by Ross Dawson, Feb 11, 2009
http://socialcomputingmagazine.com/

Recently I have been immersing myself in the Enterprise 2.0 space, organizing the second annual Enterprise 2.0 Executive Forum which is coming up very soon, writing the Implementing Enterprise 2.0 Report which will be launched at the same time (slightly afterwards for the international market), and helping a variety of large organizations to drive their Enterprise 2.0 initiatives forward.

It’s been a long time since I came up with my definition for Enterprise 2.0 as below. While I generally dislike jargon and the liberal addition of “2.0″ to words, I find the term Enterprise 2.0 highly meaningful because it is, in addition to tapping the value of Web 2.0 in a specific context, literally about creating the next version of the organization.

What stayed with me more than anything else from Andrew McAfee’s speech at our inaugural Enterprise 2.0 Executive Forum last year, was one of his key conclusions: “Enterprise 2.0 will make companies less similar” (or as I always remembered it, ‘Enterprise 2.0 makes companies more different’).

Indeed, from a corporate perspective I think that Enterprise 2.0 is meaningless unless it results in competitive advantage, making organizations truly different from their competitors. While I fundamentally disagree with Nicholas Carr’s thesis that ‘IT doesn’t matter,’ the reality is he is largely right when considering most enterprise technology up until now, which has focused on business processes. However Enterprise 2.0 is in a completely different class because it is fundamentally social: it is about how people connect. Anyone who has been exposed to Web 2.0-style initiatives in organizations knows that how people use (or don’t use) social technologies are largely a function of the culture of the organization.

As such, any Enterprise 2.0 initiatives sit squarely at the intersection of technology and culture. These are technologies that facilitate interaction and the creation of value through participation, but the technologies are only as valuable as people’s desire to interact, collaborate, and create something worthwhile together.

This means that any attempt to implement Enterprise 2.0 tools and approaches are dependent on both the culture of the organization today, but even more importantly, where the culture of the organization is heading. No change is almost as bad as a poor culture. The culture must be dynamic and have positive momentum for Enterprise 2.0 approaches to thrive and prosper, as they are all about making things different.

There is no one-size-fits-all for Enterprise 2.0 implementation. While we can certainly learn from what others have done well and not-so-well, every organization must find the path to value that will prosper in its own unique conditions. And so far the record is that fewer organizations have succeeded massively than have failed. This is not an easy path to take.

This means that any successful implementation of Enterprise 2.0 CANNOT be replicated. Since it exists at the intersection of technology and culture, no other company can duplicate what it has done, buy the same technology and set up the same pilots, and expect anything like the same thing to happen.

It is precisely the challenges of creating value from Enterprise 2.0 that make it so valuable. If you do it well, you will absolutely have created a more efficient, effective, productive, innovative, engaged organization than your competitors. And they won’t have a hope of doing the same.

by NewsGator Daily Blog, Jan. 12, 2009
http://blogs.newsgator.com

The concept of reciprocity was driven home to me last week when using TripAdvisor. This is one of my favorite travel sites as it employs a large and active community of fellow travelers who write reviews and share information. I use the site every time I travel to check out the real scoop on my intended destination and have been doing so for years. I was finally inspired to “give back” and be a good Web 2.0 citizen by writing a review of the Park Central New York hotel in Manhattan. This desire was purely intrinsic and I got to wondering what inspires reciprocity for enterprise social computing initiatives.
Certainly, that same spirit of giving back can and does exist in the workplace. This spirit may be inspired by the culture and it is this type of cultural influence that will greatly enhance opportunities for successful adoption and greater business value. But, what about more extrinsic factors? Rewards? Recognition? Compensation? They all matter and it is the wise organization that addresses these issues head-on when deploying social computing technologies within the enterprise. Of course, to enact any such program, metrics will be requested and perhaps even required. This is a far from trivial task. Andrew McAfee has written an excellent post proposing a model for Enterprise 2.0 Ratings, but there are many more qualitative criteria that could apply and should be used. Some examples might include:
• Decreased time to get an answer to a question
• Number of new connections made amongst people who haven’t worked together in the past
• Decrease in email volume specifically related to collaboration or content sharing
• Increase in expertise or knowledge discovery – “Are you more knowledgeable in subject matter X as a result of using social computing?”
• Increase in end user “satisfaction” – are end users seeing real value and how do they define that value?
Without reciprocity, enterprise social computing efforts can become dominated by a handful of more vocal and active participants which misses the point. It is the nature of emergent knowledge that is the key to realizing the profound benefits offered by blogs, wikis, communities, tagging and bookmarking.

A value of extreme importance for the construction of an ethical relationship between persons and companies is sustainability, with particular attention given to concepts of Social and Energy Budget.
Our focus is directed to the service sector, where the lack of a process production, makes complex the measurement of consumption and pollution, and so the drafting of any ethical budget.
Exploitation the versatility of community, moolidoo acting on culture, customs and habits of individual and company to develop an Ethical Budget where everyone is responsible and accountable for its network, giving a breath of fresh air the whole system.
The features which moolidoo is developing will permits the company to understand the convergence or divergence between the guidelines drawn by the company from those individual and possibly act on the individual to encourage and promote ethical behavior.

Generally and equally wrong with the term e-Learning we mean the learning linked to any type of media
supports. In reality is Internet / Web that distinguishes e-Learning from other methods of distance learning.

Recently, there was the pervasive invasion of Web 2.0 and e-Learning is a fertile field where is possible to develop the concepts related to ethics, sociality and cooperation.

While the use of Web 1.0, has allowed the development of the first e-Learning course, Web 2.0 now allows you to revive and to strengthen cooperation and mutual help of which e-Learning sinned than the classroom training.

Taking advantage of the tools of the 4c, students can interact with each other using the Internet platforms: forums to exchange information and advice, instant messenger to develop a more direct relation, media sharing for share notes and issue, but also wikis, tags, and social network to create study groups. All this is further be able to integrated with the direct intervention of teacher, who may respond to requests for all pupils / students, responding only once.

But that’s not all gold that glitters. As in classroom training, e-Learning 2.0 too, can create rivalry among students, as the contrast between figure more or less collaborative.

moolidoo with its ethical focus on reputation and stimulation collaboration between people, especially within team, is able to cope with these risks, providing the opportunity to every student, but also to the teacher himself, to develop a network of relations based on gratification, which allows to increase their own reputation and moos balance, but also and especially to improve the quality of content and study shared.