Behind Glass Walls

On Thursday, 3 September four staff from the QUT Library presented during the Enterprise 2.0 lecture. The topic was how and where the Library was using Web 2.0 tools and techniques to better engage and aid the QUT community (students and staff).

I was pleasantly surprised that not only is there quite a bit being done to move the site forward, but the tools also seem to be applied somewhat in the spirit of collaboration and sharing. There was evidence of a “broadcast” mentality for things like Twitter and Study Guides, but for a corporate website that is to be expected, and may be the best apporach. In other areas, real-time chat is incorporated into the website, ‘ePrints’ integrates QUT academic articles into Google Scholar search, a number of staff members have blogs and the majority of new or recent additions take advantage of the foundations of Web 2.0.

Our task from here is to investigate the current website and services, and create a report detailing future directions and changes that could be made to further integrate Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 ideals. The staff attitude is open but practical, which is a great way to approach this investigation.

The most interesting, and perhaps most difficult part about increasing  collaboration, network effects and data value is that the best way of doing this, by relaxing restrictions and/or going where people already are inevitably decreases QUT’s control over the interactions, services, software and hardware. Hopefully we can strike a balance.

It seems there are two key changes required for successful adoption of Enterprise 2.0 within a company. The first is using the right tools for the job, and having staff knowledgeable and trained in how to use those tools effectively. Training is nothing new to companies, and can be incorporated into professional development or taken up by human resources as a subproject. The second, and usually more interesting and difficult change is the atmosphere and attitudes.

Companies of any decent size tend to be run very much in a top-down way. Enterprise 2.0 involves giving some control back to employees – a bottom-up model. This does not mean that the entire business should shift to user-generated content and management. As Mike LaFleur points out in his response to Dennis Howlett’s post about Enterprise 2.0 being simply a label:

Enteprise 2.0 is much more than merely enabling community; it has the potential to solve myriad business issues and provide an solid return on investment. [...] Enterprise 2.0 is not merely allowing for user-contributed content; it is also enforcement of corporate governance on this content. Where Web 2.0 is bottom-up, Enterprise 2.0 is bottom-up AND top-down.

While Dennis Howlett’s post does seem to concentrate on the aspects of Enterprise 2.0 that are already mainstream, there is still a long way to go in the concept and attitudes. In this area, giving up even a little control does not come easily to middle management. The executive level may see aspects of Enterprise 2.0 as ways to share the load of policy formation or take advantage of new technologies that employees would use no matter what. Non-managerial staff might see Enterprise 2.0 as just an extension of personal activities, applied to business processes and problems. Managers unfortunately tend to see just a loss of control, as more powerful technologies allow things that in the past did not need to be considered, or were restricted.

I’ve read quite a few detailed discussions about the wonderful things that Enterprise 2.0 can allow. Sometimes, it gets a bit hard to take in all the abstract concepts. So let’s try to break it down:

• Enterprise 2.0 is not a ‘thing’. It might be best described as using new and existing tools to more effectively allow information to be communicated and gathered. This can be internally, externally, or allowing a level of free flow between the two.
• There are many tools, such as wikis, blogs and portals, that can be used in an ‘Enterprise 2.0′ way, or a more traditional way. It depends on the engagement of the staff. A wiki full of word documents is no different from a folder on a document server. The differences show and the platform comes into its own when wiki pages are used instead, allowing efficient drafting and stream-lined access.
• It is quite easy to over-do Enterprise 2.0, or to end up with negative effects. It is not straight-forward to take up. Due to this, it may be that for some areas and businesses, the risks outweigh the benefits. Critical business processes require workflows, require some control to be exerted. It is possible to transition, and end up with a more efficient, yet effective model. It is a delicate balancing act.

There is no one way that will work for everything. Successful use of Enterprise 2.0 seems to require a more down-to-earth approach that ignores the abstract ideals of Web 2.0, and instead looks at how improved tools and changed attitudes to work can result in getting more done with greater knowledge. Isn’t that just a good way to run a business?

Socialmedia.biz has a summary of a presentation Stephen Jagger gave all about how he’s converted his businesses to use a wide range of web apps and online tools. It is a rather extreme example – hosting everything in the cloud, or removing the need for office space are probably not options for many companies. For small, active businesses though, these are some really useful ideas and discussions.

The base of the services is hosted Google Mail, plus Talk, Voice and Sites.Yammer and Skype are used for internal and client communication. It seems he has quite firm grip on how the services work and what they are best used for. The tools fit well into observations of what gives good results when exploring social tools and collaborative attitudes for business. Andrew McAfee‘s SLATES is the major guide in this area, along with some additions from Dion Hinchcliffe which cover the atmosphere required to allow the tools to function effectively.

I do have some questions about how open and sharing the businesses are. It seems that the tools are viewed more as promotion aids than enabling client feedback. This may not be true, but it is difficult to find a mention of how the Enterprise 2.0 tools and strategy involved the round trip from employee to client and back.

In any case, this case study ties well with this bnet feature: putting Web 2.0 to work. For a more traditional company, the four steps outlined in that article are quite helpful.

1. Begin by using a web 2.0 tool to address a current need. This could involve test-driving a free web-based app or installing an add-on for current software.
2. Any new movement needs support. Many employees just want to do their work and get home, but for those that like to experiment (I’m in this bunch – I always like looking under the hood), this is the perfect opportunity to help shape the direction of a project.
3. Experimentation is the key – many services and software are very cheap or free, so why not test a whole range of offerings.
4. “Decisions about which Web 2.0 tools to use within your company should be made centrally, but the question of how to use them should be left to individuals, says Harvard’s McAfee.”

This feature set is certainly worth a look.

Well, I hate to use a clichéd phrase, but this just fits. Digsby, like the good Web 2.0 company they are, are looking for ways to make money. This is fine. This is good, I like their all-in-one IM, social network and micro-blogging desktop app. They have innovative ideas for making money that don’t just involve “small unintrusive ads”. I like this so far. One of the hardest things for Web 2.0 companies is working out how to monetise it. So coming up with some out-of-the-box busines models is just the ticket.

It appears that the two main ways Digsby is looking to do this – offer what is traditionally known as ‘crapware’ (extra offers for toolbars or other – usually unwanted – services) as part of the installer and a research module that functions just like BIONC. These things can work.

The crapware is annoying, but if it pays the bills, ok. Just be nice, and make sure it’s not too easy to just keep clicking next and end up with a bunch of junk. The research module is an interesting one, which I think could be very useful to the user, Digsby, and a range of companies.

How well these things are received really depends on the how well they are presented. And, I’m sorry to say, Digsby have not learnt from the Facebook Terms of Service PR disaster or the eMusic Sony deal. When you make changes, you need to be upfront, honest, open to comment, and prepared with logical reasons. Digsby has done this only in stages. it’s first mistake was  “Not announcing [changes to how the product functions] before we started testing it”. Then out came the Lifehacker post about Digsby going to the dark side, and the response.

Digsby have responded adequately to the situation. However, I just uninstalled Digsby, and I urge others to either uninstall or turn off the “research module”.  Why? Here is their Terms of Service section:

15. USAGE OF COMPUTER RESOURCES.

You agree to permit the Software to use the processing power of your computer when it is idle to run downloaded algorithms (mathematical equations) and code within a process. You understand that when the Software uses your computer, it likewise uses your CPU, bandwidth, and electrical power. The Software will use your computer to solve distributed computing problems, such as but not limited to, accelerating medical research projects, analyzing the stock market, searching the web, and finding the largest known prime number. This functionality is completely optional and you may disable it at any time.

Did you spot it? It’s easy to miss… “searching the web”. Yes. They are using their software to search the web using your computer. I can handle everything else. Not this. What are they searching the web for? Where does the data from “searching the web” go? Who knows what websites they end up visiting… from *your* computer.

Digsby, give us control, like the good “user-focused company” you say you are. On/Off is not control. Get to it!

Well, here we are.  Week 1 of uni has begun, and one of the units I’m taking is INB346 Enterprise 2.0. The idea of the unit is to investigate how new uses of web technologies are affecting businesses, and can be used by businesses to communicate with customers and clients.

I’m a heavy user of web apps, and one of the areas I think needs a lot more consideration is how businesses view and use new tools and opportunities.  While I know and accept that there is bound to be resistance due to the need to use proven tools and established workflows, the increased pace of information flow poses an equally as important consideration.

I’m not a fan of the ‘Web 2.0′ or ‘Enterprise 2.0′ terms. It’d be nice to find alternatives, but these terms convey the concepts in a very small space. That said, I’ll make some suggestions as I post more. ‘Communication platform’ for Web 2.0? ‘Equal discussion for business’ for Enterprise 2.0? Not great, but I’ll keep thinking.

Companies can no longer make their own timetables and broadcast a message, and expect customers and clients to go along with it. More and more,  the expectation is that a conversation will take place, with all on an even footing. No more black boxes. No more dividers. Companies don’t have to open up about everything. They might remain behind walls, but they aren’t brick any more – now everyone else can look in as they work behind glass walls.