This Question is Possibly Answered

1 "correct" answer available (4 pts) 1 "helpful" answer available (2 pts)
30 Replies Last post: Aug 11, 2008 12:03 PM by Jayden Micheal   1 2 3 Previous Next
Click to view Susan Scrupski's profile   2 posts since
Jun 4, 2008

Jun 4, 2008 7:39 PM

Barriers to Adoption for Enterprise 2.0 Initiatives?

Greetings e2.0 enthusiasts!

 

I will be hosting an e2Open session with my colleague, Dr. Keri Pearlson, on challenges related to getting your Enterprise 2.0 initiative off the ground. We've identified a series of issues based on research we're doing with a few dozen of our clients. I'm interested to learn what issues you have faced and how you're working to overcome them.

Click to view Alex Dunne's profile   4 posts since
Dec 31, 1969

From the perspective of corporate culture, I haven't encountered any hesitency or barriers at TechWeb. We actively use Basecamp, Google Docs, Facebook, LinkedIn, wikis and whatever we can get our hands on. However, as a company that's federated into a number of different subcompanies and divisions, the lack of a central LDAP directory may prove to be a challenge in terms of user management.

 

...Not that many of these tools could tie into an LDAP anyway. :) So from my perspective, user account management of these E2 tools is challenging. E.g., I manage the comings and goings of Basecamp users, but I don't always have the latest info on who's just joined the company, or left the company.

Click to view Dan Keldsen's profile   2 posts since
Jun 4, 2008

Hi Susan - If it serves to reinforce (I hope) or contradict (hope not, but would love to hear about that), feel free to reference our research from Q1 2008, in the Market IQ on Enterprise 2.0. Free download at www.aiim.org/enterprise20 . Will you be sharing the presentation in advance? Always looking for supporting information (with source/cite) in our work - and we're just wrapping up our Enterprise 2.0 training modules in the next week or so.

Click to view Jay Hariani's profile   3 posts since
Jun 6, 2008

Susan, at our firm, a few things have come to light:

 

"Stakeholder Alignment" - Call this what you will, but corporate services departments in large organizations (legal, IT, HR) can be terrified of social software. Years of an ECM-centric mindset have caused them to focus on governance and compliance, and not think that much about what's possible when employees are effectively engaged with something like E2.0. We hear this from both our internal and external clients. Existing investments in platforms like Vignette, Documentum and Portals further fuel their fears – having spent millions on ECM or records management tools, IT is not predisposed to fund E2.0 initiatives. They might even go so far as to block E2.0 at the firewall. Legal often exhibits the same trepidation - empowering employees in this way has to be sold delicately, slowly and with a focus on stakeholders who exhibit a better responsiveness to change. Finding those kindred souls in IT and legal should be part of any E2.0 adoption initiative.

 

Achieving this alignment is important - the corporate bureaucracy controls a few things any prospective E2.0 evangelists should want to get their hands on - most importantly, SSO. We piloted the deployment of an Enterprise 2.0 tool to BearingPoint's users - adoption didn't skyrocket until employees were able to login with their existing network credentials. Extending the SSO goodness out the cloud via tools like Crowd and standards like OpenID, etc. should be a logical next step for IT departments, and a key enabler for E2.0 take-up in firms. But, someone needs to convince them that operating in this fashion is valuable, and they need to have their fears allied (the way E2.0 can transform IT from a purveyor of applications to a utility model is not something that has been analyzed fully).

 

"Word and Outlook Are My World" - Word and Outlook are the corporate operating system for the vast majority of knowledge workers. We are working hard to help change to something more online content creation-centric. Again, people need to carefully sold on the benefits. When we hold presentations with the goal of explaining to users that Word is the past and Clearspace, Confluence, Zoho, or Google Docs is the future, they often smile politely, but have trouble seeing how things might be. Selling them on the E2.0 ethos of knowledge reuse, search not store, and folksonimies takes a lot of convincing. Management can play an important role here - the costs of search lost IP can be quantified - Word and SharePoint don't do much to help decrease them, but E2.0 holds promise here - E2.0 evangelists should work to sell management on the value associated with online content creation.

 

These two are common amongst larger enterprises. Another might be how E2.0 can clash with organizational power structures, decision making, resource allocation, etc. We will see this frequently as organizations start to deploy enterprise social networking tools.

Click to view Nate Nash's profile   1 posts since
Jun 6, 2008

Having just finished The Starfish and The Spider, it seems to me that one of the difficulties in adopting various Enterprise 2.0 initiatives are the associated opportunities for decentralized organizations to exist and thrive. Transparency, flattening, and weak ties allow decentralized organizations to develop, mature, mutate, and execute. Command and Control management will thwart enablers (E2 initiatives) of the impending power shift for some bad (some good) reasons. To resolve, convince the powers that be that a proper mix of centralized and decentralized management will make an organization more effective. The NUMMI example in the book is good to illustrate this point.

Click to view Dan Keldsen's profile   2 posts since
Jun 4, 2008

Nate - ah, reminds me that The Starfish and The Spider are on my Amazon list, but haven't popped off the top just yet... Still fighting off getting a Kindle, or I'd have it right now.

 

The centralized vs. decentralized conundrum is interesting - and maturity is a key component.

 

Organizations don't do abrupt change very well, so there needs to be some sort of stepping through from "old school" to "new school."

 

Pointing out the PERSONAL benefits that people can gain, such as the use of social bookmarking purely for themselves (and oh yes, you can share those with appropriate team members), or internal blogging as a way to stand out from the masses and move up the corporate ladder (nothing worse than being an invisible speck), are some of the easiest ways to get momentum going. Of course some people (all of us) will just jump right in and go from Zero to 200, dodging and weaving, and making it up as we go along, but most people, particularly in medium/large organizations are more cautious than experimental.

 

Still early days, although the last 2 years have been an interesting time in this space (even before we had "Enterprise 2.0" as a label).

 

Cheers,

Dan

Click to view Bryan Person's profile   1 posts since
Jun 4, 2008

Here's the link to an interview I conected with with Susan and Keri. They're talking all about their E2Open session on “Barriers to Enterprise Adoption in Large Enterprises.”

 

http://susanitsa.wordpress.com/

Click to view Anurag Batra's profile   1 posts since
Jun 6, 2008

Like anything social, enterprise collaboration requires a lot of investment of time. There's a lot of stuff that's present in a disorganized fashion on wikis, social networks, etc, and being used to organized content, employees may very easily be overwhelmed, and therefore discouraged from being a part of the social community. The value add is not immediate, and being social almost needs to become a second nature before its benefits start coming through.

Click to view Lawrence Rosenshein's profile   3 posts since
Jun 6, 2008

1) Lack of Senior Executive Support - if the C-level executives don't support the initiatives, they will fail or be irrelevant.

 

2) Too much focus on how wonderful the technology is. Technology is nice but only if it supports the business goals of the organization.

 

3) Too little focus on ROI - both qualitative and quantitative. Management and staff have to understand the value of the initiatives.

 

4) Not enough money allocated to training. This is not unique to E2.0 initiatives. I don't know of many companies that allocate the approrpriate 10 to 15 percent of the implementation budget to training. Too often it's - "oh, they can learn it on their own".

 

5) Everyone needs to have a personal win around the adoption of the initiatives.

 

6) Too much at once. Overwhelming. Even though the services are on-demand, a step-by-step, phased implementation is best - open up a few feature-sets first, let staff become comfortable, then open up more.

Click to view Perry Grossman's profile   2 posts since
Jun 7, 2008

It is often hard to overcome existing patterns. I'm in an organization that was formed out of three different groups, each using their own file sharing solution. People pretty much defend the solution that they are used to so it has been hard to get people onto one solution.

 

Also, rapid pace of technological change makes it difficult to decide when to move to a new solution.

Click to view Lorenzo Winfrey's profile   2 posts since
Jun 8, 2008

I think you same the same barriers you see with any kind of radical change. People are very comfortable doing things the way they have always done. The biggest challenge I have encountered is making people see the use of these capabilities as value added and not something additional that they have to do. I try to teach them that they can build the use of the tools into their regular workflow, it doesn't have to be something extra they have to do.

 

The key I have found is understanding how users percieve tools and understanding that thier perception is not always the way us techhies think it is. By doing things like one on one training and developing detailed walkthroughs I have been able to significantly increase the rate of adoption of Enterprise 2.0 initiatives.

Click to view Gia Lyons's profile   1 posts since
Jun 6, 2008

Ditto everything Lawrence said.

Click to view Dennis Howlett's profile   1 posts since
Jun 8, 2008

I'll be interedsted in that presentation Susan so count me in to hear more.

Click to view Lee White's profile   1 posts since
Jun 8, 2008

My approach is to stay away from the terminology and the technology, and just talk to the client about their needs, what keeps them awake at night. Then do a combination of helping them figure out why the way they are currently working isn't working AND begining an integrated design process with the client to find better ways of working. It just so happens that the analysis and design processes work very well in a open, collabrative environment, regardless of the technology used. As the old saying goes, be the change you seek. the process becomes the solution. When you come out the other end of the pipe, you hope that two things have happened:

  1. the client learns for them selves that new behaviors based on openness are more productive
  2. there are technologies that happen to leverage an open working environment very well

In other words, avoid the barriers by finding the openings.

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...