As I said in an earlier post, I hoped that attending Enterprise 2.0 for the second out of three years would be a revelation. So far I have been disappointed. While the rhetoric quality has improved, the same basic problems remain.
Mike Krigsman characterizes the story in these words:
It’s time for Enterprise 2.0 to establish clear relevance to corporate folks working together on concrete projects with specific goals and targets.
The most successful practitioners, vendors, and consultants understand that Enterprise 2.0 will only show its value by making new and existing organizations operate better than otherwise possible.
I find it hard to agree with that statement. During my value proposition session with Oliver Marks I had this to say:
- Simply assuming that somehow ROI disappears as something that needs to get done because it is like asking the value of email is a fundamental misunderstanding of what E2.0 technologies represent to the CXO that has to justify spend. There are so many different ways of approaching E2.0 that you cannot make the same apples to apples comparison.
- Having said that - guess what? Creating an ROI case is simple. Talk time savings. If you can do that in a cogent manner and demonstrate break through value, you’ll likely get an approval tick on the requisition.
- Ironically, while ’social anything’ is about as unappealing, it could pave the way for introducing experienced social psychologists into the equation in a way that doesn’t leave top management thinking the company needs some mass therapy session. Very few organizations I come across seem willing to engage these professionals in the early stages of architecting solutions. To me, that’s a huge mis-step in the change management process. Almost everyone I meet agrees: enterprise 2.0 is little to do with technology and mostly about people. If that’s the case then why not bring in these change experts?
- Solving the ‘what’s in it for me’ problem remains one of the biggest barriers to success. 80%+ of people turn up to work to get things done for a fair wage and then get on with their lives. Assuming the world revolves around some co-mingled work/life scenario is both deluded and dangerous. Emphasizing the latter without recognizing the former alienates people.
- The position I’ve argued that content without context in process is meaningless still holds true. Virtually all solutions I see are detached from the process issue.
- Designing simplicity into the UX is still a nascent thought in the minds of developers wrestling to stake their claim. If you really want people to adopt and accept the notions underpinning E2.0 then you’d better be certain they get the value right off the bat. In theory, wiki ought to be the fertile hunting ground for that discussion yet I routinely find companies that cannot make wiki work. Why? The ‘people editing’ issue has not been addressed.
- On the question of incentives, I recalled an example from IBM where peer recognition for having attained certain levels of expertise is valued internally to IBM. In my analysis, this weighs far heavier than the odd prize , T-shirt or complementary ticket to a ball game. Why? Peer recognitions is enduring.
- Just as Jason Wood contends that software buyers are irrational, so are software consumers. What may at first seem irrational often turns out to be sane. In order to understand what appeals, you have to enter the world of the irrational. How many consultants, armed with their strict process driven playbooks are truly prepared to do that?
- Mike mentions SAP Streamwork as:
…intended to facilitate what it calls “collaborative decision making.” SAP’s entry into the collaboration market validates deep connection between Enterprise 2.0 and the traditional enterprise processes.
- The fact SAP enters a market validates nothing except in the eyes of the gullible prepared to buy into a brand without peeking under the covers. Streamwork troubles me as a solution looking for a problem. Show me problems that Streamwork solves in a way that’s as simple and meaningful to use as (say) Skype, Yammer, Google Docs AND is integrated directly into SAP processes and then I’ll take notice.
- Federated services as alluded to in JP Rangaswami’s keynote represent one way of avoiding the inevitable confusion around making choices among competing solutions. To date, that has seen scant attention from software vendors that continue in the misguided belief that one size fits all.
By the way - I’m not picking on Mike in particular. I am simply pointing up the ease with which it is possible to assume that because a brand says ABC is so that the world and his dog will likely agree. Hence when Andrew McAfee, the acknowledged ‘father’ of E2.0 name checked Gartner and PwC as E2 validators, I had to smile wryly. From my limited observations, these are two of the last organizations I’d likely approach for a meaningful discussion on this topic. Why? Because there are analysts, consultants and integrators from many tiny firms who, for years, have been trying to figure this stuff out. They might not have the TLA gravitas but those I speak with come from positions of authority. By which I mean they’ve been down in the trenches trying to make E2.0 deliver value. Can the big brands named say the same?
Despite my personal impressions, E2.0 is not as grim as I might imply? There are nuggets here and there and a sense that the industry is in the mood to grow up. I’m just not sure buyers are seeing enough maturity. Perhaps the best way to describe it comes from the representative of a large government organization I ran into who said: “I can see what they’re saying. I’m not sure I am identifying the killer solution provider.”
