GfWM Position Paper Knowledge Management and Enterprise 2.0
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

GfWM Position Paper Knowledge Management and Enterprise 2.0

  • 3,378 views
Uploaded on

This document is a translation of the German version of the position paper available at http://www.slideshare.net/gfwm/gfwm-positionspapier-wissensmanagement-und-enterprise-20. It describes the......

This document is a translation of the German version of the position paper available at http://www.slideshare.net/gfwm/gfwm-positionspapier-wissensmanagement-und-enterprise-20. It describes the position of Germany-based GfWM Knowledge Management Society.

More in: Business , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
3,378
On Slideshare
3,373
From Embeds
5
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
28
Comments
0
Likes
2

Embeds 5

https://si0.twimg.com 2
https://www.linkedin.com 2
http://www.linkedin.com 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Knowledge Management and Enterprise 2.0 Position Paper of the Knowledge Management Association (Gesellschaft für Wissensmanagement e.V., GfWM) Version 1.1 Authors of the GfWM Knowledge Management Expert Team (in alphabetical order): Axel Dornis, Benedikt Scheerer, David Wagner, Gabriele Vollmar, Martin Kimmich, Gerhard Peter, Simon Dückert1. About this documentThis position paper "Knowledge Management and Enterprise 2.0" was drafted by the KnowledgeManagement Expert Team of the Knowledge Management Association (Gesellschaft fürWissensmanagement e.V. [GfWM]) between April-September 2011 and is released free of chargeunder the Creative Commons licence; re-use is expressly welcomed. The latest version of andinformation on further developments are available at http://www.gfwm.de/fachteam.When quoting the source, please use the following text: "Knowledge Management Association(Gesellschaft für Wissensmanagement e.V.) (Eds.) (2011): GfWM Position Paper on KnowledgeManagement and Enterprise 2.0. Downloaded on dd/mm/yyyy from http://www.gfwm.de/fachteam".2. IntroductionThe term "Enterprise 2.0" was coined in 2007 by Andrew McAfee, an academic at the MIT SloanSchool of Management (McAfee, 2007). The term is derived from "Web 2.0", a new way of using theInternet which was described by Tim OReilly in 2005 (O’Reilly, 2005). Although the term Enterprise2.0 actually suggests a new type of company, it is currently used as a synonym for "Web 2.0 tools incompanies" and therefore has largely technological connotations:  2006 (spring): Andrew McAfee explains Enterprise 2.0: "I use the term Enterprise 2.0 to focus only on those platforms that companies can buy or build in order to make visible the practices and outputs of their knowledge workers" (McAfee, 2006a).  2006 (May): Andrew McAfee publishes a second version of his definition: "Enterprise 2.0 is the use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and their partners or customers" (McAfee, 2006b). 1
  • 2.  2010: The European Commissions Enterprise 2.0 Study establishes "The application of Web 2.0 technologies in the enterprise" as the definition on which most of the participants surveyed agreed (Osimo et al., 2010).Thus, until now, Enterprise 2.0 has focused more on the technical platforms. Other important factors,such as trust, cultural change and real support from top management, have been largely ignored. Inthis position paper, the Knowledge Management Association (GfWM) would like to put forward abroader definition of Enterprise 2.0. The view of Enterprise 2.0 presented here is influenced by thedefinition of knowledge management as "targeted creation of conditions and processes in anorganisation with a specific focus on knowledge as a production factor" (GfWM., 2009).As a result, GfWM distinguishes between the conceptual approaches of "Introducing Enterprise2.0" and "Being Enterprise 2.0" and backs the second approach, as the first generally merely resultsin the introduction of IT systems. The Knowledge Management Association Expert Team drafted thefollowing definition of Enterprise 2.0: An Enterprise 2.0 is a learning organisation, which reaches its goals via actions which promote learning and by using social media. A learning organisation is an organisation with the ability to develop, obtain and distribute/share knowledge, and to modify its behaviour based on new knowledge and insights. Fig. 1: GfWM Enterprise 2.0 definition 2
  • 3. The following statements clarify the contents of the definition:  Enterprise 2.0 involves more than just the use of Web 2.0 technologies in an organisation.  Enterprise 2.0 affects innovations in the technical, social and management system of the organisation.  Being Enterprise 2.0 changes the organisations culture, values and management style.  Like knowledge management, Enterprise 2.0s ultimate objective is the learning organisation.  Enterprise 2.0 requires dialogue, learning and innovative work forms using social media.  Enterprise 2.0 not only refers to companies, but to all kinds of organisations.  Enterprise 2.0 affects all areas of a company.  Enterprise 2.0 blurs the borders between the company and its environment.  You cannot introduce Enterprise 2.0, you can only be Enterprise 2.0.  Enterprise 2.0 is a risk, but a necessary risk for organisations. Fig. 2: Statements clarifying the GfWM definition of Enterprise 2.0We encourage all organisations to consider these definitions and statements on their journey into the2.0 world, so that they dont experience the same disappointment as with the last IT hype in knowledgemanagement at the beginning of this century, for "a fool with a tool is still a fool".3. History and trendsWhere exactly does the history of Enterprise 2.0 start? The term Enterprise, or company, indicates itsorigins are organisational. The version number, 2.0, indicates a connection to the software or Internetindustry. As described above in the definition, the term was primarily created to describe the use ofWeb 2.0 tools or social media in company environments. Therefore, it is these technologicaldevelopments in particular that will be examined more closely.From Memex to Facebook & co.As early as 1945, there was a visionary by the name of Vannevar Bush, who foresaw the developmentof a machine called Memex (Bush, 1945), which would allow individuals to collect, store and rapidlyand flexibly access all books, notes and written correspondence of all kinds. Today, we are not too faraway from Bushs vision, now that computers allow us to perform most of these tasks. Since thentechnology has developed at a frantic pace. The first e-mail was sent in 1966, and the first newsgroupwas established in 1979. In 1990, Tim Berners Lee developed the precursor to the modern Internet. In1997, the first social network, sixdegrees, opened its doors on the Internet. Two years later, in 1999, 3
  • 4. the first blog platform was introduced. Ward Cunningham presented the first Wiki in 1995. However,it was Jimmy Wales who actually started the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia in 2001, even though hehad already failed with a similar project once before. The predecessor, Nupedia, was developed basedon an academic model. All articles were written by experts, and the creation process entailed acomplex revision system (Cowan, 2011). The reasons for the failure of Nupedia and the overwhelmingsuccess of Wikipedia lead us to ask about the new concepts in the context of Web 2.0, which will bediscussed below. The business networks LinkedIn and OpenBC (now Xing) went online in 2003,followed by the YouTube video portal in 2005. Twitter and Facebook have been in operation since2006, whereby the latter had already been available for a few years in a restricted form. Today, hardlyany companies work without computers, software or the Internet. Microsoft, SAP and Google areamong the most important technology corporations in the world. The overall IT and communicationsindustry makes a major contribution to the growth and wealth of the developed world. According to astudy by McKinsey, the industry accounted for roughly one fifth of economic growth in the last fiveyears (McKinsey Global Institute, 2011). Figure 3 shows the development described above in graphform. Fig. 3: History of social media (Source: Edudemic, 2011)Social media in a business context todayThe use of social media in the business environment ("web-based software systems which facilitatenetworking and the interaction of users" as per the definition in the D-A-CH glossary) is a more recentdevelopment. The most popular applications are blogs, RSS, videos and Wikis (McKinsey, 2009a).Rapidly growing companies were particularly quick to introduce these technologies comprehensively,while corporate blogs, Twitter accounts and Facebook fanpages are commonplace even in moreconventional companies (Barnes, 2010). Access to knowledge, reduction of communication costs andthe identification of experts are the most commonly mentioned advantages of the tools for useinternally and with partners. This shows a clear link to the topic of knowledge management. Inexternal communication, marketing and customer orientation play a greater role, while learning effectsare also involved (McKinsey, 2009a). 4
  • 5. Where does this road lead?Reid Hoffman, CEO of LinkedIn, and Tim O’Reilly, the founder of O’Reilly Media, spoke about thedevelopment of the third generation of the Internet, or "Web 3.0", in an interview (TechCrunch, 2011).They predicted an explosion of data to be analysed and used. It appears likely that data will be linkedor connected more and more to people and places. Scientists will then be required to analyse andinterpret it. Hoffman and O’Reilly also assume that production and consumption will take place at adecentralised level, resulting in new business models (such as e.g. Groupon or Zipcar). However, theyemphasise that not only the media industry benefits from data use, it is also advantageous forproducers in classical industries. Gartner, one of the leading IT research and consulting companies,confirmed the increasing tendency toward interpreting network data (Gartner, 2010a). Areas such asCloud Computing, mobile applications, online collaboration and finding figures for evaluatinginteractions on the Internet currently have a particular strategic importance (Gartner, 2010b).4. Areas of application and benefitsBased on the definition that Enterprise 2.0 companies are to be viewed as learning organisations whichachieve their goals via new ways of behaving and using social media, the following section shalldiscuss the use of social media in an organisational context and its effects on these contexts on thebasis of practical examples.A tool is only as good as its positive effects in use. We distinguish between Business to Business(B2B), Business to Employee (B2E), Employee to Employee (E2E) and Business to Customer (B2C)applications. Two alternative classifications are presented in Social Media Prisma (Ethority, 2011),which focuses on the primary function of a tool, and McKinsey (McKinsey, 2009a), who distinguishes12 types of knowledge employees and attribute the tools to the respective activities.Each application will be illustrated with an example. Two examples reflect the experience at Festo AG& Co. KG. The two others (Börse Berlin AG and ABB AG) were taken from the Enterprise 2.0 casestudies (Back et al., 2011) and are reprinted in highly abridged form.Each case clearly shows that the tools differ in their suitability for the relevant needs. It is also clearthat a certain fundamental attitude by the company is required if the tools are to be used. For example,Festo already committed to the concept of the learning organisation in the eighties, and it has beendeveloped continuously since then. It has also been found that the benefit differs depending on theindividual case. (For a general overview of the benefit arguments, see the McKinsey Web 20 Survey(McKinsey, 2009a)). 5
  • 6. External communication (EC) Internal communication (IC) Business Business Business Employee to business to customer to employee to employee (B2B) (B2C) (B2E) (E2E) Festo Webcast Berliner Börse ABB Blog and Festo knowledge (Berlin Stock Wiki network Exchange) Fig. 4: Classification of Enterprise 2.0 areas of applicationFesto knowledge networks (IC, E2E)The markets have changed fundamentally in recent years for performance and innovation leaders inindustry. In addition to globalisation, an increasingly dynamic environment and ever greaterdiversification of customer requirements, efficient processes have become a key unique selling pointwhen faced with the competition. This makes the ability to cooperate at a global level particularlyimportant. The example of Festo AG & Co. KG, the automation expert from Esslingen, Germany,shows how international innovation can be implemented successfully using knowledge networks asthe knowledge management method. At Festo, knowledge networks are based on the community ofpractice approach (CoP), one of the most prominent knowledge management tools. While CoPsgenerally focus on self-organisation and voluntary participation, the knowledge networks are anorganisational aid for networking experts on strategically important topics, thus facilitating virtualcollaboration. In addition to putting content in writing, the focus is on collaboration to create anEnterprise 2.0, i.e. with the objective of joint learning facilitated and supported by social mediabetween experts spread around the world.Here is an example from the automotive industry management. Knowledge networks are establishedsystematically for important strategic topics in line with the companys business development. Thefunctions of a knowledge network can be shown clearly using the automotive industry - an importantindustry for Festo - as an example. Decade-long partnerships have been established based onapplication-optimised components and systems for factory automation. In accordance with the globalstructures of automotive customers, a global network of automotive expertise must be provided.Focused and long-term use of the knowledge network method promotes international processes in thesales and engineering divisions. Continuous and transparent communication, with increasing use ofWeb 2.0 tools, is particularly key to global value creation and innovation. 6
  • 7. Global collaboration is made possible through the precisely coordinated interaction of the followingcommunication tools:  Web-based collaboration site: Central access to all relevant information in a single location (single point of information). This allows employees worldwide to find the latest relevant documents in a clear structure.  Annual competence meeting: Its workshop-type character and interaction enable activities to be defined and implemented with global cooperation. Each country manager presents information in a compact form; potential synergies are then defined and appropriate activities are drawn up.  Monthly newsletter: The monthly newsletter is an important channel for communicating success stories and important market, product and customer information globally.  Regular web and video conferences: As face-to-face meetings are only occasionally possible and almost all automotive manufacturers are global players, web and video conferences are used frequently.At Festo, knowledge networks are created using a holistic approach consisting of face-to-facemeetings, efficient virtual communication, structured documentation and team-building exercisesdesigned to build up trust. A further success factor is the realisation of participants that only personalcommitment can make a contribution to the corporate goals and that networking does not happenautomatically. It is also becoming increasingly clear that such a communication process can be morelong lasting if it is moderated externally due to the lack of familiarity with the subject matter.ABB blogs and Wikis (IC, B2E)The scenario is familiar: in geographically dispersed organisations, experts have trouble networkingthemselves. One reason for this is that very little is known about the work of others or there is no wayof obtaining information on it. As a result, the wheel is reinvented again and again, and there is nomutual learning. The more projects are implemented in international and interdisciplinary teams, thegreater the problem.ABB AG is a globally active company with over 100,000 employees which faces these very questions.In a project which initially addressed only the communication departments in Central Europe, but wasaccessible for everyone, solutions for efficient virtual collaboration were to be studied (Steinhüser andRäth, 2010).The project pursued the following targets:  More efficient organisation of the work, resulting in cost savings.  Reduction of the information overload by allowing employees to obtain relevant, task-specific information.  Use of synergy effects by providing best practices.  Putting a more creative working environment in place (exchange of knowledge across departmental and national borders is intended to allow new ideas to be generated and developed further via discussions).  Preserving expertise (where possible) 7
  • 8.  Creating an image of an innovative and open company, not only in the industry but also on the labour marketThe solution chosen comprised three elements: Wiki, blog and newsletter. Before the rollout, initialtexts, links and contacts were inserted in the Wiki. In order to allow more sensitive topics to becovered, access to specific areas of the Wiki can be protected. However, all ABB employees cangenerally still post, edit and discuss texts in the Wiki. Above and beyond its function as a simple wayof storing information, the Wiki also provides support for virtual collaboration and during face-to-facemeetings. This allows employees to exchange information and agree on discussion topics. They worktogether on projects (in access-protected areas, if necessary). The ability to review who updated whatand when, when something was discussed and the results of earlier agreements via the Historyfunction supports the work and acts as a basis for generating a final document at the end of the project.The blog is used to publicise and comment on new content in the Wiki, publish up-to-date informationfrom relevant areas and tips from the communication department. Write access to the blog is restrictedto members of the "creative hotbed" and corporate communication department. All employees can usethe comment function.In order to allow new content from these two tools to be passed on to employees in good time, anewsletter is produced and distributed on a regular basis. It is sent out via e-mail, on which thecompany relies quite heavily, while employees gradually get used to the new tools.Comprehensive information (e.g. to raise interest before the project) and the individual motivation andadvice of potential multipliers were also found to be success factors. In addition, expert employeesensure that the information is valid and act as Wiki “gardeners”. This not only increases trust in thecontent, it also shows employees what kinds of information can and should be published and how. Therelatively open corporate culture and existing experience of communicating via a (partially) publicplatform had a positive influence on the acceptance by the users. A further positive effect was thatmanagement set a good example, e.g. by reacting to contents and writing articles themselves. Finally,the fact that Web 2.0 is frequently reported on in the media ensured that many employees wereinterested in and open to the topic.However, there are several barriers to success. On the one hand, many employees are hesitant tocommunicate publicly (unwillingness to divulge private knowledge, or fear of making mistakes inpublic). In addition to this, some department/division managers, who were afraid of losing control oftheir departmental knowledge and internal communication, offered some resistance. This shows that arelatively open corporate culture at a group level is essential, but is not something that can betransferred to all areas and departments. Spelling out the advantages of Wikis and blogs also proved tobe one of the greatest challenges. Anyone who is already under considerable stress from their dailywork could view the new tools as an additional workload and be unwilling to invest time.In short, the three step solution using Wiki, blogs and newsletters proved a highly successful way ofshepherding employees gradually towards an Enterprise 2.0. 8
  • 9. Festo Webcast (EC, B2B)Webcasts are interactive, live presentations via the Internet. While communication is “one2many”,there are still interactive elements such as a chat function and the ability to record and re-use them asvideo files. A sample application is the online press conferences that Festo has been organising since2009. As every year, Festo planned to hold a press conference at the Hanover Trade Fair in 2009.However, many editorial teams replied that they would not be able to attend the trade fair, as a resultof the significant decline in advertising. The company immediately re-thought its approach and invitedmembers of the press to an online press conference before the trade fair. Festo brought togetherinterested specialist journalists for this multimedia web event, using software for webcasts, andprovided them with information on innovations at the trade fair without any of them having to leavetheir desks.Festo sent invitations via e-mail to specialist journalists with a direct link to the Festo website wherethe web conference was to start at the time announced. The Chairman of the Executive Board, Dr.Eberhard Veit, and two product specialists spoke at the online press conference. Both the speakers andthe presentation slides were shown live. Festo broadcast videos to present the innovations. A presenterstarted the presentations and videos, announced contributions, read chat messages and led thesubsequent discussion. Over 20 important specialist writers took part in the online press conferenceand asked questions during the chat.Berliner Börse (Berlin Stock Exchange) (EC, B2C)Companies are not always in direct contact with their customers. Sometimes this is done by agents orintermediaries. This makes an adaptation of the product range to suit the customer more difficult, andcan even prevent it entirely.The Stock Exchange in Berlin was faced with just such a situation. As banks form the interface toprivate investors, there is a lack of demographic data and not enough data on the preferences andneeds of their own customers. The hypothesis is that social networking software can contribute tobridging the existing communication gap in the stock exchange area (Stieglitz, 2011).A new communication channel was to be established between the Stock Exchange and the privateinvestor customer segment to obtain knowledge on their preferences, increase customer loyalty, takecustomer ideas into account and integrate them in internal value creation processes. The technicalbasis for this was provided by an online discussion forum, a chat system and weblogs.Three target areas were determined: market research, communication policy and market and productpolicy. The number of members and articles published in the forum were identified as the keyvariable. As a result of a change in the company strategy, the project was cancelled in mid-2008 afterroughly 1 1/2 years. Valuable findings were gained during this period. 9
  • 10.  Market research: 740 people had registered by mid-2007. A questionnaire was used to gather demographic data and statements on their preferences.  Communication policy: The discussions in the forum and the services offered such as RSS feeds and expert chats were used to provide customers with product information. This led to a long-term communication relationship with customers.  Market and product policy: The constant dialogue via the platform and a systematic analysis of the contents generated by members allowed the company to identify and analyse the participants preferences for the stock exchange. This information was used in designing the market and product.Support from management and the departments involved was one aspect which guaranteed its success.However, closer interaction through existing channels and customer contact points (website, callcentre, seminars) would have made sense.5. Organisational culture, principles and valuesSo what makes a company an Enterprise 2.0, other than the use of Web 2.0 technologies? Thehypothesis presented in this position paper is that Enterprise 2.0 is characterised by a new form oforganisational culture, and, linked to that, a new type of management. Based on the definition byEdgar H. Schein (Schein, 1997), we define organisational culture as follows: "A pattern of sharedbasic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internalintegration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to newmembers as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems". Accordingly,an organisations culture consists of an appropriate trial-and-error approach (allowing rapid problemsolving), implicit routines, standards as well as values and opinions, which influence the selectiveperception and interpretation of information by their members and their actions.In order to represent what is new in an Enterprise 2.0, the development over the last approx. 100 yearsfrom an Enterprise 1.0, defined as a company focusing on Taylorist methods, to an Enterprise 2.0 willbe outlined below. Taylorism does not refer to the actual concept of scientific management founded byFrederick Winslow Taylor (Taylor, 1911); in this context we use it to mean its interpretation andimplementation in the majority of companies. The diagram (Fig. 5) refers to the three dimensions ofculture, values, principles and artefacts according to Schein. The values shown in the diagram alongthe time axis are not intended to represent the actual first occurrence or disappearance of these valuesor a significant change in their meaning for and in organisations. For example, the principle ofmeasurability did not disappear entirely from organisations, but became less important as knowledgework became more prevalent (Fig. 5). 10
  • 11. Knowledge based work Knowledge-intensive work Knowledge work P a tria rc h a l P a rtic ip a tive m a n a g em e n t m a n a g em e n t Company suggestion system Artefacts Bonus payments Target agreements Knowledge balance Stopwatch Quality circles PDCA Idea management CKOs KPIs Codetermination Wikis Incremental Trust Authority improvement Freedom Creativity Control Values Measurability Openness Emergence Democracy Innovation Interactivity Efficiency Constant Individualisation Autonomy change Individual responsibility Work preparation TQM Division of labour Kaizen/KVP EFQM Job norms Toyotism Systematic Fordism thoughtPrinciples Process-oriented Result orientation customer focus Learning organisation Taylorism Fig. 5: Knowledge-based work, knowledge-intensive work, knowledge workAs shown above, the outlined development is related to the development of work which relies heavilyon knowledge. The terms "knowledge-based work", "knowledge-intensive work" and "knowledgework" replace the more frequently used dichotomy of "manual labour" versus "mental work", whichwe believe to be too simplistic, as manual labour always involves knowledge and mental work alsoinvolves routine elements which do not strictly speaking qualify as knowledge work.The three terms are defined as follows:  Knowledge-based work: Work which involves experience and knowledge (ultimately pretty much all human activities)  Knowledge-intensive work: Work which involves comprehensive training or many years of experience in a particular field  Knowledge work: Work in which expertise obtained on a one-off basis is not sufficient. It requires "that the relevant knowledge (1) be continuously revised, (2) be constantly considered improvable and (3) be viewed as a resource rather than an absolute truth and irrevocably linked with ignorance, with the result that knowledge work is associated with specific risks." (Willke, 2001). 11
  • 12. Knowledge work differs from knowledge-based or knowledge-intensive work as follows: Knowledge-based/Knowledge-intensive work Knowledge work Defined results Varied, largely unpredictable results Continuity, defined labour process Spontaneity, flexibility, adaptability Dependence on available information Low dependence on available information Organisational structures with fixed Dynamic cooperation and communication responsibilities and no room for manoeuvre relationships Fig. 6: Knowledge-based/knowledge-intensive work vs. Knowledge work (cf. Vollmar, 2007)However, the distinctions between these categories are not clear-cut; the transitions – in particularbetween knowledge-intensive work and knowledge work – can overlap. As a result, these categoriescannot be clearly attributed to specific professions, as to some degree every job entails both phases ofknowledge-based and phases with knowledge-intensive work, as well as knowledge work. It is equallytrue that the work of an engineer is not exclusively creative (knowledge work), but also involveshaving to format Excel tables (knowledge-based work), and that skilled workers can always rely onthe knowledge they learned on a one-off basis (knowledge-based or knowledge-intensive), but arealways faced with new challenges which require creative action (knowledge work). Thisunderstanding of (knowledge) work in all its variety thus rules out a simple separation into blue collarworkers and white collar workers. Thus, a knowledge worker is someone whose work is dominated byknowledge-intensive work or knowledge work (Tiemann, 2009). According to the definition in theGfWM D-A-CH Knowledge Management Glossary, knowledge workers are people "...who primarilydevelop, apply and share knowledge as part of their professional activities in the value creationprocess. Knowledge workers are generally faced with barely or unclearly defined tasks, missingstructures in the labour process and no clearly predictable result."In fact, the importance of knowledge work compared with more knowledge-based or knowledge-intensive work has increased everywhere as the value creation focus has shifted from the production ofseries products to individualised complex services, and innovation and development times haveshortened. (Zukunftsinstitut, 2006). Against this background, the Enterprise 2.0 concept and thecharacteristics of a knowledge work-promoting environment described below should also beconsidered a response to the challenges associated with this.But what are the new characteristics of Enterprise 2.0? The clearest paradigm shift is the loss ofcontrol due to the loss of objective measurability because of the nature of knowledge work comparedwith more knowledge-based work (see above) and thus the increased importance of freedom and trust.The motto "You cannot manage what you cannot measure" is no longer applicable, as quantitativemeasurement methods become less and less applicable in learning, networked, self-organised and 12
  • 13. complex Enterprise 2.0 organisations. Trust increasingly takes the place of control. This conflict givesrise to further characteristics of an Enterprise 2.0 organisation: • Polyphony and bottom-up: The classic dichotomy of "labourers" (blue collar) and "managers" (white collar) is replaced by cooperation, making the most of crowd intelligence, i.e. the use of collective intelligence in an organisation and an appreciation of different individual voices. Initiatives do not necessarily come from management, but from any part of the organisation. • Self-organisation and autonomy: As a result, the members of the organisation also feel responsible for the bigger picture and have the freedom to fulfil themselves and work towards this bigger picture. According to Charles Ehin, this is very much a human need (Davey, 2011): "Consequently, people need freedom to explore and interact with individuals who are part of their immediate surroundings in order to find their specific footing regarding their unique talents, skills and experiences. Discovering what roles they can meaningfully play in varying social settings is an important continuous effort for everyone." • Networking: The organisation members are not (only) linked along a clearly structured hierarchy, they are also integrated in a complex network, not only within the organisation, but also beyond its borders. • Provocation and willingness to change The organisation can be provoked, i.e. pushed into making changes (by contrast to the necessary stability of 1.0 companies). This requires openness at all levels (individual, team, overall organisation). The borders between internal and external company areas are becoming blurred. • Meaning and fun: Work is viewed as meaning full and fun (intrinsic motivation)In the introduction we linked Enterprise 2.0 with the term learning organisation. We will thereforebriefly discuss this term. In organisational development, it refers to an adaptable organisation whichreacts to internal and external stimuli; the degree of capacity to learn and adapt is the organisationalintelligence. Peter Senge defined 5 disciplines which make up a learning organisation (Senge, 1990): 1. Personal Mastery - This focuses on the personal development of the members of the organisation. 2. Mental Models - Explicit and implicit basic assumptions are revealed and thus become a subject of learning and development. 3. Shared Vision - The members of the organisation understand and internalise the shared goals. Visions often also have a significant emotional component. 4. Team Learning - The members of a team learn together, whereby the team is more than the sum of its individual parts. 5. Systems Thinking - The organisation is viewed as a complete system in terms of its mechanisms (and not as a linear mechanism) (Senge, 1997). 13
  • 14. These five disciplines of a learning organisation and the abovementioned characteristics of anorganisational culture 2.0 also affect the management concept of an Enterprise 2.0 in our opinion: • Focus on clear visions and goals: Orientation is no longer the result of specifications and control, but of shared goals and visions. The managers responsibility is to impart them. • Joint goal setting processes, participation: However, these goals are not specified, they are developed collaboratively. The manager is a moderator in this process. • Supporting new ideas: Ideas are no longer produced at management level and only implemented at lower levels, they are created in a bottom-up process. This process must be supported by appropriate conditions and suitable behaviour (appreciation), which includes rewarding commitment and tolerating errors. • Establishing conditions: Managers lose their interpretation authority to crowd intelligence, and instead become the active creators of conditions which facilitate creativity, communication, autonomy and learning at all levels. • Moderator and coach: This includes moderating the various flows of communication logically and meaningfully or developing teams and employees by coaching (personal mastery, team learning, see Senge).6. Development into an Enterprise 2.0Enterprise 2.0 cannot be viewed as the introduction of softwareWe have already shown that the current popular definitions of Enterprise 2.0 are largely characterisedby technology. According to GfWM, Enterprise 2.0 encompasses those companies which use socialmedia to develop, obtain and distribute knowledge and to change their behaviour based on newknowledge and findings. Linear workflow models such as the waterfall model by Winston Royce(Royce, 1987), which is appropriate for classic software, are not sufficient for the development into anEnterprise 2.0 as it involves more than just software. The process consists of a complex organisationaldevelopment where the use of tools cannot be separated from the abovementioned cultural changesand the objective of organisational learning. The interconnection of the underlying principles of thesocial media to be introduced, e.g. self-organisation, trust, and the existing company and managementculture are not taken into account by classic introduction strategies. 14
  • 15. Three aspects of an Enterprise 2.0GfWM defines an Enterprise 2.0 as a learning organisation which reaches its goals by taking newactions and using social media. The chapter on organisational culture, principles and values alreadyshowed that effective use of social media for organisational learning requires a change in managementand corporate culture. Accordingly, three aspects must be incorporated in the development into anEnterprise 2.0:Management and corporate cultureBased on the previous chapter on corporate culture, the following aspects are required among others:  Orientation towards clear visions and goals  Shared goal setting processes and participation  Self-organisationUse of social mediaAccording to Ross Dawson (Dawson, 2009) there are five particularly elementary aspects for ensuringthat employees use social media:  Acquiring skills during training courses  Presentation of personal benefits  Generating critical mass  Removing fears  Embedding the use in everyday workOrganisational learningGarvin (Garvin et al., 2008) describes four elements of a supportive learning environment in acompany:  Security and tolerance of mistakes  Support of different opinions  Openness for new ideas  Time for reflection and discussionsThese three areas for action in the development into an Enterprise 2.0 must be viewed holistically andsystematically, and their interactions must be taken into account in the continuous change process. Ifemployees are only enabled to use social media, this will not automatically improve organisationallearning. In order for this to happen, initiatives to facilitate a supportive learning environment must beput in place at the same time. In turn, organisational learning can only reach its full potential ifmanagement and the decision makers are prepared to change the management and corporate culture. Amanagement and corporate culture characterised by increased participation, self-organisation andopenness can only evolve continuously if an environment which promotes learning is created, andemployees are empowered to use social media. As already shown in previous chapters, social mediathemselves are based on the principles of self-organisation, participation and transparency. The use ofsuch social media therefore intrinsically influences corporate culture; however, management is thelimiting factor in this respect. 15
  • 16. These three areas of action must be tackled in parallel and in an integrated fashion, not sequentially.People with different professional backgrounds are required to facilitate the long-term developmentinto an Enterprise 2.0. It would be preferable to have a dedicated project team to ensure this happensbut this is only of limited practical value in the long term. The major challenge, organisationally andoperationally, is to facilitate such a development.The necessity of practice and repetitionAs already mentioned, GfWM believes that Enterprise 2.0 cannot be simply introduced, it requires acontinuous development of the three dimensions referred to earlier. According to the GfWM ExpertTeam, the Deming or PDCA cycle (Deming, 1982) can be used as an approach as it is already used inproject management and quality management for continuous improvement processes. It is particularlysuitable for the development into an Enterprise 2.0 since that cannot be planned exhaustively from theoutset; it is necessary to go through continuous cycles of repetition and learning loops (Argyris,Schön, 2002) in order to identify mistakes and develop corrective measures. The cycle comprises thefollowing four elements.  P - Plan: Enterprise 2.0 measures are developed in the planning phase.  D - Do: The planned measures are implemented throughout the entire company.  C - Check: The measures are checked and evaluated for efficiency.  A - Act: On the basis of the result, any corrective measures required are introduced. 16
  • 17. Through practice, participation and communication of successes (Quick Wins), an organisation candevelop into an Enterprise 2.0. By repeatedly applying all the principles, the maturity of theorganisation as an Enterprise 2.0 (Schönefeld, 2009) increases continuously, as the following diagramshows: Developing management and corporate culture Facilitating Use social organisational media learning Maturity Act Plan Check Do Time Fig. 7: Development into an Enterprise 2.0 by practice and repetition (own representations) 17
  • 18. 7. Negative scenarioIt is 2016. Five years have passed since ItsAlwaysBeenThatWay Ltd.s management decided to giveEnterprise 2.0 a try. At the time there were good reasons for this: protecting its own brand (e.g. againstcriticism); protection against losses of intellectual property; fear that employees will spend too muchtime on Facebook etc. during working hours; managers fear of losses. And hadnt the traditional mediaand procedures already fulfilled their purpose?When compared with the competition, in retrospect, many opportunities were lost as a result. And wecould have known better. Analysts (e.g. Gartner (Gartner 2010)), systems companies (e.g. C-suitestudies by IBM (IBM 2010)), institutes (e.g. Zukunftsinstitut (Rauch, Horx 2010)),universities (e.g.UMass Dartmouth (Barnes 2010)) or associations (e.g. BITKOM (Bitkom 2008)) pointed to theincreasing importance of Enterprise 2.0 in their studies.Five applications (“use cases”) will be used as examples to show where the opportunities were missed: 1. Brand monitoring – Discussions on the company/our products go unnoticed. Not participating in social media does not mean that no-one is speaking about a company. Customers still report on their experiences with ItsAlwaysBeenThatWay Ltd.s products and employees express themselves anonymously in forums, both positively and negatively. Communication can only reach its goals if you monitor your own brand. Especially negative comments require speedy reactions. 2. Dialogue with customer and partners – Potential innovations are not fully utilised. Innovations are not acts of an individual genius. They are always the result of many peoples work. Open dialogue with customers and partners – whose triggers are often found in social networks (see above) – creates additional potential. In particular companies from high-wage countries should utilise this potential (moving from standard products to customer-specific solutions). Modern IT is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it increases transparency and comparability of companies and their (standard) products. On the other hand, it forms the basis for collaboration. 3. Human resources – Not the best people were employed. The war for talents is underway. In particular, small and medium-sized companies will have trouble finding suitable applicants in future. Enterprise 2.0 offers companies new and low-cost opportunities: a. Job adverts: There are more and more channels (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, XING) via which adverts can be posted; personalised adverts (AdWords) permits focused contact; and virtual careers fairs facilitate dialogue with potential candidates. b. Applicant selection: Professional social networks (e.g. XING or LinkedIn) offer an opportunity to gain an initial impression of applicants. c. Arouse interest in the company: Potential applicants are to be given the impression that we are an attractive employer. However, glossy presentations are less and less suitable. What is required is authenticity. Take for example the videos on starting an apprenticeship at Krones AG. They provide an authentic impression of the life of a trainee. The target group not only includes those who are actively searching for a job; 18
  • 19. the interest of employees in other companies can also be awakened. Key words such as corporate culture or work-life balance play an increasingly important role. d. The discussions on platforms such as kununu [German recruitment marketing platform] or glassdoor, where employees evaluate their employers, must also be monitored. This is where Enterprise 2.0 meets brand monitoring. e. Finally, young employees in particular expect their companies to provide them with tools similar to those to which they are accustomed from their private lives - this must be taken into consideration. Anyone who is used to communicating rapidly and simply via Facebook etc. would view the use of e-mail alone as outdated. The slight shock of some applicants at this communication culture is understandable. A company like ItsAlwaysBeenThatWay Ltd. would simply not be perceived as an innovative employer. As a result, promising applicants choose the competition.4. Employment culture and management – A lack of trust leads to a lack of commitment. Enterprise 2.0 needs autonomous employees. Autonomy has two aspects: employees must be trusted to express themselves responsibly on the company in social networks. Social media guidelines can provide help. The same level of trust must also apply to the company. This is a condition for employees contributing to internal networks, e.g. writing Wiki entries, publishing a blog or creating their own profile. This means that management has to create a culture of trust. At the same time, there must be enough freedom for employees to use the trust accorded to them. Anyone who, like ItsAlwaysBeenThatWay Ltd., thinks and acts in strict hierarchical terms is in no position to complain about a lack of initiative by their staff.5. Finding experts – Important expertise is hidden. Organisational structures present an insufficient picture of which employees have expertise in a given field. They can rarely be described in a few words. Instead, employees can gain expertise by performing everyday tasks. The (implicit) assumption is that no-one will write a blog or Wiki article unless they have the necessary knowledge; that no-one will assign tags on topics they have not researched; that no-one twitters (microblogging) on activities which do not involve them. This activity stream is more up-to-date than any (manually updated) directory of expertise and thus provides a good basis for the search for contacts. 19
  • 20. 8. ConclusionFrom our point of view, a development into an Enterprise 2.0 company is inevitable, especially forknowledge-intensive companies as Enterprise 2.0 is about organising oneself in a way that bestsupports and promotes the implementation of a learning organisation. It also ensures competitivenessin a knowledge-based market environment which is becoming ever more dynamic.However, it is not just labour, organisations and their markets and environments that are becomingmore knowledge-intensive. Society as a whole is inexorably moving from being an industrial to aknowledge society and this paradigm shift to a "Society 2.0" is similar to that of an Enterprise 2.0. Itincludes the desire for greater participation (the Stuttgart 21 movement [public involvement in a largeurban development and transport project in German]) and democracy (the Arab spring) and thedemand for an increased degree of autonomy, responsibility and self-organisation, e.g. in the voluntarysector (where commitment is moving more and more away from the classic structure of associations totemporary initiatives). And much of this benefits from Web 2.0 tools like Twitter, Facebook etc., asthe revolutions in Arab countries, among other things, have shown.And so we not only experience comparable developments at various levels – individual, organisation,society (local and global) – they also affect one another. Just as much as the borders between internaland external aspects – between the organisation and its environment – are becoming blurred andmembers of an organisation apply private experiences and expectations to work tools and managementstructures in their organisations, experience acquired in an organisation also affects life outside of it.For example, anyone who has experienced participative or collective management structures as anemployee in a multinational corporation, is less and less willing to accept them in their social andpolitical worlds.Given that Enterprise 2.0 is not an isolated development, but is embedded in deeply rooted andindispensable social changes, a rejection of "Enterprise 2.0 - Not with us!"is untenable in the longterm. 20
  • 21. 9. Literature and links • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (2008). Die Lernende Organisation. (The Learning Organisation.) Grundlagen, Methode, Praxis (Foundations, Method, Practice) (3rd Edition). Klett-Cotta. • Back, A., Koch, M., Schubert, P., & Smolnik, S. (2011). Enterprise 2.0 Fallstudien: Aus Erfahrung lernen. (Enterprise 2.0 Case Studies: Learning from Experience). Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.e20cases.org. • Barnes, N. (2011). The Fortune 500 and Social Media: A Longitudinal Study of Blogging, Twitter and Facebook Usage by America’s Largest Companies. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.umassd.edu/cmr/studiesandresearch/bloggingtwitterandfacebookusage. • Bush, V. (1945). As We May Think. The Atlantic. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/3881. • Cowan, M. (2011). Fail study: Jimmy Wales and Nupedia. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/05/features/fail-study-jimmy- wales. • Davey, N. (2011). Relating information sharing and organisational sweet spot dynamics. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.knowledgeboard.com/item/3141/23/5/3. • Dawson, R. (2009). Implementing Enterprise 2.0: A Practical Guide To Creating Business Value Inside Organizations With Web Technologies. CreateSpace. • Deming, W. E. (2000). Out of the crisis. MIT Press. • edudemic. (2011). The History of Social Media - Edudemic. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://edudemic.com/2011/01/the-history-of-social-media. • ethority. (2011). Social Media Prisma. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.ethority.de/weblog/social-media-prisma. • Gartner. (2010a). Gartner Identifies the Top 10 Strategic Technologies for 2011. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1454221. • Gartner, 2010. (2010b). Gartner Reveals Five Social Software Predictions for 2010 and Beyond. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1293114. • Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109. • GfWM, PWM, SKMF, AK Wissensbilanz, BITKOM AK KEM, & Wissensmanagement Forum. (2009). Wissensmanagement Wiki - D-A-CH Wissensmanagement Glossar. (Knowledge Management Wiki - D-A-CH Knowledge Management Glossary). Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://wm-wiki.wikispaces.com/D-A- CH+Wissensmanagement+Glossar. 21
  • 22. • Manyika, J. M., Sprague, K. L., & Yee, L. (2009). What Matters: Using technology to improve workforce collaboration. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/internet/using-technology-to-improve-workforce- collaboration.• McAfee, A. P. (2006a). Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration – The Magazine - MIT Sloan Management Review. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/2006-spring/47306/enterprise-the-dawn-of-emergent- collaboration.• McAfee, A. P. (2006b). Enterprise 2.0, version 2.0. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://andrewmcafee.org/2006/05/enterprise_20_version_20.• McKinsey. (2009). How companies are benefiting von Web 2.0. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Business_Technology/BT_Strategy/How_companies_are_ benefiting_from_Web_20_McKinsey_Global_Survey_Results_2432.• McKinsey. (2011). Internet matters: The net’s sweeping impact on growth, jobs, and prosperity. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/internet_matters/index.asp.• O’Reilly Media. (2005). What Is Web 2.0. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.• Osimo, D., Szkuta, K., Foley, P., Biagi, F., Thompson, M., Bryant, L., Bradshaw, D., et al. (2010). The final report: Enterprise 2.0 in Europe: evidence for policy-making. Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://enterprise20eu.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/the-draft-final- report.• Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley and Sons.• Schönefeld, F. (2009). Praxisleitfaden Enterprise 2.0: Wettbewerbsfähig durch neue Formen der Zusammenarbeit, Kundenbindung und Innovation. (Practical Guide to Enterprise 2.0: Competitive thanks to new Forms of Collaboration, Customer Loyalty and Innovation.) Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & CO. KG.• Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Random House Business Books.• TechCrunch. (2011). So Is Web 3.0 Already Here? Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/18/so-is-web-3-0-already-here-tctv.• Tiemann, M. (2009). Wissensintensive Berufe. (Eds.: Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung). (Knowledge-Intenstive Professions, German institute for vocational education) Downloaded on 26 September 2011 from http://www.bibb.de/dokumente/pdf/a22_preprint02_Tiemann20100119.pdf. 22