patchy and tool centric. In our study, we struggled to find SME cases of E20. Employee adoption is viral in some cases, more difficult in others. Incentives to participation and sharing are not always effective.
– the market is very small but growing fast, Europe lagging behind both in supply and demand. EU start-ups cannot compete with US counterparts also because they have much less ressources from VC.
– together with VC, public procurement is a key are of policy activity. Current procurement approaches still are ineffective to leverage the growth of successful SMEs. New approaches to procurement have to be
designed, as well as to research and innovation policy, in order to reach out to real innovators.
– the software market is changing, margins are much lower and vendors should offer services on top of tools in order to be profitable. It’s therefore important to experiment with new business models
– E20 is an important area of attention but certainly not a key policy issue for governments. But the picture changes when you consider E20 as a specific case of innovation in software. The question then is: why did Europe miss out on this trend just as in many others? Why are EU companies much slower in adoption than US ones? Why did such innovation not come out of EU research? In general, this makes me think: is EU research funding more suitable for hardware and infrastructure rather than software? Is there evidence of this?
– success stories in open innovation such as 100%open were only possible because NESTA was arm’s length from government, otherwise it would have been difficult to justify politically to work mainly with large companies. In the end, SMEs benefit from this because they can participate in open innovation value chain, selling to large companies. This shows the importance of arm’s length body and trust in innovation policy.
The workshop went very well also because we invited 3 external, real-life speaker: Mart Van Der Kerkhof from Allen and Overy, a legal company who uses E20; Antoine Perdaens from KnowledgePlaza, a small E20 startup; and Roland Harwood from 100%open, the UK open innovation agency. This made the workshop much more meaningful and exciting, so I will keep on doing this. On top of this , we had two very insightful peer reviewers, prof Steinmuller from SPRI and Wim de Waele, CEO of IBBT.
My goal for the final report is to streamline the evidence, make a good business case for e20, but most of all looking at lessons learnt from the study that can help EU innovation policy switching from sevendipity to serendipity.
When looking at the case studies and the product offering, it is not always clear “what is different and what is new” about Enterprise 2.0.
In the study proposal, we came up with the following table. Is it accurate? Is it complete? Is it clear enough to distinguish Enterprise 2.0?
|Traditional Enterprise apps||Enterprise 2.0|
|Mission||Enable pre-defined groups/teams working closely together and/or relatively formal collaborative relationships.||Enable individuals to act in loose, ad-hoc collaborations with a potentially very large number of others.|
|Relationship to organisational hierarchy||Tools reflect the organizational hierarch and roles within them.||Little link to organizational hierarchy|
|Control of structure||Centrally imposed and generally rigid controls||Emergent (=emerges and evolves)|
|Content originated by||Specialists with authorisation||All users – also emergent|
|Control over users||Users/participants are fixed and their roles pre-defined.||Roles by choice and can evolve over time (emergent)|
|Control mechanisms||Formal, rules||Norms, examples|
|Change of content timescales||Slow||Rapid|
|Delivery model||Typically on premise commercially licensed software||Range of delivery models including on premise, cloud, commercial, open source, stand-alone, suites or add-ins to E1.0 systems|
|Range of participants||Colleagues with similar or complementary job roles||Anyone in the organization and potentially outside (e.g. customers)|
|Links between participants||Peer or hierarchical||Links can be strong to non-existent (or ‘potential’) within the group|
|Typical tools||Knowledge management, knowledge repositories, decision automation||Blogs, wikis, social networking, prediction markets|
There are no official statistics of usage of Enteprise 20: actually, the whole dimension of collaboration and knowledge exchange is missing from existing statistics, which instead focus on the old paradigm of e-commerce. See the screenshot from Eurostat below.
However, I came across interesting statistics from the Community Innovation Survey on the propensity of companies to collaborate in innovation (regardless of the ICT tools). The chart below shows that SMEs are fall less keen to collaborate than large companies (source: OECD 2008 Open Innovation in Global Networks).
If collaboration is a key aspect of innovation, SMEs suffer from competitive disadvantage with large companies. So my question is:
– why are SMEs collaborating less in innovation?
– can Enterprise 2.0 software have a meaningful impact on the propensity of SMEs to innovate, and thereby on their competitiveness?
The ultimate goal of our study on Enterprise 2.0 is to give to the European Commission relevant policy recommendations.
One of my hypothesis is that Enterprise 2.0 shows that current policies for ICT in business are unfit for the 2.0 world. Indeed, even before web 2.0, government traditionally struggle to:
– promote new ICT business
– promote take-up of ICT in business
Enterprise 2.0, just like web 2.0, is not just another item on the agenda of ICT policies. It implies a different way to do ICT policy: more emergent, less self-referential, more people-centred. In general, I think that Dion Hinchliffe recommendations to CEOs apply very well to government as well:
– do nothing
– get out of the way
– keep the energy levels up
I’m curious to see whether this is true: just like conferences evolved into unConferences, we should think for unPolicies!
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.