Monday, March 31, 2008

ready, fire, aiim - enterprise 2.0 report

A detailed discussion by James Dellow on the Enterprise 2.0 report from AIIM. As James notes, there are lots of graphs. The data comes from 441 responses to a web-based survey instrument and about a third of respondents were IT personnel - so at best we have indication of trends rather than anything too reliable. However given the paucity of data available - we have some material from Forrester (most of it not in the public domain) and Melcrum's report on social media & employee engagement.

So let's have a quick canter through:
  • Like James, I like the vaguely collaborative nature of Section 1: Defining Enterprise 2.0. We get Andrew McAfee, Dave Weinberger, Patti Anklam & others shooting the sugar about what E2.0 means, maaaan. The debates about the definition are more interesting than the definition itself. And I like how they have pretty much reprinted the emails.
  • Section 2 on Tech is a bit blahblahblah - nothing we haven't heard before - and I'm with James in being unconvinced by the 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 split. Figure 2 is pretty much what you'd expect with wikis at the top of the pops (2 years ago blogs would have been at number 2 instead of SNS). Figure 3 is also what you'd expect - the most E2.0 tools are generally the ones with least awareness - blogs being the honourable exception probably due to the hoohah about them since 2004. "Search" scores heavily as a E2.0 tool - but I take that to be i. an example of Google's marketing prowess & ii. a damning indictment of the last decade of attempts at enterprise search solutions. Is search E2.0? I guess it depends how it's done, baby...
  • Section 3 looks at the primary business drivers (oo-er). The message here is that E2.0 is primarily about collaboration. Which I don't have a problem with. The IT-centric nature of the survey sample can be seen in Figure 10 - "yes we all know what open source is". Based on a decade of experience, I would disagree that 53% of the respondents fully understand the term "Knowledge Management" but lets not teleport into that world of pain. Figure 12 is interesting in that E2.0 is not seen as well suited to individuals. This is probably because we think of E2.0 as "social" or "collaborative" and completely opposed to individualistic applications. But in fact, E2.0 stuff offers individuals a powerful set of tools for Personal Knowledge Management (PKM). And if they are to succeed, they have to appeal to individuals first AND THEN groups. Work is done by individuals within groups NOT by groups themselves.
  • Figure 22 in Section 4 makes a nice complement to Figures 2 & 3. I am intrigued that mashups rank so highly - again this may be due to the IT-centric survey sample. It's like to see those figures split out by the role demographic of respondents (IT vs. everyone else). Figure 28 says that USERS are driving all this. Figure 30 indicates that most uses of E2.0 tools are tactical and Figure 34 will get consultants rubbing their hands in glee while Figure 36 will get them quiet again.
  • Section 5 on generational & cultural attitudes is way too prominent but might allow a more nuanced discussion of the "Gen Y love it / Boomers hate it" non-debate. We don't know much about the KM-inclined group except that they are, well, "KM-inclined". Which makes them love E2.0 more.
  • Section 6 should be the important one. It's the one with the conclusions. It says a lot of very sensible things about culture and continuums of engagement/collaboration vs. protectionism/control. But it could say a whole lot more. Let's hope that over the coming weeks, both authors will.

And finally, why is this report only available as a single, clunky, dowdy PDF? How Enterprise 2.0 is that?

3 comments:

Unknown said...

Matt:

As the saying goes - there is no such thing as bad publicity, so as one of the authors of the Market IQ, let me say thank you for noticing and commenting.

Glad you like Section 1. It is interesting that you find Section 2 a bunch of blah blah blah - nothing new. OK - you are smart and well read. How about the rest of the universe. I recently gave a presentation on the subject and the 50 or so attendees found this sub-topic (defining the evolution of technology). Clearly not necessary for everyone - point well taken. But then - skip it and get onto the other sections. I agree with your positioning of search by the way, and make such comments in the report. Hey - so you didn't find Section 2 completely useless after all.

Onto Section 3 (IT-centric nature of teh survey? - only 1/3 of the respondents were form IT). Its interesting that you disagree that 53% of the survey respondents. Not understand KM. The data is what it is - are you challenging the data? If you are challenging whether or not 53% of the general market really understands KM - OK - sure. And of course we could always drag Km back into realm the academic debate. I fancy myself pretty good at that. But that was not the point of the comments made in the report. Whether or not these individuals have an "acceptable level of understanding" of KM is not the point. Very much agree with the rest of your observations regarding this section.
Sorry - I am not following your commentary regarding Section 5. I honestly thought that the section shed some new light on the exact nature of generational influence on adoption of Enterprise 2.0 (versus Web 2.0). And as for the culture side - maybe you found this as a duh factor - but I didn't. All too often we say that culture matters - to the point of the comment being white noise. Here we offer some statistical evidence of just how it does matter. The point of this was to hopefully impress upon readers that - once again - technology will not necessarily change corporate culture (at least not quickly and radically. Its my impression that too many E20 zealots believe that the technology is so powerful and simple that it drives adoption and leverage. My opinion (from years of experience in KM) not so. Hopefully readers of the report will gain some appreciation for the degree to which culture and change management need to be addressed in an Enterprise 2.0 project.
Section 6 - thanks for agreeing that it offers some sound advice. You are right it could say more. A whole lot more. Then again this is already a 90 page report, and we make it available to the public at no cost in the spirit of open collaboration - (unlike the mysterious Forrester data you refer to.)
Perhaps in future blog posts, and keynotes from myself, Dan Keldsen and brethren like yourself the public will be provided this.

Again thanks - and please to you and all your readers - comments to my blog www.takingaiim.com are always welcome.

Matt Moore said...

Hello Carl - Welcome to EwF. Let me make it clear that I am not reading the report from the perspective of a neophyte. I am reading it as someone who has been engaged with KM for a decade and social software for 8 years. I am being unashamedly selfish in my comments. Let me also say that I welcome the report but do not shy away from robust debate.

Moving on...

"It is interesting that you find Section 2...nothing new...How about the rest of the universe."

I do not care about the rest of the universe. In the talks I have given about this stuff over the last couple of years, there has definitely been a shoft in awareness from "What are blogs, wikis, etc?" to "How do I use blogs, wikis, etc?" Saying that, I was in a meeting with a bunch of people who had never heard of IRC chat.

"Onto Section 3 (IT-centric nature of teh survey? - only 1/3 of the respondents were form IT)."

Carl - Is 1/3 of the US workforce in IT? How many organisations have 1/3 of their staff in the IT department. The survey response population is IT-centric.

"If you are challenging whether or not 53% of the general market really understands KM - OK - sure."

So I have met many people who say they understand KM and they don't. Self-reporting on personal knowledge is useless.

"Its my impression that too many E20 zealots believe that the technology is so powerful and simple that it drives adoption and leverage."

On this we agree.

Anonymous said...

Matt:

As I suspected we are vehemently agreeing on most points - just stated from a different perspective. I, like you enjoy a healthy and heated debate, if founded in educated or informed perspectives, which I believe we have here. Again thanks for helping to raise awareness of teh research.
Carl