KPMG has a whitepaper pointing to some of the benefits and hurdles to implementing 'Enterprise 2.0′ technologies. In the press release, Crispin O'Brien, KPMG's head of technology is quoted as saying:
"While Enterprise 2.0 clearly has the potential to improve business efficiency, communication and encourage innovation and problem solving, there are concerns over security, confidentiality and in some countries cultural and legal issues. Companies need to be alert to the dangers that free comment made in wikis and blogs may be libellous or infringe employee rights laws."
Let's remember this is KPMG so any problem means a consulting opportunity. But let's also consider the realities:
- Define security? If the technology is for behind the firewall usage then it's a non-issue - or it should be a non-issue. If we're talking about the leaking of corporate secrets then there are more fundamental questions to be asked. For instance, I'd ask what the company is paranoid about in the first place.
- Confidentiality: easy. You set a sensible blogging policy or guidelines that are enforceable but light touch. Sun has been doing this successfully for years.
- Libel etc. At last week's London Wiki Wednesday, it was confirmed that no-one in the room could bring to mind a single case where a wiki has been abused. There are risks and new entrants need to be carefully brought online but there are technologies in place that allow for editing processes. The new version of Blogtronix for example has that capability.
Cultural issues: This is the big one. Crispin goes on to say:
...The Baby Boomers in senior management are wrestling with how to reap the benefits of Generation Y technologies. Institutional cultures or norms may work against sharing information and hierarchical structures may also impede progress. Social networking requires a high volume of active participants and regular postings, many wikis and blogs fail due to lack of interest, so commitment is key for companies taking this route.
There is a lot of truth in this but also some fallacies so let's unpack the problems:
- My generation of Baby Boomers have been brought up with command and control management methods. For many business processes, that is the right approach. But not with knowledge workers. This group responds positively to freedom of expression. Even so, it makes sense to poll potential users and group leaders to assess attitudes. Yes - there's a bit of consulting involved but projects can be fast tracked at very low cost.
- It's not true that high volumes of active participants are required. What's needed are passionate users. They may only be 1-2% but encouraged and rewarded in appropriate ways will help bring others on board. Wikipatterns has a useful discussion on the 90:9:1 rule.
- Equally, not everyone should or needs to engage. Many employees will be consumers of information as part of the processes they perform. They may wish to add comment or seek clarification but they won't necessarily be content originators.
There's a lot of resource around the issues KPMG identifies and while I won't under-estimate them, I sometimes think there's a risk of their being overblown. I'd recommend checking out Andy Roberts on Facilitation as a starting point for new projects. Having said that, each use case is different and navigating cultural issues is unquestionably tricky.
link to original post