Comments on: What is Enterprise 2.0’s measurable value?

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:10:01 +0000

Sure. Lets have a chat about this later today

By: Alex Lew

Alex Lew — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:48:54 +0000

Hey tell me more abt Mash ups?

By: Sean Lew

Sean Lew — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:17:51 +0000

Aaron, as usual, great comments! I totally understand your connectiveness point and I just added your comment to the post. Thanks mate!

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:48:45 +0000

There are also some attempts out on the social networking side to provide means to wade through the noise – samples of sites include FriendFeed, Iminta, Plaxo, Readr, Mugshot.
Basically, they are a way for the individual to control and direct what they are receiving, almost as filters to allow content from specific sources to come through, and be gathered in one place. I haven’t tried them out yet, but am curious to see the applicability within E20 – funneling info from specified groups into a “team space”, perhaps.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:37:42 +0000

Good question on connectiveness – not sure I can give a coherent response, but…
I see this (in E20) as part of building knowledge – lessons learned, best practices, etc. And I believe it is implemented through the W20 tools that of course implies use of tags, mashups, collaboration, linking, “people groups” and so forth. This is my basis for identifying collaboration as working together to create a product, and connectiveness as bringing together the entire body of knowledge.

Measuring value can be difficult, especially if one is looking for tangible returns. Project management can see value thru utilization of lookbacks when starting new projects, when their timelines for preliminary setup and startup times diminish, creating budget benefits. Connectiveness can aid in forming more permanent ties among groups or individuals, can aid in discovery processes to a degree that I don’t believe has been explored well at this point.
Intangible value is relationship building, providing a sense of community within an organization, and to a greater or lesser extent depending on how E20 is implemented, between an organization and its’ support groups (external providers, vendors, etc.)

I’m sure I have missed many points, but at least a thread of my thoughts.

By: The value of enterprise 2.0

The value of enterprise 2.0 — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:35:20 +0000

[...] Just an extension of my previous post on What is Enterprise 2.0’s measurable value? [...]

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:41:04 +0000

@Aaron, Good point on connectiveness. I did think of connectiveness when I was writing the blog but I had a couple of questions I could not answer.

1) how can you implement connectiveness? Would it be through tagging or social graph or something else?

2) How can you measure value from this?

Thanks!

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:38:18 +0000

Very good points that have not been well-articulated elsewhere. I would consider adding “connectiveness”, or the ability to pull together disparate pieces of information related to a specific topic (project or whatever) for organizational use. Not to be confused or mixed in with collaboration; this is more related to search, being able to reach out in the intranet space to bring like information together.

By: Sean Lew

Sean Lew — Sat, 10 May 2008 15:02:46 +0000

Signal to noise problem – great way to describe it. I experienced it first hand and I am super careful now. The only good thing was my little project was just something internal and it was a great learning experience.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Sat, 10 May 2008 13:32:11 +0000

Hey Sean!

Yep – all good points. There are plenty of areas outside of the “facebook for the enterprise” approach that produce measurable outcomes. I still think that social networks, harnessed properly, can produce real value.

That said, there is the issue of the growing signal to noise problem – unless we’re patently aware of it with the solutions we buy and build, our efforts to make things better could make them worse.

Gordon