OStatic

by Anna Medlin on Jun. 05, 2009

I attended the Web 2.0 conference, and all anyone could talk about was how Web 2.0 (collaborative networks) were going to be the next big thing in the enterprise. Every company there was talking about how they can 'improve collaboration', etc. etc.

by Jack G on Jun. 05, 2009

Unfortunately, most companies today 'collaborate' on Facebook and IM, and this happens in a very uncontrolled manner. Similar to 'knowledge bases' of the past, companies have just not been able to change behavior and practices, no matter what the buzzwords of the present time.

by Mike D on Jun. 06, 2009

The last poster made a great point: The success of collaborative networks hinges on their ability to integrate into the enterprise by empowering current practices rather than trying to change them. There are many companies that are talking about collaboration, which makes sense as it is the natural evolution of the enterprise. The key to success for these companies is going to be a flexibility in implementation that allows the software to conform to the enterprise, rather than expecting to enterprise to conform to the software.

by Mark Fidelman on Jun. 06, 2009

This is a big idea Aaron and glad to see an open source company leading the charge.

by Anna Medlin on Jun. 07, 2009

My concern is that there is so much 'noise' in this market, and people are always looking to improve processes, but getting users to adopt any tool is very challenging. At my company, we tried going with bulletin boards for our group, and then moved to wikis (MediaWiki, Google Wiki, Knols, etc.), and things would start out with great fervor and then die down, and people would be back to emailing documents back and forth, and dumping them on shared drives.

Sharepoint has tried to put a tool that wraps around this, but I would love to see something that is slick, easy to use, and integrates with tools I already use (email + IM).

by Derick H. on Jun. 08, 2009

My gut reaction to this is that Aaron has the right idea especially in connection with "noise". It remains to be seen whether applications are out there that would test the hypothesis.

by Aaron Fulkerson on Jun. 08, 2009

@Derick H,

Thanks for your comments. In the upcoming posts I'll write about actual enterprise success stories in which Collaborative Networks delivered significant and measurable returns on investment. The next post I'm writing on this subject is more technical, but I'll get to some actual real world examples too.

by Steve Ardire on Jun. 08, 2009

Collaborative Networks = much ( but not all ) of what Business intelligence tools already do

by Jon H. on Jun. 08, 2009

I'm not sure you "design" and "implement" collaborative networks. I think you identify an issue or purpose (including business ones), issue invitations, open up a space, use non-intrusive moderation to support whatever activity is generated, and keep asking questions.

I don't think on-purpose online social networks can be "designed" before they happen.

by J.B. on Jun. 08, 2009

Agree with most of the above commments: Everyone is talking about this for the better part of 2 years, but I have not seen good examples of new integrated toolsets that would

1.) break some of the E2.0 adoption behavior cycles and low take-up rate of wikis, micro-blog/yammer, and integration plays a la Socialtext, or

2.) introduce any truly new collaboration metaphors beyond Sharepoint and Webex, e.g asynchronous, template driven collaboration tools (like group System's thinktank)

With all these E2.0 minds at work, hoping to see some more innovative concepts coming down the tracks...

by Robyn Stratton-Berkessel on Jun. 09, 2009

There is an emergent nature or quality to the success of social networks, and that attribute gets diminished when structures and systems are imposed - in what ever setting - business, politics, education. The quest is to keep the experience alive and meaningful and once tools become institutionalized the fun goes away. Sure, having the tools and structures in place for efficiencies and compliance and regulation etc. is important; AND you need to address the human need for and capacity to make it meaningful at the personal as well as organizational level. That's our challenge and our excitement.

by an anonymous user on Jun. 09, 2009

kluster.com

by Deb Lavoy on Jun. 15, 2009

Collaboration is not simply a matter of technology. A collaborative team has to have a shared sense of mission or goals, mutual respect, trust, and a commitment to continual improvement. Social software tools can enable such networks, but only the leadership of those teams (either official or emergent) can really make collaboration work. And recall that collaboration is not one, but a cluster of activities - small teams working toward a goal (creative), finding relevant activity and expertise in the company (connective) and finding existing work that can be repurposed and leveraged (compounding or KM).

you can see more of my thoughts on this laid out here: http://www.slideshare.net/dllavoy/social-workplace-for-govt-20

by Bruce G on Jun. 17, 2009

I have read all of your comments with interest and some very valid points were made. I have just started to implement the second leg of a collaborative network at a very large company, which is undergoing a significant culture shift and "renovation". . We have the baisic sharepoint platform with team sites and mysites and have begun to implement a more comprehensive solution which includes a knowledge management capabilitiy as well as the usual WIKIS, blogs, discussion forums. Our tool (and I think this is important) also has a feaure set that allows you to easily identify SMES and communicate with them from within the tool. What this does, and I believe this to be extremely important, is it gets people to establish relationships. It is these new relationships that we believe is going to fuel effective collaboration. Posters talk about how natural it is to collaborate - but that statement does not apply to my organization - the culture (which needs to change) is one of hoarding knowledge and thus making your self more valuable. We of course know how wrong that is. None the less it is the reality

The approach we are taking is to first get people excited about the tool before we implement it. We are doing this thru a series of interactive roadshows which demonstrates how the tools address specific, common Use Cases. Once excited and motivated we have subsequent discussions on thier objectives and the processes they want to incorporate KM and collaboration into. An earlier poster said that KM collaboration cannot be imposed on the Enterprise. I agree, but neither can we just give people a new tool without guidance and guidlines for use - lest we risk creating a tool that only eary adopters will use. .

I welcome your thoughts and comments

by mike Voukkos on Jun. 25, 2009

Hey Aaron

Indeed colaboration is different than timewasting. Well done buddy. But will not agree with your analysis.

by Richard Howlett on Jul. 07, 2009

The collaborative genie is out of the bottle and will produce chaos in many institutions over the next 50 years. So as Clay Shirky says, you might as well get good at it - and profit from it! http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboratio...

by nirenjan.raj on Jul. 10, 2009

Thanks for the sharing this website. it is very useful professional knowledge. Great idea you know about company background.

web application development

by Jacob Saaby Nielsen on Sep. 28, 2009

Aaron,

I basically agree. I've been having the same thoughts for some time now. But I think your post is very black and white.

I think social software is important. But it's important, not as the core meaning of Enterprise 2.0/Collaborative Networks, rather as one aspect of it.

When I think of collaborative networks as such, being able to find the right people, to get the right answers, is just as important as being able to collaborate on data.

To me, it's the efficient way of changing and persisting data and knowledge that matters. Be that business data, processes, workflows, or knowledge in general.

And that needs to be wrapped in social aspects, that make it easy to find, create and maintain the relations. Because often it's the unexpected relations that aren't so obvious, that can end up providing value to the business.

I totally disagree that it has no business value for one individual to "meet" and be able to discuss with another individual. One to one. If the right two people do this, a lot can come from that. Which is why social profiling is also important.

I do basically agree that "Enterprise 2.0" as such needs to be rethought. Because it has the wrong focus in the long run. But it's been a good starter.

The focus should be on the business objectives, as you write, but to underestimate how the social aspects can impact those business objectives, would be downright wrong - in my opinion.

Relations is what keeps the basic building blocks of the business, the individuals, together. The stronger the relations, the better the foundation for teamwork. And the more friendly minded the individuals will be, to enter into a collaborative network. The better chance of succes, the collaborative network will have.

Together we can move mountains. But there's a huge difference in moving that mountain with people you just happen to work with. Or people you really work with, and care about. Where your relationship takes you to that level where you want to help them succeed, and vice versa.

To put it bluntly, and mildly provocative ;), in the end, if those kinds of relationships can be built and nurtured, I'm not even sure we'd actually need collaborative networks that much.

by Aaron Fulkerson on Sep. 28, 2009

@Jacob,

Conversations are what we do between work. Yes conversations can inform the work we do, but, unfortunately, can not replace the work. No matter how much you chat in your study group, post in forums, friend colleagues, message others and meet in person you will not complete your work.

Collaborative Networking is about improving how we work and helping us to reuse work we've completed. Yes, CN can also help to improve information capture from conversations, but this is a byproduct.

More information on Collaborative Networking vs. Enterprise 2.0 vs. Traditional Enterprise Collaboration can be found here: http://bit.ly/cndiff (scroll to bottom for a video explanation).

by Jacob Saaby Nielsen on Sep. 29, 2009

Well, I would have to agree to disagree.

Conversations is what leads to exposing opinions, and opinions are incredibly important in making sound decisions.

I agree that at some point, conversation has to stop, and decisions have to be made. But my experience is that decisions become better decisions, by involving the relevant parties, and getting everyones views laid out.

However, those conversations could just as well happen online, in a forum or discussion thread of some kind. Then the process of arriving at the decision, would also be persisted.

Double bonus. At least to me ;)

I agree with you that it's about the work we're doing. But the work we're doing, includes the communication, the people and the processes both go through to arrive at whatever result needs to come of it.

At least, that's my opionion.

by Jacob Saaby Nielsen on Sep. 29, 2009

Well, I would have to agree to disagree.

Conversations is what leads to exposing opinions, and opinions are incredibly important in making sound decisions.

I agree that at some point, conversation has to stop, and decisions have to be made. But my experience is that decisions become better decisions, by involving the relevant parties, and getting everyones views laid out.

However, those conversations could just as well happen online, in a forum or discussion thread of some kind. Then the process of arriving at the decision, would also be persisted.

Double bonus. At least to me ;)

I agree with you that it's about the work we're doing. But the work we're doing, includes the communication, the people and the processes both go through to arrive at whatever result needs to come of it.

At least, that's my opionion.

by Jacob Saaby Nielsen on Sep. 29, 2009

By the way, saw your video. It's good. And I agree.

Just not that it's all there is to it :)