Welcome to E Quint Consulting. If you’re new here, you may want to find out what E Quint does or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I think (and hope) that the Enterprise 2.0 discussion is evolving from a technology discussion to a behavioral one. I am seeing leaders like Sam Lawrence from Jive Software talking more and more about this. In his post, “On Social Networks, nobody thinks you’re a dog”, Sam says
The most important underpinnings of a social network is trust and behavior.
And in his most recent post, “Enterprise Data Portability needs a Reputation Standard”, he talks about reinforcing the right behavior.
The implied connotation here is “Good” behavior. I agree with Sam, but we now need to take this conversation further.
First we have to address the fact that “behavior” is not just a monolithic good or bad thing. Behavior means all of the ways we act. Different behaviors include:
- being aggressive
- being passive
- being nice
- being mean
- being curious
- being frivolous
- being assertive
- being trusting
- being rude
- …
Of course the list goes on. So the question becomes, “Which behaviors are necessary for an organization to have a successful Enterprise 2.0 implementation?” Or maybe the better way of asking is, “Which behaviors are necessary for an organization to become a Connected Enterprise, where social connectivity drives enterprise productivity?”
My sense is that most Enterprise 2.0 vendors see them selves as a pure technology play, selling primarily to the CIO. I think this is the wrong approach and will only slowly, if ever, lead to a robust market. The key that vendors need to focus on is understanding what organizational behaviors are necesssary for their product to be successfully deployed, and find customers that are already exhibiting those behaviors or are interested in changing their corporate culture to accomodate those behaviors.
Behaviors are the key to success not technology.
One Comment
Good post Lee, thanks. It mirrors where my thoughts have been for some time. The technology is there (aside from Twitter issues recently!), in at least being able to provide a meaningful user experience. The problem, as you rightly point out, is adoption — getting users to adopt a technology. For example, most people don’t see the point of Twitter (or other social network) until they begin to use it. So the non-users need to modify their mindset to a point where they will at least try the technology. “Don’t knock ‘til you’ve tried it,” is a long worn adage, that fits most appropriately. The science of behavior modification is “captology.” One of the leaders in this space is BJ Fogg at Stanford: http://www.bjfogg.com/ His site and linked sites are well worth a visit if you are interested in this topic.