This is Part 2 of our blog series covering a conversation between Social Media Strategist, Jacob Morgan and SOCIALtality founder Wendy Troupe. Yesterday’s post covered the widely divergent projections about the size of the emerging Enterprise 2.0 market. Today, the questions cover the difference between tools and strategies and the different routes to organizational adoption.

Let’s begin . . .

In a recent post “What’s happening with Enterprise 2.0 Adoption”, Jacob, you lament that organizations seem more willing to spend money on software tools than developing a clear and focused Enterprise 2.0 strategy.

---

Question 2: Why do you think companies are quicker to adopt a tool rather than develop a clear strategy for leveraging Enterprise 2.0 capabilities?

Jacob Morgan:

A tool is much easier to adopt than a strategy. Tools are easy; strategies aren’t. You can plug in a tool and see what works. Proof of concept is much easier to demonstrate with a tool. Companies can implement a tool and see if it gets wide organizational adoption. I think a lot of tool providers are also bundling in strategy. With companies like Jive and SocialText, you pay for a tool and get some simple strategic guidance on the side.

I was reading a presentation on Enterprise 2.0 by Aaron Julius Kim and he says, “A fool with a tool is still a fool.” I think that sentiment applies to a lot of companies trying to become Enterprise 2.0. They purchase these tools but still aren’t sure where they’re headed.

I also think it’s tough to price a strategy. If you use a tool like SocialText, you know exactly what it’s going to cost and exactly what you’re going to get. If you purchase an enterprise-level strategy, the cost is going to vary and you’re not sure ultimately what you’re getting or how many people will participate. Strategies involve so many uncertain factors.

Wendy Troupe:

Exactly. Tools provide a context and framework for an organization. I think companies start with a particular problem they’re trying to solve and search for a tool for that specific issue. Without a specific strategic roadmap, companies apply tools to specific problems and new, unexpected behaviors then develop around tools.

Much like the what we’re developing here at SOCIALtality. Our offering is designed to help companies pinpoint specific issues, but the data and measurement delivery covers so many facets of an organization that ultimately it provides a holistic view of performance beyond the primary issues it was initially adopted to address. A tool brought in for a specific purpose can ultimately drive a full-scale strategic shift.

In your “Top 10 Ways” posting, Wendy, you speak to a “top-down culture of protectionism and control inhibiting” a company’s ability to leverage the value of social media. Jacob, you hint at a similar sentiment in your recent posting, “What is Enterprise 2.0? The Basics”, saying that adopting Enterprise 2.0 means “fundamentally changing the core of how a company functions”.

Question 3: Must a company experience a wholesale paradigm shift in order to derive value from Enterprise 2.0 or can an incremental integration approach succeed?

Jacob Morgan:

You have to start with an incremental approach. If you throw an internal collaboration tool at your employees, adoption will not be instantaneous. It’s going to take time to build users. It could be 6 months to a year before you see widespread adoption.

Driving adoption among employees is going to be a key issue for companies. That’s a fundamental issue across the entire Social Media and Enterprise 2.0 space. It’s easy to buy a tool and implement it. It’s hard to get people to start using the platform and developing an understanding of it’s real value. I think Andrew McAfee, in his book Enterprise 2.0, suggested that people using an existing platform are 3x’s more likely to want to stick with the platform they’re currently using and 3x’s more likely to undervalue something new. He also said that people who are trying something new are 3x’s more likely to over-value it. That’s a big gap, there’s a 9x perception gap between what people are using and what someone is trying to get them to use.

Part of the adoption challenge is getting people to slowly start to want to change the way they do things. In the book, Enterprise 2.0 there was an example of a project manager who informed his colleagues that he’d no longer accept email about a particular project, instead they’d have to discuss it on the collaboration platform. You have to slowly start replacing the old with the new and migrating people. It takes time.

Wendy Troupe:

I think the size of an organization and the influence of the leadership factor heavily in adoption. I think it’s easier for a smaller organization to rally around something new. In a small organization, the collaborative barriers are thinner and more easily overcome. In a larger organization, adoption of new methods is often stunted by ownership silos. I think larger organizations have to overcome internal competition to foster true collaboration.

I think organizational leadership has to share a common strategic vision to create wholesale change. Often the vision is passed down from the central leadership. They see the potential and work to create an environment where a new concept can proliferate.

I think incremental change is often the result of grassroots support efforts rising within an organization and bubbling up to the top.

External factors can often effect the route change takes. If there are competitive threats, losses of marketshare, etc. leadership will often force organizational change out of necessity.

Organizational change often starts with the adoption of tool. A tool has a clearly defined cost, a focused set of expected outcomes and can be applied to a specific set of issues. Incremental change, a slow and methodical replacement of the old with the new, can be the best route to adoption. It’s up to organizational leadership to create an environment where the adoption of new methods are encouraged and new ideas can proliferate.

Tomorrow’s questions:

What strategic principals should guide that incremental integration approach to ensure the best chance of success?

Should companies let the difficulty of demonstrating short-term ROI overshadow the potential “value” of becoming an Enterprise 2.0 adopter? What other measurable goals should Enterprise 2.0 advocates use to pitch the benefits inside they’re organization?

Tags: Enterprise 2.0, Social Media Measurement

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 at 8:07 PM by MattC and is filed under Enterprise 2.0. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.