Subscribe: Comments on Strategy-Driven Execution: Is Enterprise 2.0 a Savior or a Charlatan? How St...
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
business  companies  company  definition  emergent  enterprise  make  social software  social  software  values  white space  word  work 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Strategy-Driven Execution: Is Enterprise 2.0 a Savior or a Charlatan? How St...

Comments on Strategy-Driven Execution: Is Enterprise 2.0 a Savior or a Charlatan? How Strategy-Driven Execution can pave the path to proving legitimate business value

Updated: 2017-04-07T23:08:39.453-07:00


There is a lot of white space in any enterprise. C...


There is a lot of white space in any enterprise. Companies that know how to execute have figured out how to make the white space work instead of leaving gaping voids that put a drag on the company. But it’s hard to do because making the white space work involves the V-word (values). Companies with strong corporate values make the white space work because people know what to prioritize. Values drive business alignment; employees can apply their own judgment and get things done. But this is hard for the vast majority of companies to do. It relies on the leadership investing in things they don’t get. In a recent McKinsey poll, only 8% of executives rated values as “crucial”. Yet the Conference Board reports year after year that excellence in execution is the chief concern of executives worldwide.

Best Buy is a great example of a company with strong values made stronger through enterprise 2.0. The big question is, can enterprise 2.0 emergent social software platforms “employee-source” some of the missing values and alignment for the remaining 92% of the rudderless companies out there? I think so, and pretty much every department or company that has done even a half decent job of implementing these tools has agreed. “Emergent social software platforms” are a watershed in enterprise collaboration and communication, and that translates to real dollars through better business execution - and that’s no crock.

This is a very well done analysis - but am afraid ...


This is a very well done analysis - but am afraid that you are holding back at the conclusion part. Where you are not prepared to declare E2.0 a crock, and I am not either, you are giving it more time to prove itself and in the process validating its current standing as 'in process'. I am not sure I am so magnanimous.

I see a steel-iron giant with feet of mud.

Truth be told the present state of E2.0 is the fault of the very same people who are supposed to be propagating it. My perception at the conference was that (with large exceptions) these were IT people asking for permission from the business stakeholders to change things. They were trying to convince the rest of the organization that there is value here, that the tools work, and that the results are real.

In other words, not even sure they were convinced themselves - or not even sure if they had the results to make the case. Asking for permission in the enterprise is tantamount to not getting things done. Ever.

Look at the examples of those solutions that did make a difference and did make an impact (and still today continue to make one): ERP, CRM, KM (OK, debatable - but far from where we started) -- even CMS. They all took control and just set on a war-path to prove what they could do and changed the way we do business in the process. The "needs" that created them were not even close to the importance of E2.0 today.

By contrast, we are talking about Kumbaya collaboration that (as you well put it) simply fills in blanks but accomplished no greater progress to the enterprise.

I do believe that we are so very early on this process that we are all just not realizing what the changes will be. You will see the names E2.0, SM, S-anything begin to disappear in the next 2-3 years in favor of a "social business" (really don't like that name, but does a good job for now in describing what we are trying to build) model where all the tools are leveraged towards a better business model that does everything we are saying that E2.0 is supposed to do.

I know, I am ranting and babbling. Bottom Line: E1.4 is as good as we are right now, and as good as we should be considering the many working parts that we need to make work together, and we are going to see lots of changes in the next 2-3 years and beyond that are probably going to surpass what most people are thinking is going to happen.

After all, evolutions don't happen overnight - and in business they take even longer.

Thanks for the platform...


Nenshad, It is apparent the current E2.0 dialogue...



It is apparent the current E2.0 dialogue misses a critical element; the enterprise. As you said, that ridiculed set of processes and software that manage/consolidate the operation of a company or government. E2.0 will continue to languish until it acknowledges that which already exists. To that end I posit a few additions to the E2.0 dialogue:

Enterprise 2.0 applications fall into three categories: Communication - Operation - Customer. E2.0 applications have to follow two rules: 1) Do no harm - to existing business or business systems. 2) Increase revenue or margin as the result of their use.

E2.0 has been too narrow in its definition (social) and too ignorant to the realities of all enterprises today. E1.0 made the mistake of ignoring the first rule and never quite made any confident that the second rule was ever achieved. E2.0 applications exist, are being implemented, and are strictly obeying the first two rules.

One such implementation we participated in delivered a 300% increase in productivity, accuracy improvements from 99.6% to 99.9996% and consumables reductions of 91% without touching a single line of code in the host; done in less than 3 weeks. There was not a single social application in the mix; instead addressing all three segments of the customers business (F100 Mfg). In the near term we will do our best to contribute to the definition of E2.0 solutions by demonstrating their value and use to commercial benefit.

Hi. Excellent, thanks. I just question your defini...


Excellent, thanks.
I just question your definition of emergent - to check I googled 'define: emergent' and didnt find one answer that agreed with yours.

Agree a lot of what you posted here. I also wrote...


Agree a lot of what you posted here. I also wrote a fairly detailed response to Howlett

My response focused more on case studies and real world examples of business pain.

For me, the key point here is that the "Enter...


For me, the key point here is that the "Enterprise 2.0" discussion offers a variety of new ways of working that can be incorporated into the business world we already occupy. You are correct, I feel, in saying that E2.0 is not an evolution of E1.0 (and for me the very versioning itself is presumptious).

The capabilities and behaviours that people refer to as E2.0 need to be woven into existing successful business practices to replace or support those that are not fully effective. It is therefore neither evolution or revolution. It is simply a toolkit that we can select from as appropriate to our needs and circumstances.

The Enterprising Architect

My previous comment uses a somewhat skewed interpr...


My previous comment uses a somewhat skewed interpretation of the word "emergent", but the point remains that the antecedent to the word appears to be the software, which I consider to be awkward regardless.

But on to your main points--I define Enterprise here as an organization whose mission requires longevity and size

If we take longevity as a part of the definition of Enterprise, we need to consider the long-term success of so-called "Enterprise 2.0" software.

Successful software becomes a deep and permanent part of the infrastructure of the Enterprise, sometimes referred to as "Legacy".

If we can look back in 20, 30 or 40 years and see some of the software we are developing today in perpetual use, I think we can consider it to have been a success.

I find this definition that you cite of Enterprise...


I find this definition that you cite of Enterprise 2.0 a bit awkward:

Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers.

The antecedent for emergent appears to be social software platforms, so it's easy to conclude that this definition is only valid during the time that such software "emerges".

Another problematic aspect to this definition is the word "companies". This conflates the concept of a company with the Enterprise, when in fact I'm very deliberate to define Enterprise (as an organization whose mission requires size and longevity) in such a fashion so as to include Government organizations. In fact the "mission requires" definition actually embraces organizations that aspire to size and longevity but dont have them yet.

The reason why I am choosing to pick on that definition is that it actually uses one of my favorite words from the #E2conf which is "emergent".

I believe it should read in a way that disambiguates the use of the word and makes it clear that emergent refers to a property of the software in combination with its proper use.

Since this comment is only about how Enterprise 2.0 is (poorly) defined, I'll reserve a comment for the rest of this well thought out piece in a follow on post.

My 2 cents,