Group items tagged

Workforce mobility and changing communication patterns are two more trends that are driving change at the infrastructure layer, and so unified communication and collaboration requirements form an important part of Enterprise 2.0 strategy.

Enterprise Web 2.0 might be about putting the user (i.e. employee, customer, or stakeholder) first, but in order to do so it also requires supporting technology. And so at the IT infrastructure level, Enterprise 2.0 means Internet Protocol (IP) everywhere -- voice, video, and data. Enterprise 2.0 also means, 'open' standards rather than proprietary or 'closed' systems. Furthermore, Enterprise 2.0 technology means user-driven technology and not IT-driven technology.

Having accepted the fact that 'processes' means 'people', then we have to look for ways in which these people (i.e. processes) can self-organise and reference one another. Then, where possible, we need to somehow incapsulate the processes into a set of business services. One day (we might call it Web 3.0), Artificial Intelligence (AI) will enable organisations to do with computers that which they do via human beings today, but until that day arrives, organisations must do more to aid interdepartment and inter-company collaboration. Workflow has not yet figured largely in the consumer-oriented world of Web 2.0, but Butler Group sees this as pivotal when considering Enterprise Web 2.0.

Today applications that embody processes are built by IT professionals, but tomorrow they will be built by a new breed of power user, using mashup builders, software agents, and other Web 2.0 technologies.

Business and IT managers must therefore prepare themselves for the new generation of power user who will be creating mashups and situational applications that have a far broader impact than the typical spreadsheet macro of yesteryear, and that if organisations are to avoid a proliferation of unmanageable, siloed, micro-applications, then they must blend the power of personal productivity with an appropriate management layer and a degree of central oversight.

Web 2.0 is no longer PC-centric.

It is clearly a mistake to think that Web 2.0 is all about technology, and likewise Enterprise Web 2.0, but it is also a mistake to dismiss the technology altogether. Therefore, selecting and implementing enterprise social software solutions, next-generation collaboration solutions, and Rich Internet Applications requires careful thought, consideration, and planning.

The driving force behind just about every aspect of Enterprise Web 2.0, is of course, the user -- something that has not always ranked highly on the list of priorities for corporate IT mangers -- and so the challenge for all forward-looking organisations is to refocus on this aspect of their IT strategies.

Respondents also say they have been able to burnish their innovation skills, perhaps because their companies and customers jointly shape and cocreate products using Web 2.0 connections.

The median level of gains derived from internal Web 2.0 use ranged from a 10 percent improvement in operational costs to a 30 percent increase in the speed at which employees are able to tap outside experts.

Web 2.0 delivers benefits by multiplying the opportunities for collaboration and by allowing knowledge to spread more effectively. These benefits can accrue through companies’ use of automatic information feeds such as RSS2 or microblogs, of which Twitter is the most popular manifestation. Although many companies use a mix of tools, the survey shows that among all respondents deriving benefits, the more heavily used technologies are blogs, wikis, and podcasts—the same tools that are popular among consumers

Similarly, among those capturing benefits in their dealings with suppliers and partners, the tools of choice again are blogs, social networks, and video sharing. While respondents tell us that tapping expert knowledge from outside is their top priority, few report deploying prediction markets to harvest collective insights from these external networks.

Comparing respondents’ industries, those at high-technology companies are most likely to report measurable benefits from Web 2.0 across the board, followed by those at companies offering business, legal, and professional services

These survey results indicate that a different type of company may be emerging—one that makes intensive use of interactive technologies. This networked organization is characterized both by the internal integration of Web tools among employees, as well as use of the technologies to strengthen company ties with external stakeholders—customers and business partners.

As such, companies reporting business benefits also report high levels of Web 2.0 integration into employee workflows. They most often deploy three or more Web tools, and usage is high throughout these organizations

Respondents reporting measurable benefits say their companies, on average, have Web 2.0 interactions with 35 percent of their customers. These companies forged similar Web ties to 48 percent of their suppliers, partners, and outside experts. An organizational structure that’s more porous and networked may make companies more resilient and adaptive, sharpening their ability to access knowledge and thus innovate more effectively.

The survey results confirm that successful adoption requires that the use of these tools be integrated into the flow of users’ work (Exhibit 5). Furthermore, encouraging continuing use requires approaches other than the traditional financial or performance incentives deployed as motivational tools.

They also say role modeling—active Web use by executives—has been important for encouraging adoption internally.

Les outils seraient donc, à ce moment, le support d’une politique d’entreprise et ils y trouveraient de suite leur place par le besoin même de l’organisation.

Stratégie 2.0 implique ==> Management 2.0, Outils 2.0, marketing 2.0, recrutement 2.0, Rh 2.0 afin de construire ==> Entreprise 2.0.

Le projet entreprise 2.0 doit donc être un projet d’entreprise.

80 % des responsables informatiques se déclarent confiants pour la sécurité de leur entreprise. Mais Websense, qui travaille dans le secteur, affirme : "Les chiffres montrent qu'elles (les entreprises, NDLR) ne sont pas bien équipées pour se protéger contre les menaces du Web 2.0." Paradoxalement, lorsque les questions du sondage se font plus précises, seules 9 % des entreprises reconnaissent avoir déployé des moyens de sécurité couvrant tous les vecteurs de menaces : rien à voir avec la confiance affichée au début.

Facebook est, par exemple, un vecteur de codes malicieux, qui se propagent via les applications, des extensions du site créées par tout un chacun, et auxquelles les utilisateurs doivent donner un accès complet à leur profil pour profiter de nouvelles fonctions alléchantes (préparer des sondages pour ses amis, savoir qui a écrit quoi sur quelqu'un, etc.).

47 % des responsables interrogés admettent que les employés essaient de contourner la politique de sécurité Web des entreprises.

L'étude montre une méconnaissance du Web 2.0 et des nouveaux usages d'Internet en général, de la part des entreprises. Peut-être ont-elles besoin de temps pour s'adapter, mais, au vu des menaces, la prise de conscience risque d'être plutôt brutale.

Une question essentielle pour la réussite des déploiements des Intranet et applications 2.0

une fonction en soi qui participe à l'essor de l'ensemble des fonctions

monoculture de l'informatique propriétaire

In fact, calculating the ROI on social software is complicated to the point that economically it is unrealistic to do so. Instead of an estimation a posteriori a pilot phase, ROI as it is commonly referenced in the “Enterprise 2.0″ scene is pure guess and absolute non-sense in most cases.

* New metrics. Because we deal with different stuff, we need to invent metrics that are relevant to what we are trying to follow and drive. For social software, one can start with the usual web and online community metrics. Some new initiatives, such as Me-trics, open doors to more in-depth analytics that are worth considering (with a barrage of ethical considerations however).

Why Balanced Score Cards? For four reasons: 1. Kaplan & Norton have escaped the collusion of measurement and quantity. Measurement is not necessarily quantitative. That is a common source of confusion and of inefficiencies in numerous parts of human activity (to name a few: reporting (exhaustiveness), research (methodology), education (elite creation via selection on maths)). Measurement can be qualitative (see  Georgescu Roegen work if you’re curious). It is no surprise if numerous initiatives in intellectual capital used Balanced Score Cards 2. Balanced Score Cards are notably visual, which is not so with quantitative ratios.  That visual characteristic invites greater meaning and relevance. 3. Balanced Score Cards are heterogeneous and are therefore a more natural receptacle for a) qualitative and quantitative analytics and b) can encompass a variety of topics. In this regard, one can build official reporting encompassing both physical and knowledge activities. 4. Balanced Score Cards are aggregative so that one can build reports from various levels in the organisations. Coupled with its heterogeneous nature (previous point), one can build reports for HR, Marketing, Finance, … under the same format and surface analytics at one or many levels. The result is that some knowledge related metrics can climb the hierarchy up to the summit.

On the other hand, in talking with a few implementers, they have not yet seen the big wave of demand for enterprise 2.0 tools.

I think the preconditions for making microblogging useful will appear sooner than later