enterprise 2.0 study

748 views

Published on

This 2010 Enterprise 2.0 study presents the answers of 281 participants – it is focused on the organizational & cultural consequences of „Enterprise 2.0“

Published in: Business
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
748
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

enterprise 2.0 study

  1. 1. Enterprise 2.0State-of-the-Art, objectives, consequences &critical success factors
  2. 2. Table of Contents 1. Background 2. Objectives and participants 3. Key results 4. ConclusionWiesbaden Business School 2
  3. 3. Social Media sites are dominating the InternetTop 10 web sites 03/2006 06/2010 1. Yahoo 1. Google 2. Microsoft 2. Facebook 3. MSN 3. YouTube 4. Google 4. Yahoo 5. AOL 5. Live 6. Ebay 6. Wikipedia 7. Mapquest 7. Baidu 8. Amazon 8. Blogger 9. Real 9. MSN 10. Myspace 10. QQ Quelle: Nielsen//NetRatings Quelle: http://www.alexa.com Basierend auf Unique Visitors Basierend auf Unique Visitors Wiesbaden Business School 3
  4. 4. „Enterprise 2.0“ describes the internal use of Social Media to achievegreater effectiveness and efficiency within companiesEnterprise 2.0 vs. Web 2.0 Social Media Company- Company- externally internally Web 2.0 Enterprise 2.0 • 2003 mentioned in CIO Magazin for • The term was defined in 2006 by the first time Andrew McAfee • 2005 made popular by Tim O‘Reilly • It describes the use of Social Media / • The term describes the changing use Web 2.0 in companies as well as in of the Internet communication with business partners and clients • Internet-Users generate, change and share information themselves • Areas of application: internal and external communication, knowledge • Possibilities of use: wikis, webblogs, management, business process web forums, social networks etc. optimization, project coordination etc. Improvement of Interactive use of effectiveness & the Internet efficiency Wiesbaden Business School 4
  5. 5. But Enterprise 2.0 doesn‘t end with the use of Web 2.0 technologies, itrequires organizational & cultural changeEnterprise 2.0 – A combination of technolgies & cultural change Use of technologies & tools Organizational & cultural change + Wiesbaden Business School 5
  6. 6. Table of Contents 1. Background 2. Objectives and participants 3. Key results 4. ConclusionWiesbaden Business School 6
  7. 7. This study concentrates on the organizational & cultural consequences ofthe development towards an „Enterprise 2.0“ companyObjectives Objectice category Precised research questions • What is a company‘s understanding of „Enterprise 2.0“? Comprehension • How important do they consider cultural change? • How many companies work on E2.0 concepts? State-of-the-Art • To what extent do companies implement E2.0? • What are objectives? Objectives • Is the existing potential used? Organizational & • What organizational & cultural changes are expected? cultural consequences • What changes have already been realized? Crititcal success • What factors are particularly critical for success? factors • What are the biggest risks? Wiesbaden Business School 7
  8. 8. The results of the study are based on the answers of the 281 participantsParticipants Overview of the participants by branch of business Supplemental explanations • Size of the company: 437 Total respondents − 56% >500 employees Others − 44% <500 employees Public sector 7% • Company locations: 9% − 43% only national Industry 16% − 57% international 281 • Area of function: 68% − 42% HR Service − 16% Management board − 8% Marketing/PR − … not completely 156 analyzable • Gender: data sets − 47% female − 53% male Wiesbaden Business School 8
  9. 9. Table of Contents 1. Background 2. Objectives and participants 3. Key results 4. ConclusionWiesbaden Business School 9
  10. 10. Table of Contents 1. Background 2. Objectives and participants 3. Key results • Comprehension • State-of-the-Art • Objectives • Organizational & cultural consequences • Critical success factors 4. ConclusionWiesbaden Business School 10
  11. 11. The majority of participants know the term „Enterprise 2.0“ – but not evena third can give a precise definitionComprehension – Acknowledgement of the term „Enterprise 2.0“ No I know and 14% understand the term 31% I have heard of it, but have no precise 23% imagination of what it really is 32% I know the term, but cannot give a definition Wiesbaden Business School 11
  12. 12. For most of the participants „Enterprise 2.0“ describes the use of Web 2.0concepts and technologiesComprehension – Comprehension of the term „Enterprise 2.0“ (1/2) Use of Web 2.0 – technologies in companies 80% Use of Web. 2.0 – technologies 61% in communication to stakeholders Change in corporate culture towards an open internal 55% and external communication Direct participation of employees 50% in creation, development and repartition of information Approach of activation of „collective intelligence“ 49% that already exists in the company Enabling unhindered exchange of knowledge 49% Use of Web 2.0 by companies 49% for marketing and PR purposes Companies that provide Web 2.0 technology 19% (Facebook, Twitter) Others 3% Wiesbaden Business School 12
  13. 13. Participants that know and understand “Enterprise 2.0”, see culturalchange as an essential partComprehension – Comprehension of the term „Enterprise 2.0“ (2/2) Acceptance of cultural aspects of those participants that know and understand the term … Change in corporate culture towards 81% an open internal and external communication • Participants that really know and understand Direct participation of employees the term „Enterprise in creation, development and repartition 74% 2.0“, recognize the of information cultural aspects in a much higher extent Approach of activation of „collective • Obviously it requires a intelligence“ that already exists 77% in the company certain level of maturity for „Enterprise E2.0“ Enabling unhindered 82% exchange of knowledge … Wiesbaden Business School 13
  14. 14. Table of Contents 1. Background 2. Objectives and participants 3. Key results • Comprehension • State-of-the-Art • Objectives • Organizational & cultural consequences • Critical success factors 4. ConclusionWiesbaden Business School 14
  15. 15. The majority of the participants is already working on the Enterprise 2.0topicState-of-the Art – Status No, we purposely don‘t get engaged in this topic Yes, the topic is 11% systematically managed 17%No, we didn‘t give a thought aboutthis topic yet 26% 29% Yes, but only situational, not systematically managed 16% Yes, we are currently in planning Wiesbaden Business School 15
  16. 16. There is a boom since 2008State-of-the Art – Development over time (number of Enterprise 2.0 companies) 56% 175+ 157 31% 86 13% 9% 6% 37 24 17 before 2006 since 2006 since 2007 since 2008 since 2009 since 2010 Pioneers Early followers Large majority? Wiesbaden Business School 16
  17. 17. Noticeably, companies that work with Enterprise 2.0 since 2007 or earlier,recognize culture as an essential factorState-of-the Art – Development over time & cultural change 175+ 157 86 37 17 24 before 2006 since 2006 since 2007since 2008 since 2009 since 2010 Rejection 24% 76% Culture is recognized as an essential factor Apparently it requires a certain level of maturity for „Enterprise 2.0“ to acknowledge the importance of the cultural aspect. Wiesbaden Business School 17
  18. 18. The use of Social Media in business has not yet reached the stage ofdevelopment of its use in private lifeState-of-the Art – Active use of Social Media (privately vs. on business) 75% 70 60 57% 50 52% 40 34% 30% Private use 30 25% 20 20% Usage in companies 18% 16% 15% 10 0 Virtual Communication Exchange Collective Distribution networking in social of work with of networks knowledge Collaboration information in Wikis & Software & news Forums Even the rate of private use of Collaboration Software is higher! Wiesbaden Business School 18
  19. 19. Table of Contents 1. Background 2. Objectives and participants 3. Key results • Comprehension • State-of-the-Art • Objectives • Organizational & cultural consequences • Critical success factors 4. ConclusionWiesbaden Business School 19
  20. 20. Enterprise 2.0 focusses mainly on knowledge and innovation – it is notsupposed to satisfy employee interestsObjectives Providing implicit knowledge 51% Improvement of the storage of knowledge/information 49% Increase in the ability for innovation 39% Improvement of the company‘s image (externally) 39% Identification and activation of unused potential of employees 37% Improvement of internal coordination 36% Improvement of the recruiting of new employees 31% Closer customer relationships, direct communication to customers 27% Increase in identification of employees with the company 23% Improvement of employee motivation 14% Increase in employee satisfaction 10% Improvement of the employee‘s Work-Life-Balance 7% Others 3% Wiesbaden Business School 20
  21. 21. Table of Contents 1. Background 2. Objectives and participants 3. Key results • Comprehension • State-of-the-Art • Objectives • Organizational & cultural consequences • Critical success factors 4. ConclusionWiesbaden Business School 21
  22. 22. As a consequence of Enterprise 2.0 activities a more open and innovativecorporate culture is expectedOrganizational & cultural consequences (expected)More open communication 63%More open access to information 53%More intensive cooperation between areas and departments 48%Improved innovation culture 41%More possibilities for virtual working 31%Higher degree of autonomous self-monitoring 29%Less physical meetings 26%Less rounds of approvals 23%„Indistinct“ separation of private and business life 20%More decentralized external communication 17%Flatter hierarchy 13%More cooperative leadership style 11%More possibilities for participation concerning strategic decisions 10%Encouragement of entrepreneurship 9%Others 2% Wiesbaden Business School 22
  23. 23. The expected organizational & cultural consequences are only partlyrealized – especially concerning innovative cultureOrganizational & cultural consequences (expected vs. realized)More open communication 63% 48%More open access to information 53% 30%More intensive cooperation between areas and departments 48% 29%Improved innovation culture 41% 13% 31%More possib ilities for virtual working 29% 29%Higher degree of autonomous self-monitoring 17%Less physical meetings 26% 22%Less rounds of approvals 23% 15%„Indistinct“ separation of private and business life 20% 25%More decentralized external communication 17% 9%Flatter hierarchy 13% 5%More cooperative leadership style 11% 6%More possibilities for participation concerning strategic decisions 10% Erwartet 8%Encouragement of entrepreneurship 9% Realisiert 6%Others 2% 2% Wiesbaden Business School 23
  24. 24. Table of Contents 1. Background 2. Objectives and participants 3. Key results • Comprehension • State-of-the-Art • Objectives • Organizational & cultural consequences • Critical success factors 4. ConclusionWiesbaden Business School 24
  25. 25. The most critical success factor for Enterprise 2.0 projects is theexemplification of an „open“ culture by the corporate management teamCSF No. 1: Exemplification of an „open“ culture by the corporate management team Required implementaion measures: Exemplification of an „open“ culture by the corporate mgmt. 72% Specific & more active informing of employees 51% Encouraging of independent working 39% Implementation of training programs (managers) 39% Implementation of training programs (employees) 39% Recruiting of managers that live the Enterprise 2.0 culture 37% Recruiting of Web 2.0 affine employees 35% Adaption of company‘s guidelines 34% Recruiting of employees that live the Enterprise 2.0 culture 29% Removing of organizational hierarchy levels 9% Others 3% Wiesbaden Business School 25
  26. 26. In many companies a clear and central responsibility for the topic ismissing – the corporate management is only rarely in the „Driver Seat“CSF No. 2: Definition of clear responsibilities Enterprise 2.0 responsibility: Everyone that is concerned with the topic 27% Marketing department 14% Department of strategy, planning and organization 11% HR department 9% Enterprise 2.0 project 7% IT department 7% Corporate management / management board / owner 6% Company communication 3% The company department „Enterprise 2.0“, „Web 2.0“ 2% Others 2% None 4% Not applicable 8% Wiesbaden Business School 26
  27. 27. It is also critical to maintain control – especially companies that arealready working on Enterprise 2.0 recognize a high risk of losing controlCSF No. 3: Maintenance of control Enterprise 2.0 risks: 44% Risk of loss of control 15% 31% Risk of a decrease in productivity (for example through chats, blogs etc.) 18% 30% No measurable use observable 31% 27% Risk of losing know-how 13% 17% High implementation costs 12% 10% Risk of losing authority 10% Companies that are working on E2.0 Companies that aren‘t working on E2.0 Wiesbaden Business School 27
  28. 28. Table of Contents 1. Background 2. Objectives and participants 3. Key results 4. ConclusionWiesbaden Business School 28
  29. 29. The key results of the study can be summarized as followsConclusion • Despite the facts that many companies know the term „Enterprise 2.0“ and that there is a boom since 2008 – many companies have not yet realized all consequences of E2.0 • To activate the existing knowledge within the company a rethinking in the heads of the employees and especially the managers is required • The study shows that the importance of cultural changes as well as the risks of E2.0 are often only recognized with a certain experience and a certain level of maturity • The creation of an “open” culture that enables the company to activate the collective intelligence in combination with the protection of key competitive knowledge will be the key challenge on the way to become an real Enterprise 2.0 company Wiesbaden Business School 29
  30. 30. Finally, I would like to give you an Enterprise 2.0 definition based on ourstudy resultsConclusion – Definition of “Enterprise 2.0” „Enterprise 2.0“ describes companies that use Social Media concepts and technologies internally and with business partners. The objective is the activation of the collective intelligence through the direct involvement of different stakeholders in the creation, processing and distribution of information and knowledge. The transformation to an „Enterprise 2.0“ goes hand in hand with a cultural change towards an open internal and external communication. Wiesbaden Business School 30
  31. 31. Feel free to contact usContacts / Authors Prof. Dr. Thorsten Petry Organization & HRM Wiesbaden Business School / Hochschule RheinMain thorsten.petry@hs-rm.de Florian Schreckenbach Managing Director Talential GmbH florian.schreckenbach@talential.com Wiesbaden Business School 31

×