I've not written for a while, mainly because I have been deeply involved at a grassroots level in implementing so-called enterprise 2.0 strategies or solutions. So its a perfect opportunity with a relatively fresh and realistic point of view to be able to comment on this topic. It's also extremely useful to have a fresh perspective like Matthew's previous post to play off of. This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the landscape (no time 
) just a fairly spontaneous snapshot and partly an attempt to consolidate my thinking.
I thought it would be useful to categorise this post and believe the holy enterprise triumvirate of process, people and technology will do the job just as well as any other set. I also thought I should revisit some thinking I did a while ago to see whence I've come from and possibly contrast this with the current state of play and my thinking. Below is a deck of slides I put together when I was still working at Sony in 2005. It preceded my departure and the start-up of netoCiety and was used as a basis for collecting my thoughts so it is perfectly applicable here!
If you don't have the time to view the slides it essentially posits the following theory (covered in the first 6 slides and supported in the remaining slides):
- Successfully managing Innovation and Change activities is critical for long term survival - recognised by most CEO's
- Mostly companies are failing in their attempts to innovate or change
- Why:
- Innovation/change efforts often stand-alone and unstructured
- Work-force is not sufficiently engaged and do not collaborate effectively
- Solution: Align innovation and change activities more closely in a complementary business transformation cycle and support with the following toolsets / processes / approach:
- Research and Knowledge Transfer
- Consultancy or Interim Management (outside experts)
- Social Software
- Cultural Alignment
- Locking-in Competence
- Engaging Workforce
I believe that most of these points still apply, in fact if anything they have become even more relevant and they have a general enterprise 2.0 flavour with a definite commercial bent (point 2 under solution ). I think business transformation has become a key executive management initiative that attempts to align People, Process and Technology initiatives of a company more closely with its business strategy and vision to support and help innovate new business strategies (to paraphrase a wikipedia entry on the subject). Peter-Evans Greenwood, CTO of Capgemini Australia has written a very thoughtful piece on the overall topic. Although he has emphasised change, he has essentially covered business transformation in all the areas I have but he has also gone on to cover some other interesting points that I will pick up on in the three categories following:
Our problem is that change has become a major business driver, and the pace of change has increased to the point where we are seeing radical change within a single generation. We're all racing to find the edge that will get us on top of the competition. This ranges from small innovations, tweaking and optimizing our business or creating new product categories, through to wholesale market creation; remember that Microsoft came out of nowhere to blindside IBM in the 80s, and then Google did the same thing to Microsoft in the 00s.
If change is the driver in our organizations, but our organizations are resistant to change, then the biggest challenge we face in not technical but the strategy we use to manage change. It's quite easy to define a technically and economically possible solution that would provide a boost to our business, or even deliver a step change in capability. But if we cannot get our organization to deliver and then adopt the solution, all our work will be for naught.
The first thing I think we need to do is realize that change is an ongoing processes, and so should change management be. It's not a one shot affair where we hire some external organization to come in and transform us, and it's not something we should only worry about every two to four years. The second is that we need to make change something our people want to do rather than something we do to them.
Before I get onto the categories I'll just say that another reason for me including them in the context of Enterprise 2.0 is that they are far more encompassing of any one angle, technology say, which as with most observations (excellent as they are) seems to be the predominant focus. In other words I agree with Peter-Evans Greenwood that the "biggest challenge we face is not technical". I tried to convey this in my other later thoughts on identifying some enterprise 2.0 memes. Anyway, onto some of those category views:
On process
As Matthew rightly put it, process design is a vital theme to consider. I'm confronted every day by the reality of this when trying to implement social software solutions with clients. A major component of social software is that its functions are often emergent and its value is derived over time by supporting more easily and in a very adaptable way, the standard business process that already exist in a business or are specifically created for it. But then very important is to have a process or to understand them and how they support operations. This is very often missing. I am often confronted by clients (mostly potential ) who think in the traditional way about enterprise software where functions and features are predetermined. They have become overly reliant (even lazy) on process residing in functions or features built into software developed by supposed experts outside the organisation and have no real insight into how their company operates. They expect the technology to solve their problems.
A couple of key tenets for me (to borrow from Ross Mayfield) is that social software is emergent in its use, focused on people and supports process by allowing it to reside outside the software and within the network where its complexity can be more easily managed and the software can more easily be adapted to its changing circumstances.
I admonish anyone to not look to the software to solve their business problems but rather look to their business first, understand what works and what doesn't by looking at the underlying processes and then seeing how social software can support the processes that are finally adopted. This way you can more easily mould the software (especially the new forms of social software) around process, facilitated by people, which brings me to my next point.
On people
I'm not sure there is much I can say here in relation to people being at the heart of social software, indeed new enterprise technologies. This has been stated ad nauseam. What is important are the specifics about people, collectively, at work. In my view, in their collective context, people are the entities that form the basis of culture, i.e. their behaviours, beliefs, values and habits. And that is what often needs changing and is what is so difficult to do.
What I believe is different about the new approaches to change management is that people need to be engaged more as the study referred to in the slide deck suggest although I also believe that some top down and process/technology led considerations need to be borne in mind as well, as suggested by Dr. Ross, a principal research scientist at the MIT Sloan School of Management's Center and Dr. Weill, a director and senior research scientist at the Center for Information Systems Research:
Problems arise not so much from the technology as from the management challenges of driving the business-process changes once systems are in place. Installing and using companywide information-technology business processes requires cooperation and sharing of resources across businesses, regions and functions. But that's something most companies do poorly, often because there is no strong central figure overseeing the project—someone with the necessary authority to push for change.
Some companies, however, have found a solution: the strategic execution officer.
Source article here
On technology
This is the one area that has exploded for me. My adoption and understanding of the technologies has been enormous over the last three years. The shifts I have observed with clients and in general, although often frustrating and not up to my levels (for obvious reasons), has been phenomenal. Things have come a long way since I started out with netoCiety. I think without going into a detailed overview of what has been covered extensively, I will refer to the one aspect that is most pertinent: the contrast between traditional enterprise software and WEB 2.0 software now being used more and more by enterprises. Below is a summary that borrows some aspects from an original Dion Hinchcliffe post that I cannot find now, with my own embellishments:
Conclusion
So what about my new and improved outlook now that I've reflected on my past views as well as brought my current experiences to play. Well aside from the fact that I maybe should have more coherently though about business transformation in the context of people, processes and technology (they are all there, just not so obviously), I still believe as I've written so much about in the past and specifically with this post, that Enterprise 2.0 does go far beyond technology and requires an holistic perspective on the entire organisation. Innovation and Change still do lie at the heart of it in my opinion. But the real difference between then and now is also still down to the technology.
Fundamentally, there is a shift in technology creation and use that is transforming the way transformation happens and that is excellent
