I think Susan made an excellent point. The operational goals are serving the classic management. These have emerged out of the need to coordinate the workforces to work on a common objective.

This coordination has been democratized by the help of such platforms. The importance to “manage” the workforce is diminishing. At least this is the case for the less procedural functions where the work is case or project based.

Talking of communication, the flow of information allows the employees to create their own opinion about what was and what should be. An extrem example from the outside are the events around Wikilieaks. The proove though, that the single individuum is able to cope with the unfiltered information, has yet to be produced.

This lost of power will trouble many manager and urge them to find new ways to lead. The informed and ad-hoc coordinated employee will take more important decisions by herself. She therefore needs internalize the company’s values and goals even more.

And this is where the “social” comes into play. A company is a social construct just like any country or a sportsclub. A social platform (my suggestion for a rebranding) is binding the employees tighter to a common goal by supporting your change management and corporate learning activities. Thanks to technology those companies will be able to bring more social back to the workplace. and that’s probably what makes a great place to work for today.

Nevertheless, I do not see this as a revolution but rather a gradual improvement. As I have mentioned only certain industries or functions are suitable for such a social and democratic model. These will be the first to move.

You have presented an extremely good argument and I agree with many points like “these primary goals have always been in place as we’ve introduced better technology tools” and “democratization of the workforce”.

I was thinking whether can we have Enterprise 2.0 within an organisation without the software. I guess the answer is yes but it will be much more challenging without the software.

I think you make alot of sense here. Give me some time and I will come up with an updated definition. This is interesting.

Although I wince when I think the right path is to rebrand e20 with a “social” makeover, I’m not sure we should define e20 as a “platform,” either. The aim to “help organisations innovate, communicate, connect, and coordinate more efficiently and effectively” definitely sums up the operational goals for e20, but in my view, e20 moves far beyond these as well in to a strategic sphere. In fact, these primary goals have always been in place as we’ve introduced better technology tools for knowledge workers. (file-sharing, networks, email, etc.)

Where it gets complicated and, perhaps, interesting is looking above the “trees” of these primary goals and seeing the “forest.” The forest is a revolutionary new way to work. It includes the democratization of the workforce and empowers individuals to realize their potential… all of which ultimately increases a company’s ability to execute with more agility, make better decisions, and compete more effectively.

So e20 is not a platform, but a new constitution of sorts for 21st century work.

It’s late and I may not have made sense, but wanted to weigh in on your post.