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!
As I’ve just said over on the Headshift blog, we think that enterprise 2.0 has the potential to make companies more agile and competitive: it’s changing the way that people in organisations work by giving them simple software tools that support the informal processes that are part of any healthy organisation. This change and its concomitant potential for humanising the enterprise are two important reasons why we’re so interested in being part of this research.
Headshift’s contribution to the research is twofold. Firstly, we’ll be undertaking some research into what companies are using enterprise 2.0 for, both at a broad level to produce a typology of use cases and a more specific level to produce a set of 8 case studies. The case studies will be in-depth accounts of how individual companies are using enterprise 2.0 tools: what business need they’re meeting; what technology is being used; what problems have been faced and dealt with; the costs associated with the project and what the outcomes have been for the organisation.
Secondly, we’ll be investigating the legal aspects of cloud-based enterprise 2.0 use: the legal barriers or uncertainties that prevent companies from taking full advantage of the technologies available, the common contractual relationships that exist between suppliers of cloud-based enterprise 2.0 tools and their customers and whether there are common contractual considerations that are likely to impede the adoption of enterprise 2.0 software.
Right now, we’re in the process of putting together a long list of case study candidates. To make this research as comprehensive as possible, we want to cast our nets wide and talk to people we’ve never met and who are using enterprise 2.0 tools in ways we haven’t come across before.
If you’re interested in being part of the case study research – raising the profile, internally and externally, of what you’re doing – or you know someone else who is, talk to us in the comments or drop us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org. We’d love to hear from you.
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.
Welcome everybody. Yesterday we kicked off our study on enterprise 2.0. It was a good meeting, partners and customers are genuinely interested. Plus we start the blog to make this study “a different way of doing things”.
For more information, look in the “About” page.