Because it’s been a slow day, topic-wise, I figured why not blog my response to Billy’s response to my post on his post. This is how the blogosphere stays alive, feeding on itself. Plus, I don’t trust the comments.
Billy’s making nice, saying the right things, e.g. “This misses the point or maybe my point was poorly stated.” and “I outline three reasons why I believe this is so and I’ve yet to see a response to those.” His points are:
1. cost is multiplied over the number of individuals in the enterprise
2. critical mass of employee adoption must be guaranteed for the technology/tool to be worthwhile
3. the tools/technology must be supportable and useful for a group bound by the common purpose of the corporate mission not an individual bound by their own desires.
I know, last time I promised I wouldn’t do this. So, I concede all points in the following manner: 1) Sure, 2) Fine, 3) OK. These underline what I’m talking about, Billy is a tech guy. I’m an Apps guy. I doubt these are refutable.
His approach to Enterprise 2.0 is top-down, and therefore, his points about it all center around top-down concerns 1) cost, 2) cost-benefit, 3) ROI. He even mentions the corporate mission, doesn’t get more top-down than that.
So, if Web 2.0 gives power to the people. Enterprise 2.0 takes it away?
No, sorry, Enterprise 2.0 takes it away, unless you can justify the investment. Or wait, maybe it’s: Enterprise 2.0, on corporate terms only. Sounds like a passive-aggressive ban to me.
Paul’s saying that the talk of the Gartner shindig last week was all about *2.0, and how to CIOs are sweating the problem of how to handle New Web internally. They’re asking for strategies and advice on how to control the spread of New Web. My advice is simple: Don’t try to control it.
Don’t drive initiatives top-down, make mandates, and ban apps you can’t control. Don’t deploy technology, advertise it in a sendmail and wonder why its adoption is low.
Do listen to your users. Ask what they use and how they use it. Build use cases, then roll out something small and targeted. Keep polling them for more ideas, rinse, repeat.
This is the social part. That’s why social apps are different. This is why Billy is a tech guy. He builds ECM software to sell to CIOs. He thinks top-down. I’m an Apps guy. I think about users. I’m an edge-in guy.
In fairness, Billy thinks about users too, but users don’t buy ECM software. CIOs do.
Right, wrong, indifferent, we have different views. I like mine better, and not just because my view is all about me.