Collaboration in the Enterprise Report (free) - Summer 2010

  • 704 views
Uploaded on

http://www.e20pros.com …

http://www.e20pros.com

This 45-page report provides an overview and gives recommendations based on research collected from over 500 participants during June and July, 2010. These individuals come from a diverse range of companies and industries, from small to extremely large enterprises. The goal is to better understand the interplay of technology, collaborative work cultures and leadership.

First, we cover Enterprise 2.0 adoption, and examine the collaboration tools and technologies that are used in today’s American businesses. We all have heard and possibly experienced the web 2.0 revolution, now this movement is readily occurring in companies. This reports highlights how well businesses integrate Enterprise Collaboration Technologies (ECT), whether social media policies are in place and how workers perceive collaboration and its impacts. We ask participants to list tools which they officially use for work, and tools they informally utilize to get their job tasks done.

Second, we cover collaborative work cultures and provide an assessment of “The State of Collaboration” in American enterprises. Unlike typical press about the powers of technology, this report grounds the reader in understanding the larger system collaboration issues. Different psychological and social variables are covered.

Finally, leadership issues are discussed, including organizational structure, decision-making, and an exploration of Mission, Vision and Values. Thus, when the Triple pyramid of collaboration (Technology, Culture, and Leadership) is optimized, true collaborative cultures may emerge.

Definitions, data handling, disclaimers, and more are found in later sections. All summary figures and graphs are available in the appendix.

By reading this report, decision makers will better understand many collaboration issues in deploying Enterprise technologies, making sure that they focus not only on technological issues, but people and leadership issues as well.

Here at E2.0 Pros, we specialize in developing collaborative enterprises. We thank all participants who took part in this research.

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

Views

Total Views
704
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

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. 
 Provided
free
to
the
community
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Collaboration
in
the
Enterprise
 Summer
2010
‐
Web
Survey
 Summary
of
Data
and
Commentary
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
 http://e20pros.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 By
Jeff
Wilfong
 

  • 2. 2
 
 
 Introduction
 
 This
report
provides
an
overview
and
gives
recommendations
based
on
research
collected
from
over
 500
participants
during
June
and
July,
2010.

These
individuals
come
from
a
diverse
range
of
 companies
and
industries,
from
small
to
extremely
large
enterprises.

The
goal
is
to
better
 understand
the
interplay
of
technology,
collaborative
work
cultures
and
leadership.

 
 First,
we
cover
Enterprise
2.0
adoption,
and
examine
the
collaboration
tools
and
technologies
that
 are
used
in
today’s
American
businesses.

We
all
have
heard
and
possibly
experienced
the
web
2.0
 revolution,
now
this
movement
is
readily
occurring
in
companies.

This
reports
highlights
how
well
 businesses
integrate
Enterprise
Collaboration
Technologies
(ECT),
whether
social
media
policies
are
in
 place
and
how
workers
perceive
collaboration
and
its
impacts.

We
ask
participants
to
list
tools
which
 they
officially
use
for
work,
and
tools
they
informally
utilize
to
get
their
job
tasks
done.

 
 Second,
we
cover
collaborative
work
cultures
and
provide
an
assessment
of
“The
State
of
 Collaboration”
in
American
enterprises.

Unlike
typical
press
about
the
powers
of
technology,
this
 report
grounds
the
reader
in
understanding
the
larger
system
collaboration
issues.
Different
 psychological
and
social
variables
are
covered.

 
 Finally,
leadership
issues
are
discussed,
including
organizational
structure,
decision‐making,
and
an
 exploration
of
Mission,
Vision
and
Values.

Thus,
when
the
Triple
pyramid
of
collaboration
 (Technology,
Culture,
and
Leadership)
is
optimized,
true
collaborative
cultures
may
emerge.

 
 Definitions,
data
handling,
disclaimers,
and
more
are
found
in
later
sections.

All
summary
figures
and
 graphs
are
available
in
the
appendix.
 
 By
reading
this
report,
decision
makers
will
better
understand
many
collaboration
issues
in
deploying
 Enterprise
technologies,
making
sure
that
they
focus
not
only
on
technological
issues,
but
people
and
 leadership
issues
as
well.

 
 Here
at
E2.0
Pros,
we
specialize
in
developing
collaborative
enterprises.

We
thank
all
participants
 who
took
part
in
this
research.

 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 3. 3
 
 Summary
of
results
and
recommendations
 
 Demographics:


Out
of
517
total
participants,
372
finished
every
question
in
the
survey
(an
attrition
 level
of
30%).

It
was
anticipated
that
the
survey
would
take
about
25‐30
minutes
to
complete.

An
 attrition
level
of
30%
is
fairly
consistent
with
projections
of
web
surveys
of
this
length.

For
this
 summary
report,
all
data
will
be
explored,
despite
the
attrition.


 
 74%
of
respondents
were
male,
and
26%
were
female
(Figure
1).

The
average
age
was
43
years
old
 (Figure
2),
with
a
majority
of
participants
having
earned
a
college
degree
or
higher
(Figure
3).
Hi‐Tech,
 Telecommunications,
Financial
services,
and
Retail
were
the
top
primary
work
industries,
however,
all
 sixteen
industries
were
represented
(Figure
4).

All
levels
of
employees
and
managers
took
part,
with
 employees
and
line‐managers
most
represented
(Figure
5).

Most
worked
in
Information
Technology,
 Business
Operations,
Customer
/
Client
Services,
or
Sales,
however
all
eleven
departments
were
 represented
(Figure
6).

The
average
size
of
company
was
in
the
range
of
501
to
1,000
employees,
 however
all
company
sizes
were
represented
(Figure
7).

Finally,
the
average
length
of
employment
in
 the
current
company
was
1
to
2
years
for
individuals,
with
a
gradual
decline
towards
longer
lengths
of
 employment
(Figure
8).

Over
95%
of
respondents
lived
in
the
United
States,
with
65%
living
in
 California,
and
20%
living
in
the
East
Coast.
Thus,
the
demographics
represent
a
large
and
diverse
 sample,
mostly
of
American
business
professionals.
 
 SECTION
1:
Enterprise
Collaboration
Technology
(ECT)
 
 Enterprise
adoption:

In
July
2010,
most
companies
are
still
“Planning”
or
“Trying”
Enterprise
 Collaboration
Technologies
(Figure
11),
with
30%
of
companies
in
“Going
ahead”
or
“Full‐speed
 ahead”
modes.


 
 
 Figure
11:
Overall
organization
adoption
of
ECT.
n=498
 
 When
examining
departmental
ECT
strategies,
the
percentages
generally
were
higher
(see
Figure
10).

 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 4. 4
 
 Officially‐sanctioned
ECT:

Figure
12
shows
the
most
popular
Enterprise
Collaboration
Technologies
 at
work,
with
Social
Calendars,
Shared
files,
Project
Management
tools,
Blogs
and
Wikis
most
 frequently
used.

Some
technologies
not
often
mentioned
were
Virtual
Presence
Technologies,
 Prediction
Markets,
and
Instant
Messaging
software.


 
 
 Figure
12:
List
of
“officially
sanctioned”
ECT
technologies
in
the
enterprise.
n=
498
 
 The
effectiveness
of
officially‐sanctioned
ECT
fell
in
the
range
of
“neither
effective
nor
ineffective”
 (Figure
14).

With
respects
to
the
perceived
collaboration
effectiveness
of
official
ECT,
most
 individuals
report
“neither
effective
nor
ineffective”
(Figure
15).

Individuals
were
split,
half
and
half
 whether
official
tools
were
integrated
well
or
not
(Figure
16).

Finally,
officially‐sanctioned
tools
were
 found
to
take
‘excessive’
or
‘much
time’
for
workers
to
complete
their
work
tasks
(Figure
17).

 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 5. 5
 
 Unofficial
ECT
use:

Participants
utilized
other
software
in
addition
to
what
their
employers
provided
 them.

Figure
13
provides
businesses
a
helpful
list
of
the
most
popular
technologies
used
by
 employees.
The
most
popular
technologies
used
at
work,
unofficially,
were:
microblogs
(such
as
 Twitter),
social
networks
(such
as
LinkedIn),
instant
messaging
clients,
RSS
/
feeds,
and
even
video
or
 audio‐conferencing
tools
(Figure
13).


 
 
 Figure
13:
List
of
“unofficial”
ECT
used
on
the
job.
n=486
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 6. 6
 
 
 
 The
effectiveness
of
unofficial
ECT
was
“very
effective”
(Figure
18).

With
respects
to
the
perceived
 collaboration
effectiveness
of
unofficial
ECT,
most
individuals
report
“effective”
(Figure
19).

 Individuals
were
split,
half
and
half
whether
unofficial
ECT
were
integrated
well
or
not
(Figure
20).

 Finally,
unofficial
ECT
was
reported
to
take
‘not
much
time
at
all’
or
‘an
average
amount
of
time’
for
 workers
to
complete
job
tasks
(Figure
21).
 
 
 Figure
18.
Overall
effectiveness
of
“Unofficial”
ECT.
n=479
 
 Policies
and
Training:

In
Figure
22,
participants
report
either
no
formal
ECT
/
social
media
policies,
or
 that
they
are
‘unclear’
or
‘very
unclear.’

Respondents
report
‘good’
or
‘very
good’
expertise
level
in
 tools
(Figure
23),
with
most
companies
not
formally
training
users
(Figure
24).


 
 
 Figure
22.
Clearity
and
consistency
of
ECT
/
social
media
policies
 n
=
472,
trend
towards
no
policies
or
unclear
policies
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 7. 7
 
 Top
reasons
to
deploy
ECT
(participants’
view):

Respondents
mentioned
that
increased
productivity,
 ability
to
find
people,
cost
savings,
less
travel
expenses,
and
increased
innovation
of
products
/
 services
were
among
the
top
reasons
ECT
is
helpful
to
organizations
(Figure
35).

 
 
 Figure
35.
Please
select
the
five
best
reasons
why
you
think
ECT
is
helpful
for
your
organization:
n
=
405
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 8. 8
 
 ECT
Recommendations:

 
 For
overall
adoption
efforts,
30%
of
companies
comprise
the
“early
adopters.”

Certain
industries
 may
have
reduced
need
for
ECT
efforts,
and
some
companies
may
be
simply
trying
out
technologies
 to
stay
ahead.

Understanding
from
ECT
use
may
occur
simply
by
trying,
so
it
is
advisable
that
 companies
start
early
rather
than
too
late.

Competitors
are
fierce
in
today’s
business
climate.

 
 Officially‐sanctioned
ECT
often
resulted
in
slow
and
poor
performance.

Many
companies
have
 trouble
integrating
ECT
with
work
processes,
while
some
are
experts
at
this.

It
may
be
better
to
 utilize
other
solutions,
which
may
be
simpler
to
use
for
employees.

Figure
12
shows
that
many
useful
 tools
which
have
yet
to
be
utilized
by
businesses.

 
 Participants
were
very
positive
towards
Unofficial
ECT,
which
is
to
be
expected.

These
tools
were
 shown
to
be
effective
and
fast,
however
unintegrated.
Figure
13
provides
businesses
a
helpful
list
of
 the
most
popular
technologies
used
unofficially
by
employees.

Surprisingly,
many
companies
still
do
 not
have
adequate
audio/video/web
conferencing
solutions.

 
 Generally
it
is
leaders,
often
IT
managers,
who
decide
which
tools
and
technologies
will
be
available
 at
work.

As
this
report
shows,
workers
demand
a
diverse
assortment
of
technology.

It
would
be
 desirable
to
focus
on
the
needs
of
employees
and
possibly
find
free
or
low‐cost
solutions
if
capability
 or
funds
are
unavailable.

Surprisingly,
many
companies
still
do
not
have
social
media
or
ECT
policies.

 This
will
be
a
detriment
in
the
near
term
and
something
companies
will
want
to
work
on.

Again,
 leaders
can
“provide
them
what
they
want”
within
the
“structure
that
makes
it
safe.”

 
 Quality
trainings
are
needed
in
Official
ECT
so
that
workers
can
become
genuine
experts,
not
just
 report
being
an
expert.
These
may
not
need
to
be
conducted
in‐person,
but
trainings
may
utilize
 webinars
or
even
PowerPoint
presentations.

Mentors
from
different
departments
can
be
utilized
to
 not
only
provide
organizational
openness,
but
to
provide
cross‐training.

 
 Participants
in
the
survey
rate
the
potential
benefits
of
collaboration
consistently
to
many
other
 surveys
and
research.

Workers
understand
the
value
of
collaboration,
even
though
all
may
not
work
 for
“Collaborative
Enterprises.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 9. 9
 
 SECTION
2:
Workplace
Culture:
Collaboration
 
 The
State
of
Collaboration:

Summarizing
data
from
46
variables,
comprising
14
categories
of
work
 culture
believed
to
be
important
in
collaboration
(see
Figure
32),
Figure
33
shows
the
overall
state
of
 collaboration
in
the
enterprise.

 
 
 Figure
33.
The
state
of
Collaborative
Work
Cultures
–
Overall
study
 Note:
Averages
from
all
reporting
participants
(2
to
‐2),
with
positive
values
considered
helpful
to
collaboration.
 
 Positive
supports
for
collaboration
included:
 
 •

Relationships
 
 •

Sharing
 
 •

Participation
/
Knowledge
creation
 
 •

Creativity
/
Innovation
 •

Trust
 
 Negative
supports
for
collaboration
included:
 
 •

Limited
collaborative
vision
 
 •

Limited
Collaboration
Measurement
/
Reward
 
 •

Internal
competition
 
 •

Control
 
 •

Poor
decision‐making
 
 •

Poor
mentorship
or
training
 
 •

Reduced
work/life
balance
 
 Neutral
supports:
 
 •

Organizational
openness
 
 •

Risk
taking
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 10. 10
 
 According
to
these
workplace
culture
and
management
variables,
most
companies
are
not
 “Collaborative
Enterprises.”

 
 Collaboration
rewards:

Respondents
reported
that
most
often
non‐financial
rewards
were
offered,
 such
as
recognition
in
meetings
(in‐person
or
via
ECT)
and
praise
(Figure
34).

Surprisingly,
almost
20%
 report
receiving
no
rewards
for
collaborating.

Financial
reward
was
one
of
the
least
likely
offerings
to
 employees.

 
 Collaborative
Culture
Recommendations:

 
 First,
companies
need
to
have
a
strategic
“Collaborative
Vision.”

To
do
this,
leaders
need
to
explore
 and
communicate
a
systematic
definition
of
collaboration
(see
“Definitions”
section).

Management
 then
needs
to
help
nurture
necessary
supports.

For
example,
a
sizable
Enterprise
Collaboration
 Technology
(ECT)
budget
is
vital,
even
in
this
downturn,
as
well
as
hiring
the
best
managers,
 consultant
/
researchers,
and
support
people
such
as
Community
managers.

Companies
cannot
 afford
to
become
behind
in
the
2.0
collaboration
revolution.

Visions
require
making
sacrifices.

 
 Next,
collaboration
must
be
measured
(even
though
this
may
be
difficult)
and
rewarded,
so
that
 workers
are
incentivized
to
truly
collaborate.
The
fourteen
categories
of
collaboration
provide
one
 such
rubric
to
measure
collaboration.

Financial
reward
was
one
of
the
least
likely
offerings
to
 employees,
although
many
people
struggle
financially
in
this
economy.

It
is
important
to
note
that
 various
generations
in
the
workplace
may
desire
different
rewards,
as
do
people
with
varying
 motivations.

The
key
is
to
understand
your
workforce.

One
person
may
require
more
money
due
to
 personal
and
family
issues
and
another
may
be
more
inclined
towards
recognition.
 
 Internal
competition
is
often
seen
as
a
benefit
to
an
organization,
and
it
can
be.

Competition
can
be
 fun,
encouraging
the
workforce
with
potential
for
innovation
as
individuals
thirst
for
the
challenge.

 However,
destructive,
sometimes
selfish
behavior
in
the
workplace,
can
hinder
growth
and
may
 sacrifice
the
entire
organization.

If
individuals
are
rewarded,
not
teams,
then
collaboration
may
not
 be
incentivized.

Leaders
should
take
care
to
develop
methods
to
measure
and
reward
collaboration
 as
to
ensure
success
of
the
enterprise.
 
 Workers
need
to
be
able
to
form
relationships
with
whomever
they
need
to
be
able
to
collaborate
 and
get
their
jobs
done.

If
going
up
the
chain‐of‐command
takes
too
long,
people
will
become
 frustrated.

Managers
can
help
to
introduce
employees
to
each
other,
especially
between
teams
and
 departments.

Events
can
be
helpful
to
foster
relationship‐building.

People
also
need
to
know
who
 the
experts
are
in
the
organization
to
be
most
effective
in
their
jobs.

 
 Today,
many
organizations
struggle
with
openness.

If
rigid
hierarchy
is
maintained,
openness
will
be
 difficult
to
come
by.

Leaders
can
encourage
managers
and
employees
to
share,
work
together,
and
 be
a
team.
Trust
will
be
increased
as
members
behave
honestly,
and
are
held
accountable
and
 rewarded
for
their
team
efforts.

 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 11. 11
 
 Individuals
believed
themselves
to
be
controlled
by
their
organizations,
rather
than
feeling
“free”
(to
 innovate,
collaborate,
etc).
When
people
have
reduced
ability
to
act,
everyone
loses,
especially
the
 customer.

Better
to
encourage
independence,
rather
than
micromanagement.

 
 Many
organizations
are
doing
well
in
participation.
However,
by
utilizing
ECT
effectively,
knowledge
 generation
will
only
increase.

Additionally,
creativity
is
fruitful
in
many
organizations,
however,
 through
work
on
other
cultural
variables,
creativity
can
shoot
through
the
roof.

 
 Decision‐making
is
adequate
in
most
companies,
not
stellar.

Often,
leaders
may
not
have
all
the
 information
they
need
to
make
decisions,
and
some
may
struggle
to
find
the
time.

Decision‐making
 should
be
methodical
(not
necessarily
slow),
fair,
strategic
and
examine
strengths,
weaknesses,
 opportunities
and
threats.

More
than
anything,
employees
within
the
organization
need
to
be
 consulted.

Large‐scale
decisions
can
be
vetted
using
crowd‐sourcing
techniques.
Truly,
the
power
of
 the
2.0
revolution
provides
ability
for
new
methods
of
leadership.

 
 Collaboration
and
innovation
requires
a
certain
degree
of
risk‐taking.

Leaders
will
have
to
encourage
 hope,
rather
than
fear,
creativity,
rather
than
control,
experimentation,
rather
than
routine
 automation
of
processes.

The
potential
of
ECT
far
outweighs
the
legal
risk.

Traditional
leaders
or
 those
in
more
policy‐oriented
cultures
can
experiment
with
a
few
technologies
to
encourage
risk‐ taking.

 
 Training
is
necessary
for
ECT,
especially
for
individuals
to
become
genuine.

Training
can
be
offered
 in‐person
to
those
that
like
this
format,
or
electronically
to
those
more
technically
savvy.


 
 Finally,
a
work‐life
balance
is
necessary
for
fresh
ideas
(i.e.
innovation)
and
reduced
stress
on
the
job.
 When
people
cannot
focus
due
to
fatigue
or
stress,
the
whole
enterprise
loses.

As
many
experts
have
 found:
most
innovations
happen
when
people
are
having
fun,
being
creative,
walking
along
a
stream,
 or
at
the
beach.

Routine
meetings
provide
too
much
formality
for
genuine
insights
to
occur,
although
 they
can.

Leaders
can
examine
the
workplace
to
create
physical
spaces
conducive
of
collaboration
 (such
as
comfortable
seating
areas,
white
boards,
collaboration
equipment)
and
allow
workers
some
 downtime
every
week
to
creatively
explore
ideas
together.

Workers
also
should
be
able
to
restore
 themselves
at
home
and
with
friends
and
family,
not
being
contacted
to
frequently.
Pushing
someone
 too
hard
usually
results
in
substandard
work
or
them
leaving.

In
the
knowledge
economy,
the
 greatest
asset
to
the
organization
are
employees.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 12. 12
 
 SECTION
3:
Organization
strategy,
structure
and
leadership

 
 Mission,
Vision,
and
Values:

Figures
41
through
43,
describe
participants’
familiarity
with
their
 company’s
Mission,
Vision,
and
Values.

Participants
were
generally
familiar
with
Mission,
and
Values.
 Regarding
Vision,
most
reported
‘neither
familiar
nor
unfamiliar.’

In
each
case,
at
least
20%
of
 respondents
were
unfamiliar
with
Mission,
Vision,
or
Values.


 
 “The
Deciders”:

The
decision
makers
for
overall
business
strategy
were
found
to
be
the
Executive
 managers,
CEO,
and
the
Board
of
Directors
(Figure
36),
in
this
order.
Typically,
it
is
expected
this
 order
to
be
reversed
for
the
traditional
hierarchical
organization.


The
decision
makers
for
 departmental
strategy
were
Department
mangers,
CEO,
Middle
Managers
and
the
Executive
 managers
(Figure
37),
in
this
order.

This
scenario
seems
fairly
conventional.

Next,
the
decision
 makers
for
team
strategy
were
found
to
be
Middle
managers,
Department
managers,
CEO,
and
 ‘everyone
having
a
fair
say’
(Figure
38),
in
this
order.

Yet,
again,
this
scenario
is
fairly
typical.

Lastly,

 with
respect
to
‘who’
has
most
say
in
how
individual
employees
do
their
jobs,
participants
reported
 Direct
supervisor,
“I
do,”
Department
managers,
and
Middle
managers
(Figure
39),
in
this
order.
Thus,
 the
data
shows
most
organizations
follow
a
hierarchical
or
bureaucratic
organization
structure.
 
 Organization
Structure:

Figure
40
shows
how
organizations
are
structured.
Respondents
were
 allowed
to
select
more
than
one
choice.

As
is
expected,
Very
hierarchical,
Moderately
hierarchical,
 Project
Driven,
and
Matrix
were
most
reported.

Interestingly,
about
25%
of
participants
reported
 Minimal
hierarchy
/
Flat
as
describing
their
company.
 
 
 
 Figure
40.
Organization
structure.
n=375
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 13. 13
 
 Satisfaction
in
the
workplace:
Overall,
participants
‘neither
agree
nor
disagree’
that
they
would
 recommend
others
to
work
at
their
company
(Figure
44),
however
the
trend
is
to
disagree.

 
 
 
 Figure
43.
Would
I
recommend
my
company
to
others?
 n
=
416,
Average
=
‐0.1808,
when
using
(‐2,‐1,1,2),
“Neither
agree
nor
disagree”
 
 Leadership
and
structure
recommendations:

 
 Decision‐making
is
a
complex
issue
in
organizations.

In
governmental
agencies,
it
is
necessary
to
 craft
policies,
focus
on
security
and
safety,
and
pride
efforts
so
that
work
processes
are
repeatable
 and
consistent.

Governmental
organizations
necessitate
a
different
sort
of
decision‐making
than
 what
is
typical
in
the
technically‐innovative
companies
such
those
located
in
Silicon
Valley.

The
retail
 industry
has
different
goals
and
tasks,
than
does
the
aerospace
industry.
Depending
on
the
industry,
 customers,
products,
and
stage
of
company
(examples:
start‐up,
institutionalized
company,
multi‐ national
conglomerate),
leaders
will
have
to
think
critically
about
the
chaotic,
fast‐paced
marketplace
 of
today
and
reflect
on
the
ever‐important
task
of
decision
making.

For
starters,
many
companies
are
 addressing
Web
2.0
and
Enterprise
2.0
in
some
form
or
another.

Is
your
business
or
organization?

 Leaders
need
to
develop
strategy
in
ECT,
collaborative
work
culture,
and
leadership.

A
choice
needs
 to
be
made.
Whether
to
simply
develop
an
ECT
/
Social
Media
Policy
and
disallow
the
use
of
tools
at
 work,
or
to
formally
state
preference
(and
develop
capacity)
so
that
workers
utilize
these
new
 collaborative
technologies
in
intelligent
ways,
strategy
is
needed.
 

 It
is
generally
understood
that
individuals
involved
in
job
processes
or
services
make
better
decisions
 for
themselves
and
their
jobs,
than
do
leaders
twice
removed.

Overall
strategy
(which
requires
broad
 vision
and
insight)
is
up
to
leaders,
and
not
an
easy
task.

However,
“micro‐managing”
work
processes
 in
today’s
knowledge‐worker
economy
tends
to
stifle
efficiency,
reduce
potential
for
worker
growth,
 and
may
waste
unnecessary
time
and
human
capital.

Control
is
detrimental
to
innovation
and
 collaboration,
however,
both
require
structure,
leadership
and
supports.

Therefore,
it
is
up
to
 leaders
to
strategize,
and
do
so
with
consideration
of
the
above
ideal
workplace
culture
variables,
 and
craft
decision‐making
accordingly.

For
example,
in
flat,
innovative
start‐up
companies,
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 14. 14
 
 employees
are
often
creating
strategies
and
guiding
the
growth
of
the
company.

However,
in
 institutionalized
cultures,
this
innovative
environment
may
be
hard
to
come
by
as
decision‐making
 moves
higher
in
the
chain‐of‐command.

Often
simple
measures
such
as
360‐degree
assessments
can
 prove
a
management
philosophy
effective
or
not.

It
is
recommended
to
hire
a
good
consultant
/
 researcher
to
have
an
independent
take
on
work
culture
and
leadership
strengths
and
weaknesses.
 
 Similarly,
it
is
thought
that
the
structure
of
an
organization
often
has
profound
impacts
on
workplace
 culture,
collaboration,
performance,
and
the
ability
to
meet
basic
operational
demands
of
the
 enterprise.
If
the
goal
is
collaboration,
or
even
innovation,
the
large,
dispersed,
highly
bureaucratic
 organization
may
have
a
difficult
time
creating
new
services
or
products,
and
may
waste
much
time
in
 communication
which
is
closed
to
those
involved
(e.x.
e‐mail).

 
 Keep
in
mind
that
the
typical
bureaucratic
work
structure
found
today
was
designed
as
the
result
of
 Frederick
Taylor’s
“Scientific
Management”
of
the
early
1900s
and
many
subsequent
management
 philosophers.
The
philosophies
of
old
do
not
always
stand
in
today’s
environment.
In
the
early
1900s,
 people
narrowly
performed
work
roles
such
as
on
an
assembly
line.

It
was
thought,
in
“Scientific
 Management”
to
reduce
the
job
task
in
a
way
to
promote
individual
experts
who
were
highly
efficient
 and
productive.
In
today’s
knowledge‐worker
environment,
workers
need
to
know
much
about
 everything
(and
if
to
be
able
to
communicate
openly
with
those
who
do).

The
purpose
of
the
 organization
is
bring
together
the
wisdom
of
the
group,
adding
more
to
the
efforts
than
what
 individuals
could
do
separately
(i.e.
emergence).


 
 Looking
at
the
fact
that
20‐25%
of
individuals
were
unfamiliar
with
Mission,
Vision,
and
Values,
it
is
 logical
to
assume
that
these
ideas
are
not
broadly
communicated
by
leaders
in
these
companies.
 Leaders
should
note
that
this
is
a
very
important.

After
all,
if
employees
do
not
know
where
they
are
 going,
then
they
can
get
lost.

Consistent
values,
which
are
strategically
created,
are
necessary
for
the
 high‐performing,
highly
innovative
company
to
reinforce
and
guide
a
company’s
Mission
and
Vision
 and
performance
for
core
competencies.

Therefore,
the
M
and
two
Vs
relate
to
work
culture
quite
 strongly.

Leaders
may
become
guides,
facilitators,
visionaries,
but
caution
is
given
to
those
who
 become
too
managerial.

 
 It
is
also
important
to
note,
that
leaders
may
take
great
strides
in
communicating
Mission,
Vision
and
 Values
and
workers
are
overwhelmed
to
be
able
to
listen
and
retain
these
messages.

Utilizing
ECT,
 leaders
can
“rebrand”
and
market
their
messages
in
innovative
and
repeatable
ways.

 
 Regarding
workplace
satisfaction,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
causes
for
these
mixed
results.

It
has
 been
previously
found
that
increasing
levels
of
communication
and
collaboration
(with
all
of
its
 associated
variables)
may
help
to
bolster
workplace
satisfaction.

Examining
reward
and
 measurement
structures
and
making
sure
they
are
fair
to
employees
may
also
help.

Truly,
each
 company
is
unique
and
requires
separate
analysis
to
determine
limits
and
potential.

Different
 generations
have
differing
needs,
as
do
women
and
men.

 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 15. 15
 
 Conclusion
 

 By
reading
this
report,
decision
makers
now
understand
many
collaboration
related
issues
in
 deploying
Enterprise
technologies,
making
sure
that
they
know
to
focus
on
technology,
culture
and
 leadership
to
be
most
effective.

 
 When
in
doubt,
it
is
advisable
to
hire
consultants
to
study
culture
and
leadership
issues,
because
so
 often
it
is
difficult
to
get
the
whole
picture,
when
we
are
inside
it.
 
 E2.0
Pros
thanks
all
participants
for
taking
part
in
this
research,
and
for
the
readers
to
consider
merits
 written
within.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 16. 16
 
 Definitions
 
 Web
2.0:

According
to
technology
and
web
expert
Tim
O’Reilly,
Web
2.0
is
“the
business
revolution
 in
the
computer
industry
caused
by
the
move
to
the
internet
as
platform,
and
an
attempt
to
 understand
the
rules
for
success
on
that
new
platform.

Chief
among
those
rules
is
this:

Build
 applications
that
harness
network
effects
to
get
better
the
more
people
use
them.

(This
is
what
I've
 elsewhere
called
"harnessing
collective
intelligence.)”

 
 In
general,
the
tools
and
technologies
associated
with
Web
2.0
are:

blogs,
RSS
/
subscription,

 discussion
boards,
wikis,
instant
messaging
(IM),
microblogs,
mashups,
podcast,
vodcast,
crowd‐ sourcing,
prediction
markets,
social
bookmarking,
tagging,
conferencing
tools,
document
repositories,
 presence
tools,
dashboards,
social
networks,
profiles,
directories,
team
platforms,
and
all‐in‐one
 platforms.

 
 Enterprise
2.0
:

A
simple
definition
of
Enterprise
2.0
(or
E2.0)
is
the
business
use
of
Web
2.0.

Andrew
 McAfee
wrote:
“Enterprise
2.0
offers
significant
improvements,
not
just
incremental
ones,
in
areas
 such
as
generating,
capturing,
and
sharing
knowledge;
letting
people
find
helpful
colleagues;
tapping
 into
new
sources
of
innovation
and
expertise;
and
harnessing
the
‘wisdom
of
crowds’”
(p.
15).
 
 Some
typical
business
areas
in
which
E2.0
may
be
utilized
are:
Enterprise
Resource
Planning
(ERP),
 Enterprise
Content
Management
(ECM),
Customer
Relationship
Management
(CRM),
Business
 Process
Management
(BPM)
and
Electronic
Records
Management
to
name
a
few.

Also,
large‐scale
 software
solutions
such
as
Microsoft’s
SharePoint
or
IBM’s
Lotus
software,
Cisco’s
Enterprise
Social
 Software
are
included
in
this
category.
 
 Enterprise
Collaboration
Technology
(ECT):

The
use
of
any
electronic,
software,
or
other
similar
 technology
for
purposes
of
working
together
optimally
in
today’s
large
and
multifaceted
 organizations.

For
this
paper,
the
focus
was
collaborative
and
participative
forms
of
this
technology
 (see
Web
2.0
and
Enterprise
2.0).

This
category
contains
“Enterprise
collaboration
software,”
 “Enterprise
social
software”
and
other
similar
terms.


 
 Officially‐sanctioned
technologies:

Technologies
which
are
installed
on
the
workplace
server,
portal,
 website
or
the
worker’s
computer,
which
may
be
technically
integrated
with
other
such
official
 technologies,
or
those
hardware
solutions
which
are
physically
available
for
work,
which
allow
a
 worker
to
complete
job‐related
tasks.
 
 Unofficially‐sanctioned
technologies:

Technologies
used
by
workers,
apart
from
those
offered
by
 their
employers,
to
complete
job‐related
tasks
or
for
personal
purposes.

 
 Collaboration:

Gray
(1989)
stated
that
collaboration
is
a
process
to
implement
a
shared
vision,
using
 collective
decision‐making,
sharing
responsibility
and
accountability,
all
within
a
culture
of
which
 managers
and
leaders
distribute
rewards
and
benefits
effectively
and
fairly.

Collaboration
is
 associated
with
long‐term
results
(Mattessich,
Murray‐Close,
&
Monsey,
2001),
enhances
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 17. 17
 
 relationships
as
people
act
for
mutual
benefit
(Himmelman,
1992),
all
while
working
towards
value
in
 a
shared
physical
or
virtual
space
(Rosen,
2007).

 
 Generally,
collaboration
falls
into
two
categories.
The
first
category
involves
activities
in
which
people
 work
together
for
purposes
of
innovation
(which
may
include
new
product
development,
models
or
 business
processes,
and
the
second,
which
involves
the
activities
executing
business
processes
 (McReary,
2009).

Stated
in
a
different
way,
Harney
(2007)
wrote:

 
 "Collaboration‐while
certainly
a
collection
of
technologies
like
virtual
project
spaces,
reporting,
and
 Web
conferencing
(all
designed
to
help
people
work
together
better)
‐
is
also
both
a
practice
and
a
 process.

The
practice,
it
can
help
workers
improvise
through
informal
practices
and
technologies
as
 diverse
as
blogs
and
wiki's.

As
a
process,
collaboration
helps
users
conform
to
formal
business
 processes
via
document
‐
centric
process
management
tools
like
process
modeling/routing
and
 document
check
in/check
out
in
version
control"
(p.
30).

 
 Business
collaboration
can
be
measured
by
effectiveness
and
efficiency
(McReary,
2009).
 Effectiveness
measures
the
overall
end‐results
of
collaboration,
while
efficiency
measures
the
 processes
that
lead
to
the
goal.

Execution
includes
all
the
processes
that
operate
on
a
given
day,
 which
are
strategic
in
nature.

Therefore,
collaboration
effects
key
performance
indicators
(“KPIs”)
 and
can
be
measured
by
determining
the
success
of
a
given
process.

Harney
(2007)
compiled
a
list
of
 the
potential
benefits
of
collaboration:

 
 •
Improves
operational
efficiency
by
eliminating
redundant
and
inefficient
older
technologies
 •
Permits
a
virtual
work
 •
Accelerates
project
completion
time
and
fosters
better
project
management

 •
Cuts
costs
due
to
reduced
travel

 •
Teams
are
more
productive,
because
collaboration
enables
interaction
among
individuals
cross
 departments,
business
processes,
applications,
and
organizations
 •
Increases
organizational
agility
as
decisions
are
made
faster
and
with
greater
thought
 •
Allows
companies
to
build
more
customer
intimacy
and
solidify
relationships
 
 Workplace
culture:

Schein
(2004)
defined
the
culture
of
an
organization
as
a
pattern
of
shared
basic
 assumptions
that
was
learned
by
a
group
as
it
solved
its
problems
of
external
adaptation
and
internal
 integration,
that
has
worked
well
enough
to
be
considered
valid
and,
therefore,
to
be
taught
to
new
 members
as
the
correct
way
to
perceive,
think,
and
feel
in
relation
to
those
problems
(p.
17).
 According
to
him,
culture
is
one
of
the
most
difficult
elements
to
change
in
a
given
organization.

 
 Hofstede
and
Hofstede
(2005)
defined
organizational
culture
as
“the
collective
programming
of
the
 mind
that
distinguishes
the
members
of
one
organization
from
another”
(p.
286).

The
culture
of
an
 organization
consists
of
the
shared
values,
beliefs,
and
assumptions
of
an
organization
on
how
it
 should
behave
(Quinn
&
Cameron,
2006;
Yukl,
2006).

The
culture
of
an
organization
establishes
its
 character;
it
spurs
work
towards
the
development
of
specific
kinds
of
resources
and
the
instillation
of
 values
(Quinn
&
Cameron,
1983;
Quinn
&
Rohrbaugh,
1983).

The
output
of
an
organization
culture,
 its
products
or
services,
is
a
direct
reflection
of
the
culture
itself
(Alvesson,
2002).
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 18. 18
 
 
 Company’s
Mission,
Vision,
and
Values:
A
company’s
Mission
is
its
overall
purpose
for
existing.
A
 company’s
Vision
is
a
description,
picture,
or
metaphor
of
what
or
how
the
company
may
look
like
 after
its
strategy
is
implemented
and
it
attains
its
goals
for
future
development.

Company’s
Values
 are
beliefs,
attitudes,
behaviors,
and
mental
models
encouraged
by
leadership
or
the
work
culture
for
 entering
and
current
employees.


 
 Data
handling
 
 All
data
was
utilized
for
this
report,
regardless
if
every
individual
completed
the
question
or
not.

 When
a
question
had
distinct
and
separate
levels
for
a
variable,
a
weight
was
associated
to
each
 level.
The
chosen
system
was
{2,1,‐1,2}.

For
example,
the
values
{2,1,‐1,2}
were
assigned
to
“Strongly
 agree
(2),”
“Agree
(1),”
“Neither
agree
nor
disagree,”
“Disagree
(‐1),”
and
“Strongly
disagree
(‐2).”

 When
people
declined
to
respond
to
a
question
(i.e.
“N/A”),
they
were
not
counted.

Averages
were
 calculated
from
these
{2,1,‐1,2}
assigned
values,
however,
if
a
question
had
a
“no
/
negative”
 statement
provided,
averages
were
not
calculated
(example
Figure
24).

For
Figures
17
and
21,
a
 system
of
{3,2,1,0}
was
used.

For
collaborative
work
culture
variables
(Figures
25
through
31),
the
 scores
for
negatively
collaborative
statements
were
flipped
(‐1
<
>
1,

‐2
<
>
2),
as
to
align
with
 corresponding
positive
questions
in
the
category.

Therefore,
positive
values
for
categories
associate
 with
positive
collaboration
support.

Finally,
written
statements
provided
by
participants
were
not

 included
for
simplicity
of
report
and
time.

 
 Limitations
/
Disclaimers
 
 This
survey/study
was
available
for
about
45
days
on
the
web.

Therefore,
those
individuals
who
were
 unaware
of
this
survey
or
had
difficulty
accessing
a
web‐based
survey
were
not
sampled.

 
 The
selection
of
participants
was
not
random.

First,
a
financial
incentive
($25
VISA
gift
cards)
was
 offered
to
up
to
ten
(10)
randomly
sampled
participants,
one
reward
given
for
every
50
“complete
 surveys.”

Thus,
seven
random
participants
(n=372)
were
provided
this
reward.

It
is
unclear
if
these
 financial
incentives
skewed
the
data
in
any
way.

Second,
it
is
expected
that
only
those
familiar
with
 Enterprise
Collaboration
Technology
(ECT)
and
actively
used
Web
2.0
took
part
in
this
survey.

For
 example,
the
survey
was
advertised/offered
using
such
methods
as
the
E2.0
Pros
Website
/
Blog,
 LinkedIn
groups
and
connections,
Twitter,
and
personal
networks
via
e‐mail.

So,
figures
may
actually
 be
higher
than
they
actually
are
in
practice.
 
 The
questions
and
methods
used
to
determine
these
results
relied
on
attitudes,
perceptions,
beliefs,
 and
behavior,
not
necessarily
‘hard’
metrics
such
as
financial
or
business
results.

For
example,
it
is
 unclear
whether
unofficial
ECT
actually
takes
less
time,
is
better
for
collaboration,
or
if
these
results
 are
belief
only.
Regardless,
subjectivity
is
important
for
understanding,
and
to
complete
the
research,
 quantitative
studies
would
be
added
to
aid
understanding.

Additionally,
wording,
order,
and
choice
of
 questions
were
created
by
the
researcher
(based
on
literature
and
personal
experience)
and
may
not
 represent
completeness
of
concepts
or
rule
out
psychological
reactions
to
the
survey
questions.

 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 19. 19
 
 
 Therefore,
this
report
and
associated
data
is
for
educational
purposes
only.

The
hiring
of
a
trained
 researcher
or
consultant
to
create
a
unique,
structured,
and
complete
study
of
your
company
is
 desired
before
using
this
report
to
make
any
large
decisions.

 
 References
 
 Alvesson,
M.
(2002).
Understanding
organizational
culture.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
SAGA.
 
 Gray,
B.
(1989).
Collaborating:
Finding
common
ground
for
multiparty
problems.
San
Francisco:
Jossey‐Bass.
 
 Harney,
J.
(2007,
July/August).
The
consolidation
of
collaboration.
Edacmagazine.com,

p.
30.

 
 Himmelman,
A.
T.
(1992).
On
the
theory
and
practice
of
transformational
collaboration:
 From
social
service
to
social
justice.
In
C.
Huxham
(Ed.),
1996,
Creating
collaborative
advantage
(pp.
19‐43).
Thousand
 Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
 
 nd Hofstede,
G.,
&
Hofstede,
G.
J.
(2005).
Cultures
and
organizations:
Software
of
the
mind
(2 
ed.).
New
York:
McGraw‐Hill.
 
 Mattessich,
P.
W.,
Murray‐Close,
M.,
&
Monsey,
B.
R.
(2001).
Collaboration:
What
makes
it
work
(2nd
ed.).
St
Paul,
MN:
 Wilder
Publishing
Center
of
the
Amherst
H.
Wilder
Foundation.
 
 McAfee,
A.
(2009).
Enterprise
2.0:
New
collaborative
tools
for
your
organization’s
toughest

 challenges.
Boston,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press.
 
 McCreary,
B.
(2009).
Web
collaboration
–
How
it
is
impacting
business.
American
Journal
of

 Business,
24(2),
7‐9.
 
 O’Reilly,
T.

(2006).
Web
2.0
Compact
definition:
Trying
again.

 http://radar.oreilly.com/2006/12/web‐20‐compact‐definition‐tryi.html
 
 Quinn,
R.
E.
&
Cameron,
K.
(1983).
Organizational
life
cycles
and
shifting
criteria
of
effectiveness:
Some
preliminary
 evidence.
Management
Science,
29.

 
 Quinn,
R.
E.
&
Rohrbaugh,
J.
(1983).
A
spatial
model
of
effectiveness
criteria:
Toward
a
competing
values
approach
to
 organizational
analysis.
Management
Science,
29.
 
 Rosen,
E.
(2007).
The
Culture
of
Collaboration:
Maximizing
Time,
talent
and
tools
to
create
value
in
the
global
economy.
 San
Francisco,
CA:
Red
Ape
Publishing
 
 Schein,
E.
H.
(2004).
Organizational
Culture
and
leadership.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey‐Bass.
 
 Yukl,
G.
(2006).
Leadership
in
organizations
(6th
ed.).
Upper
Saddle
River,
NJ:
Pearson‐Prentice
Hall.
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 20. 20
 
 APPENDIX
 
 DEMOGRAPHICS
DATA
 
 
Figure
1:
Participant’s
sex
 
 n=517
 
 
 Figure
2:
Participant’s
age
 
 n
=
517.
Average
male
=
44.28
years
old,
female
=
43
years
old
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 21. 21
 
 Figure
3:
Participant’s
highest
level
of
education
[country’s
equiv.]
 
 n
=
517
 
 
 Figure
4:
Participant’s
primary
work
industry

 
 n
=
517
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 22. 22
 
 Figure
5:
Participant’s
current
work
role
 
 n=
513
 
 
 Figure
6:
Participant’s
work
department
or
“silo”
 
 n=
513
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 23. 23
 
 Figure
7:
Participant’s
company
size
 
 n=
513
 
 Figure
8:
Participant’s
time
in
current
company
 
 n=
509
 
 
 Figure
9:
Percentage
of
participant’s
using
Enterprise
Collaborative
Technologies
(ECT)
for
job
related
 tasks?

 
 %
 Yes
 99
 No
 1
 n=509
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 24. 24
 
 ENTERPRISE
COLLABORATION
TECHNOLOGY
(ECT)
 
 Figure
10:
Departmental
/
Team
adoption
of
ECT
 
 n=
498
 
 Figure
11:
Overall
organization
adoption
of
ECT
 
 n=
498
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 25. 25
 
 Figure
12:
List
of
“officially
sanctioned”
ECT
technologies
in
the
enterprise
 
 n=
498
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 26. 26
 
 Figure
13:
List
of
“unofficial”
ECT
used
on
the
job

 
 n=
486
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 27. 27
 
 Figure
14:
Overall
effectiveness
of
“Officially
sanctioned”
ECT
 
 n=
486,
Average
=
0.0909
when
using
(2,1,‐1,‐2),
Neither
effective
nor
ineffective
 
 
 Figure
15:
The
Collaboration
effectiveness
of
“Officially
sanctioned”
ECT
 
 n=
486,
Average
=
‐0.103
when
using
(2,1,‐1,‐2),
Neither
effective
nor
ineffective
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 28. 28
 
 Figure
16.
The
integration
of
“Officially
sanctioned”
ECT
 
 n=
483,
Average
=
‐0.3265,
when
using
(2,1,‐1,‐2),
Neither
integrated
nor
unintegrated
 
 Figure
17.
The
timeliness
of
“Officially
sanctioned”
ECT
 
 n=
482,
Average
=
1.7346
when
using
(3,2,1,‐0),
towards
“much
time”
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 29. 29
 
 Figure
18.
Overall
effectiveness
of
“Unofficial”
ECT
 
 n=
479,
Average
=
1.5773,
when
using
(2,1,‐1,‐2),
towards
“very
effective”
 
 Figure
19.
The
Collaboration
effectiveness
of
“Unofficial”
ECT

 
 n=
478,
Average
=
0.9587,
when
using
(2,1,‐1,‐2),
“Effective”
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 30. 30
 
 Figure
20.
The
integration
of
“Unofficial”
ECT

 
 n=
476,
Average
=
‐0.4183,
when
using
(2,1,‐1,‐2),
towards
“Unintegrated”
 
 
 Figure
21.
The
timeliness
of
“Unofficial”
ECT

 
 n=
475,
Average
=
0.5833
when
using
(3,2,1,0),
towards
“Average
amount
of
time”
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 31. 31
 
 Figure
22.
Clearity
and
consistency
of
ECT
/
social
media
policies
 
 n
=
472,
trend
towards
no
policies
or
unclear
policies
 
 Figure
23.
Expertise
level
of
“Officially
sanctioned”
ECT

 
 n=
472.
Average
=
1.3131,
when
using
(‐2,‐1,0,1,2),
“Good”
 
 
 Figure
24.
Effectiveness
of
training
for
“Officially
sanctioned”
ECT

 
 n=
467,Trend
towards
no
training
offered
or
ineffective
training
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 32. 32
 
 WORKPLACE
CULTURE:
COLLABORATION
 
 Figure
25.
Workplace
culture
[Group
1]

 
 n=
445
 
 Figure
26.
Workplace
culture
[Group
2]

 
 n
=
441
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 33. 33
 
 Figure
27.
Workplace
culture
[Group
3]

 
 n
=
439
 
 Figure
28.
Workplace
culture
[Group
4]

 
 n=
431
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 34. 34
 
 Figure
29.
Workplace
culture
[Group
5]

 
 n=
420
 
 
 Figure
30.
Some
other
variables…


 
 n
=
415
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 35. 35
 
 Figure
31.
Collaboration:
performance
reviews,
rewards
 
 n
=
413
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 36. 36
 
 Figure
32.
The
state
of
Collaborative
Work
Cultures
–
Variable
list
 Collaborative
Vision
 Control
 “The
budget
seems
to
be
large
enough
for
ECT
efforts”
 “My
organization
seems
to
be
controlling
of
employees”

 “Clear
goals
for
collaboration
are
set”
 “I
am
able
to
lead
myself
for
the
most
part”
 “My
job
roles
are
clear”
 
 
 Participation
/
Knowledge
creation
 Collaboration
Measurement
/
Reward
 “People
from
above
are
the
knowledge
makers”
 “Employees
are
rewarded
for
gaining
broad
input”
 “I
am
a
participator
in
my
organization,
not
a
consumer”

 “Collaboration
is
clearly
measured”

 “I
am
able
to
create
knowledge
for
others
to
use”

 “Collaboration
is
clearly
rewarded”

 
 “Performance
reviews
include
teamwork
or
collaboration”
 Creativity
/
Innovation
 “Performance
reviews
include
cross‐departmental
 “Creativity
is
valued”
 collaboration”
 “Meetings
are
spontaneously
scheduled”
 “Performance
reviews
include
employees
helping
other”
 “I
am
encouraged
to
try
new
ways
to
be
productive”

 
 “I
can
think
outside‐the‐box
in
my
company”
 Internal
competition
 
 “It
is
a
‘star
performer’
culture”

 Decision
making
 “We
compete,
more
than
collaborate”

 “We
are
overly
risky/cautious
in
decision
making”
 “Individuals
are
rewarded
over
teams”
 “Our
organization
values
chaos,
over
planning
ideas”
 
 “Decisions
are
made
quickly”

 Relationships
 “Consensus
is
valued
over
speed”

 “Managers
introduce
employees
to
each
other”
 “I
am
able
to
constructively
criticize
my
teammates”
 “I
am
able
to
create
new
relationships
easily,
regardless
of
 “I
am
able
to
constructively
criticize
my
supervisor
or
 department”

 leaders”
 “I
routinely
work
with
people
from
other
departments”
 
 “I
am
familiar
with
other
departments
and
their
 Risk
taking
 employees”
 “We
seem
to
be
more
concerned
with
security
over
 “I
am
familiar
with
other
departments
and
their
goals”
 productivity”
 
 “We
are
in
a
compliance‐
or
legal‐driven
industry”

 Organizational
openness
 The
legal
department
advises
against
ECT”

 “I
am
able
to
ask
for
information
from
managers
in
other
 “Human
Resources
advises
against
ECT”

 departments”
 
 “I
have
easy
access
to
information
to
do
my
job”
 Training
 “Employees,
managers,
and
leaders
are
accessible
 “I
have
mentors
from
other
departments
who
help
train
/
 regardless
of
status”

 guide
me”

 “Budgets
are
open
to
all
/
Transparent
finances”
 “I
have
mentors
from
my
department
who
help
train
/
 
 guide
me”
 Sharing
 
 “People
share”

 Work
/
Life
balance
 “People
hoard
knowledge”
 “Management
allows
me
to
have
a
personal
life
as
well”
 “I
can
ask
people
for
help
at
anytime”
 “Management
has
created
a
comfortable
work
 
 environment”
 
 
 
 Note:
Countless
variables
exist
in
the
literature
for
collaboration
and
work
cultures.
These
groupings
tend
to
overlap,
and
 this
particular
arangement
was
chosen
based
on
literature
review,
personal
experience,
and
reports.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 37. 37
 
 Figure
33.
The
state
of
Collaborative
Work
Cultures
–
Overall
study
 
 Note:
Averages
from
all
reporting
participants
(2
to
‐2),
with
positive
values
considered
helpful
to
collaboration.

 
 Figure
34.
Collaboration
rewards

 
 n=
407
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 38. 38
 
 Figure
35.
Please
select
the
five
best
reasons
why
you
think
ECT
is
helpful
for
your
organization:

 
 n
=
405
 
 ORGANIZATION
STRATEGY,
STRUCTURE
AND
LEADERSHIP
 
 Figure
36.
“Decider”
for
overall
business
strategy
 
 n
=
399
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 39. 39
 
 Figure
37.
“Decider”
for
departmental
strategy

 
 n
=
394
 
 
 Figure
38.
“Decider”
for
team
strategy

 
 n
=
394
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 40. 40
 
 Figure
39.
Who
has
the
most
say
in
how
you
do
you
job?

 
 n
=
387
 
 Figure
40.
Organization
structure

 
 n
=
375
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 41. 41
 
 Figure
41.
Familiarity
with
Mission
Statement
of
organization

 
 n
=
373,
Average
=
0.5729,
when
using
(‐2,‐1,1,2),
towards
“Familiar”
 
 
 Figure
42.
Familiarity
with
Vision
Statement
of
organization

 
 n
=
372.
Average
=
0.0105,
when
using
(‐2,‐1,1,2),
“Neither
familiar
nor
unfamiliar”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com 
 
 

  • 42. 42
 
 Figure
43.
Familiarity
with
company
Values

 
 n
=
372.
Average
=
0.8958,
when
using
(‐2,‐1,1,2),
towards
“Familiar”
 
 
 Figure
44.
Would
I
recommend
my
company
to
others?
 
 n
=
416,
Average
=
‐0.1808,
when
using
(‐2,‐1,1,2),
“Neither
agree
nor
disagree”
 
 
 
 
 ”Building
Collaborative
Enterprises”
‐
http://e20pros.com