Skip to content

Compliance Building

Doug Cornelius on compliance for private equity real estate

Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • About
    • About Doug
    • About This Website
    • Why I Blog
    • Speaking Engagements
    • Contact
    • Publications
  • Archives
    • Topic Archive
    • Book Reviews
    • Most Popular
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimers
    • Disclaimers
    • Policies and Procedures
    • Use of Site Content
    • Comments
    • FTC Disclosure
Menu

Is Enterprise 2.0 a Crock?

Posted on November 4, 2009October 2, 2013 by Doug Cornelius
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

enterpise 2.0

I’m attending the Enterprise 2.0 Conference in San Francisco. I’m sharing my notes from this session.

  • e2 Moderator – David Berlind, Chief Content Officer, TechWeb
  • Jamie Pappas, Manager, Social Media Strategy, EMC
  • Bryce Williams, Social Media Consultant, Eli Lilly
  • Megan Murray, Community Manager/Project Coordinator, Booz Allen Hamilton
  • Claire Flanagan, Senior Manager, KM and Enterprise Social Collaboration, CSC
  • Bruce Galinsky, Director IT, Metlife
  • Greg Lowe, Social Media Architect/Program Manager, Alcatel-Lucent

David started off by point out that this session was set up as a response to Dennis Howlett’s Enterprise 2.0 What a Crock. (Although he didn’t mention Dennis by name, merely saying a ZDnet blogger.) The panelists are part of the Enterprise 2.0 Adoption Council.

Workplace Transformation.

The first topic the panel addressed was workplace transformation. Greg pointed out that Alcatel wants to break down organizational silos so that people doing similar things can find each other. He points out that in big organizations have a hard time finding internal expertise.

Claire pointed out that the tools are enabling devices.She points out that the tools are not an incremental change, but a quantum leap. She comes from knowledge management where the concept was to push information into a new silo. These new tools allow knowledge capture as part of the workflow.

Bruce agreed. The tools make sharing easier.  Bruce emphasized the need for speed and innovation in the marketplace. Enterprise 2.0 tools help.

Business Process

Claire points out that the 9-to-5 office has been eroding. People are collaborating around the world, so face to face collaboration is not feasible.

Intellectual Property/Privacy/Governance

You need to focus on the governance and compliance issues. There was some discussion of the benefit of open governance, allowing organization groups to get input from other groups in creating policies.

Companies need to start stop not trusting their employees. The biggest threat is from within. But you need to educate employees. Malicious people will find ways around the lock-down. Email is no more secure than Enterprise 2.0 tools.

Religious Wars (Technology and Generational Bias)

The importance is tools that are easy and intuitive to use. Some companies prefer open source, some prefer Microsoft and others IBM. People want the tools to communicate better to remove information silos.

Bottom-Line Business Benefits

The elusive quest for ROI on technology tools. The panelists agree that this is the biggest challenge. It is hard to show the direct benefits of collaboration. One panelists took the time saved approach to measurement. The tools allowed a project to be done faster. Another did a comparison of the time and money comparison between reply-all emails and a wiki. (Of course, this is soft dollars.)

Then the audience joined in.

One question was how you value the better decision-making that can come from use of Enterprise 2.0 tools. A panelist gave the example of how the company sent an open question on how to save money. They got lots of good feedback and money-saving ideas. The tools allow management to get better feedback and an ability to tap into the conversations happening in the organization.

Claire pointed out the need to find a tool that is “addictive.” Employees will vote with their feet and use what works best for them. Tools need to be easy to use and intuitive. And of course, useful.

My Take

Enterprise 2.0 is still looking for pays to justify itself. People that have used the tools (at least the good tools) do find them addictive. The problem is comparing the tools to email when it comes to ROI. The ROI for email was easy. Email was obviously cheaper and faster than mail or overnight delivery of documents. It was also cheaper than a phone call. The ROI for Enterprise 2.0 tools is much more elusive.

I think Enterprise 2.0 should look to some of the arguments for knowledge management. Sure, knowledge management largely died because the tools and approach were flawed. I find the Enterprise 2.0 approach to be the better approach to knowledge management. You are capturing the intellectual capital of your enterprise as part of their workflow.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

4 thoughts on “Is Enterprise 2.0 a Crock?”

  1. Brian Gryth says:
    November 4, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    Doug,

    Thanks for the information. You state that the panelist said that, “Companies need to start not trusting their employees.” That seems contradictory to many of the tenant of E 2.0 and Web 2.0.

    Of course, if the idea is you can’t trust your employees unless you educate them and create use policies and guidelines I agree. But to wholesale not trust your employees is going to lead to bad things happening.

    I would say the idea needs to be to educate and trust your employees. Of course, you need to be prepared for bad things to happen. But if ROI is a critical aim, then the enterprise is going to have to trust their employees.

    Thanks, Brian

    Reply
    1. Doug Cornelius says:
      November 4, 2009 at 6:59 pm

      Typo on my part, resulting in the wrong statement. (Fixed above)

      Companies hired their employees because they expect them to be responsible. If they are irresponsible, then you fire them. So trust them and give them the latitude to use tools in a way that helps them.

      Of course, employees need to know that they are responsible and will be held accountable for doing something stupid, just as they should be rewarded for doing smart things.

      Reply
      1. Brian Gryth says:
        November 5, 2009 at 12:49 pm

        Glad to hear it was a typo and I agree with your follow-up. Thanks, Brian

        Reply
  2. Nenshad Bardoliwalla says:
    November 5, 2009 at 11:06 pm

    Hi Doug,

    I made a very serious attempt to bridge the perspectives in my blog post entitled “Is Enterprise 2.0 a Savior or a Charlatan? How Strategy-Driven Execution can pave the path to proving legitimate business performance” located here: http://bit.ly/3n325o

    I would certainly welcome your feedback and look forward to a continued dialogue around the topic.

    Best Regards,

    Nenshad

    Reply

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search for Stuff

Recent Stories

  • Neither Admit Nor Deny To Be No Longer
  • What Will Form PF Look Like Next Year?
  • Is It a Chipset or Is It a Security?
  • When the Lawyer Is Breaking Bad
  • Will Investors Have an Appetite for Semi-Annual Reporting?
  • Special Forces Trading on Insider Knowledge
  • Prediction Markets and Compliance Programs
  • The One with the Line That Goes Straight Up and Right
  • The One with the Crypto Paying for a Mega-Shilling Package
  • The Performance of the SEC in 2025

Fight Cancer

Please support my Pan-Mass Challenge
Make a donation to fight cancer. donate.pmc.org/DC0176
pan-mass challenge badge

I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. Since I’m a lawyer, this website may be considered attorney advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions. Please read my disclaimers page before taking any action. And then, don't take any action based on what I wrote.

Creative Commons logo with the text 'Some Rights Reserved' and three symbols representing attribution, non-commercial use, and share alike.

Compliance Building - by Doug Cornelius is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.