Use enterprise 2.0 to save money

December is just around the corner and many organisations have already depleted their 2008 intranet budgets many months ago. On the wish lists for 2009 are many interesting projects, including Enterprise 2.0 initiatives. However, as I’ve said previously, you may need to cut your intranet budget.

Before you even begin to make the case for additional funding, I would strongly suggest that you start by getting an overview of what the money is currently being spent on - or has been spent on thus far. If you have not done this exercise recently (many haven’t), then you might be in for a surprise.

As a next step, I would recommend that tried-and-tested advice of starting small. You can actually get a few things done in the enterprise 2.0 sphere without spending any money. You can get a free wiki or a free blog and start experimenting. You know you have a success on your hands, when you start getting unsolicited praise from colleagues!

Finally, remember that enterprise 2.0 is not about technology. Technology is not where you’ll spend most of your money; nor is it with technology that you will run into most problems. The cultural barriers that enterprise 2.0 projects tend to face: lack of openness and transparency, might be a much more cumbersome task to work through,, than actually implementing some exciting new technology.

Have you actually managed to save some money with an enterprise 2.0 project? How did you overcome the cultural barriers? Drop a comment and help me learn.

by Janus Boye

The Power of Mass Collaboration

Us Now is a ground-breaking documentary project about the power of mass collaboration, the internet and its potential impact on society. Directed by Ivo Gormley, the film explores how the web is changing the ways we can organize ourselves. From a democratic football club where the fans pick the team to a lending service where everyone can be a bank manager, Us Now tells the story of new technology through human eyes, and for the first time brings together the leading thinkers in the field of participation and web culture to describe how mass collaboration could change society. As the co-author of Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, I was asked by Ivo Gormley to participate. View a sample below, and find out more about the film here.


The Power of Mass Collaboration from Yuce Zerey on Vimeo.

HR 2.0

HR 2.0

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: hr 2.0)

Putting “Enterprise 2.0″ in perspective

The entire buzz around Enterprise 2.0 starts sometimes to seem a bit unrealistic and even boring to some, including me, and some relative perspective is needed.

It is true that Web2.0 is ill defined in general and that enterprise 2.0 means different things to different people. It is actually part of the issue: undefined words cover fuzzy realities and do not help. But in most cases “Enterprise 2.0” means the use of collaborative tools, developed in the world of the society itself — in particular in that universe called Web2.0 — and imported into the corporation.

The aficionados of web 2.0 would like to think that the Web2.0 will in itself revolutionize the organization by creating corporate collaboration cultures of a new breed where hierarchy would disappear; collaboration would bring harmony and progress; etc.

It is even demeaning for the current revolution happening to corporations to pretend it to be mostly or even only related to the Web 2.0 phenomenon. Something much deeper is happening. Many of the changes to happen within corporations will have other sources than collaborative technologies.

Let’s be realistic, Enterprise 2.0 seen as the sole center of the management revolution is a fallacy, the revolution happening to the enterprise is much more interesting than just the part of it related to web 2.0 elements even if I am one of those pretending that a good implementation of collaborative elements within the organization can bring a competitive advantage.

Just to start, let’s note that the world is not yet on Web2.0. Just think that Linkedin has only 30 million members and Facebook only 90 millions. It looks big for Social Networks but these are drops in the bucket of the world of work. No surprise then that most employees in the world, even in OECD countries, just don’t really know what Social Networks and collaborative tools are.

Then, even if everybody would be familiar to these new tools, like more or less today they are to mobile telephony (although again the owners of mobile telephones are “only” half of humanity) this will not mean that corporations are all going to become Enterprise 2.0 or, if they are, it will be because they will have found the tools convenient or necessary to use, not because they will have changed out of the very pressure of the web 2.0.

Those putting all the change requirements on the Web2.0 revolution miss the point and fall into the old trap of seeing every problem as a nail because they hold a hammer.

What are the major changes a CEO currently has to look at for planning his organization’s future?

• Energy scarcity and cost
• Talent scarcity and cost
• Ageing of his workforce and of his customers
• Economic crisis and uncertainty
• Environment crisis
• IT revolution (in particular the Big Switch of Nicholas Carr and the implications on data management, storage and interpretation)
• Terrorism
• Internal and external social disparities
• Migrations
• Etc. this is not an exhaustive list, by far.

Most of them are not related, or just via indirect ways to Web 2.0

In front of these issues the questions a CEO asks himself about his company are of three orders

1. Which strategy in times of uncertainty?
2. Which organization can provide a competitive advantage?
3. How to guarantee that execution will follow?

The web 2.0 plays mostly a role on the second one. I will not address one and three here. They are out of my immediate objective for this post.

If we look at how to transform the organization itself into a competitive advantage, one must again realize that the Web2.0 issues are only secondary, i.e. one of the tools helping to solve some of the issues.

What are the most important organizational issues that trouble a CEO’s sleep?

• Where to produce the product or services? here (on shoring), or there (offshoring), or on the cloud (cloud shoring) when international trade is at stake for several products;
• Should one company produce oneself or outsource and externalize? An even more important question in a world of cash scarcity and where “stick to your knitting” has suddenly a different meaning;
• Which systems and structures to put in place to attract, recruit, develop, and retain the right talents when talents really are the scarce resource? This include managing the NetGens and their Web2.0 habits but also more fundamentally managing four generations working together in the same corporation with different expectations and practices;
• How to build the newly required CSR, environment issues, and energy efficiency into the organizations weaving and not only within the communication toolkit?
• How to build flexibility within the organization? In particular in order to be able to respond to brutal unexpected crisis like terrorism or to further degradations in the economic climate or to brutal changes in the value of assets or the cost of commodities;
• How to build the next global-local work organization maximizing the use of talent available (what I call Net-Taylorism)?
• How to organize internal and external collaboration in ways productive for the corporation (yes, this one implies some web 2.0 technologies, among others)?
• How to build practically customer loyalty at a time when they will be harder and harder to motivate?
• How to manage huge databases and mine them in order to build a competitive advantage based on ones capacity to better understand and target users, employees, targets, etc.? Which is mostly a question of systems and algorithms, not of Web2 .0.
• Etc. again this is not the place to expand too much on that issue.

What I want to convey as a message here is double:

Let’s not the blame of all the changes that corporations need to put in place on the web2.0‘s revolution only. The collaboration culture created within the society at large, at least at the Netgen level, is a fascinating element, and it is important to understand more deeply the practical implications it will have on management. Agreed and let’s go on working on it, but…

Let’s recognize that the changes required are actually much broader and much more interesting that the simple web 2.0 approach would let believe. Let’s work on them as a holistic system change, what actually is the very notion of paradigm shift.

This is what the Boostzone Institute (www.boostzone.fr), is working on.

By Dominique Turcq

Enterprise 2.0: May Be a Winner

My high school English teacher made me sit in the hall for two years. She disliked me and my writing style. For example, I tried to sidestep the word “may”. I also tried to avoid “would” because I have had a dislike for what I call “woulda, coulda, shoulda” reasoning. You may know what troubles me. You look at the price of Yahoo today, which is about $10 per share, and you buy $100,000 worth of stock. Then you look at the value of Yahoo in three weeks and its is for the purposes of this example $6 per share. You then say, “I should have bought Microsoft at $19″. When I received news of a Computerworld article about the transference of Web 2.0 technology to what is cleverly labeled the Enterprise 2.0 I almost ignored the link. But click I did and I read “Wikis, Social Networks Should Find Significant Success in Enterprise” by Heather Havenstein. You must read her story here.

The point of the article is a new study from a high flying technology consulting firm called Forrester Research Inc. The study didn’t do much for me. What caught my attention was this comment in Ms. Havenstein’s article:

The report also noted that a number of Web 2.0 technologies are underutilized in the enterprise. “Enterprises don’t know what to do with RSS even though it is all around the Web,” Yehuda said. “They have not been able to figure out how to leverage RSS for their own benefit internally. Mashups and widgets are similarly underappreciated, but there is a future for them if enterprises can plan effectively around the whole ecosystem of information production and information consumption.”

Why did I find this interesting in the context of my “woulda, coulda, shoulda” mindset. Three reasons. Hang on to your Hat 2.0:

1. What the heck is Web 2.0? Last time I looked the Internet was being used for communications. Er, email has been around for a week or two. Granted it is asynchronous, but moving comms to synchronous mode is not exactly a revolution. Where there are bits and a network, humans will do what humans have done for a while–communicate. Other technologies are equally obvious, and I am not convinced that the buzzword Web 2.0 communicates much of anything. For Madison Avenue, the notion of Web 2.0 might sound cool, but I think it is–well–labored.
2. What the heck is Enterprise 2.0? I have a feature on this subject which will appear on December 1, 2008. I want to start your month with a bang, not a whimper. I break down the components of Enterprise 2.0 and point out that it is a push cart filled with odds and ends. More significantly, the stuff in the cart range from the unfathomable such as a firm’s culture to the complex such as cloud computing. A collection of stuff is a yard sale, not a discipline. I don’t want to be a master of the yard sale. I will stick with the one thing I think I almost know a little bit.
3. What’s with appreciation? Last time I checked a major publisher has stopped publishing books for an unknown period of time. The Federal government is borrowing more money so my neighbors can buy a new Mercedes or go to South America over the New Year break. Executives are refusing pay raises, and even the big dogs at GM have returned one of their corporate jets. These are hard times, and I don’t think some technology is appreciated unless it delivers cash right now. My dog appreciates me because I feed him. A company appreciates technology when it [a] works, [b] makes sales directly or indirectly, and [c] is economical because no more heads or fewer heads are needed to perform a task.

What stopped my web feet in their muddy hike to the pig pen was the headline’s use of these two words, “Should Find”. Just because some one cooked up a clever name for Web functions does not in my goose brain translate to the leap that these technologies have a role in an organization. What regulated industry dealing in drugs or financial instruments wants to use a technology in a manner that could lead to a problem with the regulatory authorities? What executive wants to deal with a legal discovery process that requires figuring out what information was where and what it said in a social communication system that was not secure or archived? Not me, gentle reader.

This Enterprise 2.0 buzzword pivots on the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” logic. What happens has zero connection with the actions as they are. I find the “2.0″ buzzword interesting, and I will keep my beak in the water looking for more information on this “should be” argument. I should be as agile as TO, the star for the Dallas Cowboys. But I am a goose and not silly enough to thing “shoulds” become reality. Do you?

Stephen Arnold, November 27, 2008

CRM 2.0 Is for Real

Industry analysis firm Forrester Research has been placing heavy emphasis of late on the emergence of CRM 2.0, the confluence of social computing and business. In its latest report on the topic, William Band, a principal analyst at the firm and one of CRM magazine's 2007 Influential Leaders, examines how early adopters are implementing strategies for the social customer.

"Leading-edge organizations are actively using social technologies to forge new and tighter relationships with their buyer communities, and social technologies are driving business results," Band writes in CRM 2.0: Fantasy or Reality? How Trail-Blazing Companies Are Implementing Social Customer Strategies. "Now is the time to take action to start gaining the practical experience you need to break out of old mindsets and grasp new opportunities. Those who wait to join in will find it increasingly hard to catch up."

According to the research, which is part of Forrester's "CRM 2.0 Imperative," the social Web is making CRM professionals think beyond the two-way relationship between business and customer -- and far beyond the one-way communication that characterizes a non-customer-centric mindset -- and include the simultaneous interactions that customers have among themselves. "CRM is evolving from its traditional focus on optimizing customer-facing transactional processes to include the strategies and technologies to develop collaborative and social connections with customers, suppliers, and even competitors," Band writes.

Band adds that, while traditional CRM solutions will continue to aggregate customer data, analyze that data, and automate workflows to optimize business processes, "CRM professionals must find innovative new solutions to engage with emerging social consumers, enrich the customer experience through community-based interactions, and architect solutions that are flexible and foster strong intra-organization and customer collaboration."

Readers of CRM may find it jarring to see social CRM discussed as something still most commonly found with early adopters, but it is still a new field, as Band explained in a follow-on interview. "I get a lot of clients who are calling about traditional CRM initiatives and solutions," Band says. "When I mention social or 2.0, the vast majority says it's not really in their thinking." While industry insiders have been watching this area for some time, the real capabilities that are available can still surprise people. "To the broader world it's still very new," he says.

Often, Band adds, Forrester's clients don't even come to CRM 2.0 on purpose. "In a lot of cases, the clients are saying, ‘We needed to improve how we handled marketing communications or [how we] solicit feedback.' Then it became a question of how to get that information into transactional CRM," he says. "Their next question is, ‘How do I participate in the new consumer behavior?' "

The Forrester report examines several vendors focusing on social CRM this year, as well as case studies where forward-thinking businesses have achieved greater customer intimacy through CRM 2.0 initiatives. In all cases, three key strategies emerge as critical:

• Expand tactics involving experience-based differentiation (EBD). Customers demand personalized business relationships, often with more "touch." This creates an opportunity for EBD, which Forrester defines as an overarching, branded customer experience that sets an enterprise's offerings apart from the competition. Customer experience strategies must reach beyond utility to include emotion, style, design, and social interactions.
• Create dialogue with social consumers. Web 2.0 started with the customer-as-user, "populated by self-generated content (versus institutional publications), and driven by ad hoc and established communities of people with similar interests," according to the report. Users will continue to provide spontaneous, immediate input into businesses, whether the businesses are looking for it or not. "Soliciting user input is cheaper, better, and faster than more-structured, top-down methods of product development."
• Build flexible business processes that support customer and employee collaboration. Enterprises now need transaction processes and social collaboration abilities. As such, customer-facing business applications must be "intuitive to use, support a high degree of collaboration within the enterprise and with external individuals (customers and partners), and assume ongoing change," the report states. CRM solutions of the present and future must be flexible and adaptable to changing business/customer dynamics.

News relevant to the customer relationship management industry is posted several times a day on destinationCRM.com, in addition to the news section Insight that appears every month in the pages of CRM magazine. You may leave a public comment regarding this article by clicking on "Comments" at the top; to contact the editors, please email editor@destinationCRM.com.

By Marshall Lager

Discover The Truth About Web 2.0 Marketing Strategies

All the buzz about social networking and web 2.0 marketing strategies is here and here to stay. The question I wanted answered for myself was, “Is it real or is it just hype”? After diving into my own research on a top internet marketing guru I have come to find out that it’s more hype than real.

This doesn’t mean the at web 2.0 doesn’t have its rightful place in the marketplace because it does. Sites like Digg, Twiiter and Technorati are definitely here to stay but I don’t think the old school internet marketers that are making millions a year have totally drank the Kool-aid.

One extremely successful internet marketer that I will not name has shared his entire product promotion strategy with me and I was shocked at what I found.

First, I realized that his system for marketing any one product was the same and it consisted of 15 different methods. His multi-faceted approach was mind blowing as I always thought that 4 or 5 marketing pillars was big deal.

The relational aspect of marketing came in to play when it came to joint venture partners and alliances built on every launch. This was similar to the Web 2.0 marketing concept but went much deeper in terms of actually focusing on a uniform goal versus the downside of Web 2.0 strategy for many becomes people pitching each on their latest deal.

There was nice even spread between free versus aid advertising. The commonality of all the advertising methods was that they leveraged technology and most had strong viral characteristics that grew exponentially over time. All of this was done by design to form a content rich web over the net.

Since we are on the topic of design, the entire marketing plan was laid out on single sheet of paper complete with flow charts and note sin the margins for maximum effectiveness. This was like an Army General mapping out his war plan and executing it to the tune of thousands of unique visitors and blindingly high conversion ratios.

The underlying fact that revealed that the hype of social networking has permeated the net is that only twenty percent of the methods included social networking, social bookmarking and Web 2.0 strategies.

In my evaluation of this well oiled machine, I can to realize that social networking and Web 2.0 marketing strategies are here to stay but are only a small piece to the puzzle when it comes to building and internet empire. i recommend learning the basics which seem to account for more than eighty percent of the marketing done by the big dogs.

About the Author:

Want to take a sneak peek at a legitimate Web 2.0 Marketing Strategy or just take a short video tour of author Kylon Trower’s home based business office in Santa Clarita, CA.

In uncertain times, Enterprise 2.0 takes the stage

For many people the positioning of Enterprise 2.0 as a cost reduction engine is not new. Complexity reduction, efficiency increases and fast response times have been the cornerstone of many Enterprise Social Software pitches in the last 5 years.

Enterprise software spending has recently crashed. Companies such as SAP, headquartered in Waldorf Germany, have recently issued earnings warnings, which illustrate how dramatically enterprise application spending has dipped in just a few weeks. These organizations can no doubt weather this storm, but with this shift, opportunity is found.

As traditional enterprise vendors suffer, a panacea for investors and customers is emerging with the nascent enterprise social software industry. Until now, Enterprise 2.0 has sat on the sidelines of the enterprise software industry, seen perhaps as less focused and more predisposed to conversation than action.

Enterprise 2.0 consultant and speaker Thomas Vander Wal may be a typical example of the ethos that has emerged from this industry within an industry. “My clients always see my value as providing strong benefit of getting the most value out of social tools,” of his work implementing and designing Enterprise 2.0 tools, “The interconnections and interactions between people spark great value, but the more costly traditional tools have missed out on this great reservoir of of value, but the newer lower cost solutions offer these gems up wonderfully with a little coaxing.”

The concept that more traditional enterprise applications miss out on these network effects, the value added by having many people using a single tool or platform, is not new. The emergence of Saas, software which is not installed on a computer but is instead delivered via the Internet, has recently generated more interest in leveraging these effects as an advantage to businesses.

“The promise of bringing social tools into organizations has never been about complicating worker productivity. It centers on allowing individuals to act more independently and to make smarter decisions more easily.” said Susan Scrupski, an ‘Enterprise 2.0 Evangelist’ with nGenera, an Austin-based Enterprise 2.0 developer and consulting company, “The end result really is in reducing the costs of creating and delivering products and services.”

Social Software is software which “allows users to interact and share data.” according to Wikipedia. These principals, applied to everything from mundane business processes to change management have been slowly making inroads in recent years.

In many cases, enthusiasm for this technology has outpaced reliable case studies and visible progress, but that progress has become more remarkable in 2008, with several large infusions of capital in to budding Enterprise 2.0 startups such as $15million that Sequoia Capital recently invested in Portland based Jive Software, and $20million from Intel Capital which was invested in Telligent, a Dallas, Texas, company.

So too have new stories emerged, like that of National Public Radio, a network of over 800 stations in the United States. “It’s no secret that employee anxiety within organizations will increase as markets fall, giving organizations embracing Enterprise 2.0 tools opportunities to build trust and transparency across all levels of a company.“, says Tim Eby, a board member of National Public Radio and the manager of NPR station WOSU in Columbus, Ohio. “The effective use of wikis, internal blogging that invite comments, Twitter, and social bookmarking tools like del.icio.us bring a flow of needed ideas and innovation at a time when all organizations are seeking to improve efficiencies, customer relations, and loyalty. There’s no better time than an economic downturn to consider embracing these tools within an organization.”

Enterprise 2.0 may not yet have fulfilled its biggest promise, the democratization of the enterprise, but as successes mount, those who may have ignored its rise will begin to take notice. In a time of uncertainty such as we have seen in the past several months, new and promising technologies may prove to be the safest harbour for those who must continue to deliver growth.

by Jevon MacDonald

How will the future be for Information Workers?

Over the last year, AIIM has analyzed the evolution of the workplace, and summarized the findings in a new document called the “AIIM Worker Model.” This post describes the evolutionary phases organizations go through from “Islands of Me”—focused on individual productivity, to “Extended We”—focused on enterprise collaboration and innovation using Enterprise 2.0 technologies.

According to AIIM research of over 400 businesses, 44% of respondents said that Enterprise Web 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0 technologies are “imperative” or of “significant importance” for their organization. Another 27% of the 400+ respondents positioned Enterprise 2.0 technologies such as RSS, blogs, and wikis to have an average impact on business goals and success. Exposure to technology and tools such as Facebook, iTunes, YouTube, Google, and Wikipedia are raising the bar on user expectations concerning interfaces, collaboration, and content access not only on the web but on the intranet as well.

The new AIIM Worker Model is part of a new series of training programs on Enterprise 2.0, and the graphic below illustrates the evolutionary phases organizations go through;

1. Islands of Me: We begin at the beginning of organizational use of computers, and specifically, personal computers. This is an era where culture is typically about total protectionism. It’s all about me (and my department, if expanded), therefore functionally siloed as well.

2. Information in the One-way Me/Enterprise 1.0 era is still fairly siloed. Co-workers are curious enough to ask who has information, and where that information might live. But, information is on a “need to know” basis, with independent libraries, typically built in proprietary and “fat client” oriented systems.

3. Team Me is the beginning of Knowledge Management, and became the state of the art in the 1990s. The “power” of “ME” is based on who I am within a community, and as an individual. Awareness of my skills, projects worked on, people I’ve interacted with, is being captured, and re-used to some degree. Although in all but the most extreme cases, this is within fairly contained and closed communities.

4. Proactive Me, or Enterprise 1.5 , is the beginning of the ability to always be connected, and a 24/7 working mindset - workers may be spread around the globe, and the systems they depend on should be available at any time. Web-based access to these systems is a major enabler, helping to drive this desire to compete at any time, all the time. Individuals are further empowered to reach out to others in their organization, via their information systems, to collaborate on projects, but also to find “human resources” within the organization via Knowledge Management-oriented capabilities.

5. In the Two-way Me model, communities don’t just exist—they are explicitly and purposefully created. Communities of Practice (COPs) and Communities of Interest (COIs) are mainstays of knowledge-driven, and Knowledge Management-oriented companies. “Collective Intelligence” is beginning to surface, although not in an automatic way, but rather from a proactive hunt to poll or otherwise ask communities to weigh in on discussions, or by doing very intensive, manual analysis of social networking activity such as in e-mail traffic, to understand how work is ACTUALLY being done, rather than what the organizational chart might say. Technology provides the “single point of access” (SPOA) in a more personalized way, honing portals/dashboards to focus more on the ability of an individual to create their own workspace, than imposing a “corporate only” view as in earlier portal deployments. Underlying systems that are being unified into the portal interface remain siloed to a certain extent, although workflow capabilities and the rise of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) are making it easier than ever before to integrate systems and provide contextual information sharing between systems, rather than requiring people to connect the dots between repositories through entirely manual efforts.

6. Islands of We begin to bump the level of focus up into a larger team level, and explicitly look at how fostering networking, and the ability to identify and wield networks (or communities) can drive significant benefits to the organization. The ability and desire to “profile” or identify “core competencies” of individuals is far more prevalent than ever before. The information systems of the organization are being built to house/maintain at least static profiles, skills inventories, and resumes, if not moving into a dynamically generated and updated, living “expertise system.” Outsourcing continues to be rapidly adopted for lower level “knowledge work” as falling telecom prices and the bandwidth to move work around the globe increase the ability to do outsourcing more or less seamlessly. This is purely driven from a cost/expense standpoint, rather than leveraging expertise and the ability to have continuous work done 24/7 to speed Time to Market (TTM), although there are edge cases where that is true. Software systems and physical goods are beginning to be oriented towards customization for individual customers, although for physical goods, the tenets of Lean Thinking in manufacturing is still largely focused on cleaning up lazy, or at least sub-optimized processes, rather than being able to produce exactly what customers want, at the time they want it. The beginnings of strategic use of software that would surface and make social interactions transparent, and result in emergent “wisdom” or intelligence rise to the surface is happening primarily in the outside or Business-to-Consumer (B2C) world, through the rapid adoption of blogs and public discussion forums. 2.0 (Web or Enterprise), is not yet strategically deployed, particularly in both worlds of the inward-facing and outward-facing, or extended enterprise scenario. Marketing or customer service departments may be pulling the company from an engagement to the world perspective, or “professional services”-oriented teams inside the organization are the likely candidates for early adoption and success here.

7. Extended Me—or Enterprise 2.0 —is the current state of the art, and as we’ve seen in our research, it is most definitely in the early days of adoption. As we hope you have seen in the progression from the beginning of the use of personal computers through the stages outlined, there has been a fairly clear desire and ability to basically mix and match the capabilities of information systems to match the wide variety of business models that now exist. While we are highlighting here that Enterprise 2.0 does have cultural components such as transparency, a participative and engaged community (workforce, customers, etc.), the agility to quickly adapt to changing environments (in the economy and otherwise) —it should be noted that we don’t believe that Enterprise 2.0 means that all communication, collaboration, and interaction is always transparent, with all potential voices being heard and acknowledged, and that only “wisdom” springs forth from the collective actions of all participants. The potential to run to that extreme is, however, fully available in the Enterprise 2.0 world now, and whether your organization sees value in running completely to that edge, or in a more moderate case, is up to you.

More information is available in the AIIM Enterprise 2.0 Certificate program at www.aiim.org/training.

By Atle Skjekkeland.

Proje Yönetimi 2.0

Proje Yönetimi 2.0

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: business 2.0)

Enterprise 2.0

Enterprise 2.0 - A new Age of Aquarius?

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: business community)

Haftanın Konusu: Proje Yönetimi 2.0

21 Kasım Cuma günü konumuz Proje Yönetimi 2.0...

Konuğumuz ise Oğuz Bayram...

Lisans eğitimine Marmara Üniversitesi'nin tozlu bilgisayar laboratuvarlarında, 3.5 floppy disketlerle başlamış, 24 x CDROMlarla mezun olmuştur. 4 sene sonunda bilgisayar mühendisi diplomasını aldığında piyasaya yapmış olduğu proje sayısı da sonsuza yaklaşmıştır.

Amazon.com'un bilgisayar kitapları sipariş kategorisinde "Ohaaa Be Olm Abarttın!" ödülünü verdiği Oğuz Bayram, bu kitaplar sayesinde yapmış olduğu projelerle hem Amazon'culara hem de piyasaya gerekli cevabı peşinen vermiştir. Microsoft için tasarlamış olduğu web tabanlı proje yönetimi yazılımı, Microsoft tarafından ödüllendirilmesine rağmen Ms Project'e tehdit olarak görüldüğünden hayata geçirilmemiştir.

MBA eğitimini de başarıyla tamamlayan Oğuz Bayram, pratikte uygulamakta olduğu yönetsel yetkinliklerini teorik düzlemde de perçinlemiştir.

2005 yılında Bill Gates tarafından Solution Architect MVP (Most Valuable Professional) ödülünü almıştır.

Halen Netron Yazılımda Projeler Koordinatörü olarak görev yapmakta olan Oğuz Bayram, aynı zamanda Microsoft tarafından desteklenen yazgeliştir yazılım mimarisi platformunun koordinasyonunu da yürütmekte, Kesfetmek için bak... isimli blogunda deneyimlerini genç yazılımcılar ile paylaşmaktadır.

Üzerinde çalıştığı konular:

• Yazılım Mimarileri
• Yazılım Stratejileri
• Stratejik BT Planlama
• Teknoloji Trendleri
• Proje Yönetimi
• Kurumsal Poje Yönetimi
• Çevik Yazılım Süreçleri
• Web 2.0
• Enterprise 2.0
• Semantic Web (Web 3.0)
• SOA 2.0
• Açık Kaynak Yazılım

Sevgili Oğuz, bu hafta bizleri proje yönetimi 2.0 hakkında bilgilendirecek, deneyimlendirecek.

Social networking, Collaboration and Knowledge Management

The key themes in Enterprise 2.0 is social networking and collaboration and the technologies involved in getting this done are Wikis, Social Networking, Blogs, Search, Really Simple Syndication (RSS), Social Bookmarking, Mashups, Portals, Social Voting/Ranking, Web Services, Web/Videoconferencing, Bulletin Boards/Discussion Forums, Web Content Management, Workflow/BPM, Instant Messaging, Social Network Analysis, Taxonomy and Podcasting. If you look at the list, its actually alot of stuff we are dealing with. However, most of it can be broken down to some levels of social networking and collaboration.

Many people do not think that Enterprise 2.0 is the next Knowledge Management buzzword and I am one of them. Enterprise 2.0 does much more than that. However, what enterprise 2.0 does WILL change the way people look at knowledge management in future. Let me explain why.

How Knowledge is Created?
For knowledge to be created, some ingredients must be involved. For the purposes of this discussion, I will limit this to knowledge creation of one specific topic only (i.e. Java programming). First, an individual needs to have some base knowledge and through combination of new findings and materials, new knowledge is created. Combination in this case does not necessary need to come in the form of individual exploration but can be in the form of exchanging ideas and knowledge between friends, colleagues and almost anything under the sun. For an organisation, to gain new knowledge, they can either 1) invest in their employees (through the above) and 2) Hire new people with new experiences.

In this part, social networking enables unprecedented power to explore a network that allows the exchange of ideas which can lead to new knowledge creation. However, this does not mean that when you find the right person, that person would actually be willing to help.

Different types of knowledge
There are four main types of knowledge in an organisation 1) Individual explicit knowledge, 2) Individual tacit knowledge, 3) Enterprise explicit knowledge and 4) Enterprise tacit knowledge. I would assume that whoever that is reading this understands the difference between tacit and explicit knowledge, if not read this or this. So what I am proposing here is that each employee knows something and some part of the organisation and its practices and processes. Collectively, through some storage system (i.e. Knowledge management systems), the organisation stores this information and make it searchable. We must understand that unless that information is stored and made searchable, the information that each individual have within the organisation is only valid for as long as the employee is valid. Also, the information that is stored would be predominately explicit knowledge and enterprise tacit knowledge would be pretty much the work habits, culture and business processes.

In this part, Enterprise 2.0 provides the collaborative platform of consolidating all the information from around the company. The collective intelligence of (hopefully but not realistic) everything that is known by all employees in the organisation would be stored on the collaborative platform and everything will be searchable.

From the above, you can see that Enterprise 2.0 changes the way an organisation collects new knowledge and how it stores the knowledge and therefore changing the way organisations would approach Knowledge Management in future.

by Sean Lew

Episode V: Knowledge Management 2.0

Episode V: Knowledge Management 2.0

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: bilgi mba)

Should Knowledge Workers Have Enterprise 2.0 Ratings?

Imagine that an organization has deployed a full suite of emergent social software platforms (ESSPs) for its members— blogs, wikis, discussion / Q&A forums, upload facilities for photos and videos and etc., Digg-like utilities to flag and vote on digital content, prediction markets, some kind of enterprise Twitter, and whatever else a ‘full suite’ consists of, now or in the future. And imagine further that the leaders of the organization are sincerely interested in pursuing Enterprise 2.0 and getting their people to actually use the new tools. What would they then do? What would be their smart course(s) of action?

Virtually everyone agrees that coaching, training, explaining, and leading by example would be appropriate and beneficial activities. But what about measuring? It’s a technical no-brainer to measure how much each individual has contributed and to generate some kind of absolute or relative metric. Would doing so be helpful or harmful? Would it lead to negative outcomes and perverse behaviors, or would measuring E2.0 contributions stimulate and encourage the right kinds of actions?

These are fundamental questions, and they touch both on uncharted territory (ESSPs are new, after all) and on longstanding debates about motivations, incentives, and the interplay between them. It’ll likely take a few posts to cover all this territory, so consider this the first in a series of posts about the utility and desirability of an "E2.0 Rating" for knowledge workers.

One immediate objection is that E2.0 is simply too broad a phenomenon to be reduced to any single metric. Furthermore, a single metric that’s too simplistic, like ‘number of blog posts per month,’ leads to bad and easily predictable results: people blog at the expense of using any of the other tools, and have a strong temptation to put up lots of short (even trivial) posts in order to up their scores.

There are a couple responses to this objection. One is that a score can be composed of many elements, even if it’s just a single number. In American football, passer ratings are an example of such a metric. The NFL’s passer rating takes into account most of the things a quarterback is supposed to do when he throws—complete passes, throw for a lot of yards and a lot of touchdowns, and not get intercepted— and combines them into a number that varies between 0 and 158.3 (?). It seems to work pretty well at capturing the player’s contributions, and is widely referenced.

But an E2.0 score wouldn’t have to be distilled all the way down to a single number. Instead, it could be multidimensional. For example, an off-the-top-of-my-head list of productive activities using ESSPs includes authoring (on a blog, for example), editing (wikis), interacting with others (on discussion boards and Q&A forums), tagging online content, and uploading such content or pointing to it (using something like Digg). All of these activities can be done well or poorly, and there are lots of tools like votes and ratings that colleagues can use to give positive feedback that someone is doing them well.

So one approach would be to graph where everyone stands within the organization along six dimensions: authoring, editing, interacting, tagging, uploading, and positive feedback. A simple radar graph would instantly show were an individual is on each, based on their contributions to various ESSPs and relative to everyone else in the organization (in the graph below, ‘100’ means that they’re at the 100% percentile, in other words the top contributor).

In the hypothetical graph below the individual is a relatively heavy uploader and interacter, does some authoring and tagging, and not much editing. This person has also received a lot of positive feedback—enough to put her in the 75% percentile:

Is this good or bad participation in ESSPs over all? That’s for the organization to decide, but this kind of contribution looks pretty good to me.

The benefits of measuring this way are that it doesn’t weight some kinds of contribution more heavily than others and that it provides for easy comparisons across people.

But is this latter really a benefit? Should participants in E2.0 be compared in this way? Or would it be counterproductive, or in violation of the whole spirit of contribution to organizational ESSPs? As I said, later posts will consider these questions; I just wanted to get the ball rolling with this post.

Leave a comment, please, and tell us what you think of the whole idea of quantitative measurement and E2.0 ratings. What, if anything, would you do with them if they were available? Would you include them in formal objectives and/or performance reviews? Do you think they’d lead to perverse incentives, or proper ones? Hold forth, please, and let us know what you think and what’s on your mind when it comes to this topic. I’ll try to shape later posts around these comments.

Prof. Andrew McAfee

Episode V: Knowledge Management 2.0

Episode V: Knowledge Management 2.0

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: bilgi mba)

Episode IV: Enterprise 2.0

Enterprise 2.0

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: mba 2.0)