Imposed versus Emergent Collaboration

Richard McManus writes that "Enterprise 2.0 means blogs and wikis in the enterprise". And SocialText's Ross Mayfield says it's "free form social software adapted for enterprises". These seem to be narrower definitions than what Andrew McAfee had in mind when he coined the term ("When I use 'Enterprise 2.0' as an adjective, I mean 'supporting of emergent collaboration'.")?

According to Rod Boothby, "if IT builds an AJAX application that must be used by end users to account for their time, there is nothing emergent about that system. Therefore it isn't Enterprise 2.0." But what if the CIO asked IT to implement wikis and blogs as official means of internal communication? If employees are expected - or required - to participate, wouldn't the  resulting collaboration be not-quite-emergent?

In my mind, EchoSign or Koral or Freshbooks (even though it's not intended for an enterprise audience) might be better examples than wikis/blogs of emergent collaboration. They aggregate collective knowledge in the background without requiring each individual's active participation.

When multiple members of a sales team use EchoSign to send out contracts, nobody needs to post time-to-execution stats on a public space; the information is just there. Likewise, with Koral, users are automatically notified when they open outdated versions of recently updated documents.  And Zoli Erdos writes that FreshBooks' presentation at the Office 2.0 Conference let the cat out of the bag on "*the* business model enabled by SaaS". FreshBooks gives companies the ability to benchmark their invoice/payment history against aggregated stats from other users within the same industry - without performing any extra work.

Don't these seem like more "emergent" solutions than rarely updated blogs and sparsely populated wikis to which officially designated participants can't find time outside of their accustomed workflow to contribute - despite the CIO-imposed responsibilities?

Comments

[Rod Boothby]

Hi Isabel,

Great post. And really good points.

I think I was wrong in thinking about the "Enterprise 2.0 = Emergence Software" as only software and information exchange patterns build by end users.

Maybe it should be "Enterprise 2.0 = Emergence within the Enterprise". You are certainly completely correct when you ask about rarely updated blogs and spare wikis. Maybe it is the bottom up behavior rather than the technology that powers that behavior that matters.

[Ross Mayfield]

my definition is the same as McAfee's

[Isabel Wang]

Rod - I was just re-reading your "Emergence Software" post. You said that Enterprise 2.0 is about decentralization of responsibility. I think this could happen in three ways:

1. Companies could implement tools that harness collective knowledge. In addition to the services I listed above, IBM's Dogear also falls under this category. While an individual might use such tools for his own benefit, the software creates network effects across multiple users' activity and makes aggregated data available to the whole community. So the responsibility for compiling such data is automated out of managers' hands.

2. Users could create "situational software" that allows them to perform specific tasks. Caspio's code-less app creation tool, for instance, is used by GE, Toshiba, American Red Cross, etc. I'm guessing Caspio doesn't see many signups from CIOs or IT managers. Instead, its users are people who are tasked with coordinating event registrations, compiling membership directories, etc. Caspio allows them to assume responsibility for software development.

3. Groups could collaborate via wikis and blogs.

With #1 and #2, people are given tools for doing their jobs as they know it (compile research, collect event signups, etc). But active participation in #3 might require more of a shift in their perceived roles and responsibilities. This makes #3 the most socialogically groundbreaking (and most challenging to implement). But from a getting-things-done perspective, I think all three can add tremendous value.

[Dennis Howlett]

Interesting post Isabel. I met with Freshbooks at O20 - that was one of my motivations for travelling 6K miles to the event!

So - since June, Freshbooks has pretty much doubled its registration numbers. They're very coy about active usage. Nevertheless, they're global already and up to around 100K registrations. that's impressive by any standards. Their approach drives a stake right through the heart of traditional accounting both in-house and professional. In discussing where they go next, expenses is the obvious next step. Now think this - self organising groups within the FB network could start benchmarking both the revenue and expense sides of their businesses, share ideas, learn from each other. How good is that? No accountant required? I doubt it but for the large part made redundant at the transactional level.

Is that emergent? I think so. It is emergent becasuse it is the user of otherwise foisted technology that is helping FB shape its direction. If the services work, they'll flourish, if not they'll wither. Now where can you do that in traditional software approaches?

[Isabel Wang]

Wow - that's awesome! After invoices and expenses, maybe the next step will be showing users their tax liabilities in real time? Such capability might actually increase demand for strategic accounting services among companies who find that they're lagging behind in terms of revenue/expense ratio or tax planning.

On a personal note, I should stop complaining about my west coast to east coast red eye flights. 6K miles must have made for quite a long trip!