This is Part 3 of our blog series covering a conversation between Social Media Strategist, Jacob Morgan and Terametric founder Wendy Troupe. Yesterday’s post discussed companies readiness to adopt a Social Media and/or Enterprise 2.0 tool rather than developing a strategy. While that often seems counter-intuitive, the adoption of a tool can often lead to new behaviors that in turn drive a shift in strategies. This portion of the discussion centers on strategic guidelines for incremental integration and the BIG ROI question.

---

Let’s begin . . .

Question 4:What strategic principals should guide that incremental integration approach to ensure the chances of success?

Jacob Morgan:

Focus on the user first and the company second. You can’t approach a user and ask them to change behaviors because it benefits the company. Companies need to approach the user and tell them how it will benefit them.

You need to focus on use cases before deploying platform. Every enterprise is made up of a variety of departments, each with its own set of goals, opportunities, challenges and risks. You need to understand those things and communicate adoption in each department’s terms.

You need to speak in terms of “supporting” rather than “changing”. “Change” implies that people are doing things wrong. “Support” however, implies that you recognize value of their efforts and you want to help further those efforts.

You need to plan for the long-term. In an organization of 30,000 people, it’s going to take time to shift habits. You need to have a realistic understanding of just how long integration is going to take and plan accordingly.

You need to invest time and energy into education. Creating ambassador programs is key. You want people teaching and encouraging each other to use the tools.

Wendy Troupe:

I think, at the top level, there has to be clear corporate guidelines, rules of engagement and mutually agreed upon expectations. These have to be passed down from level to level, modified and adjusted according to each levels needs.

There has to be a central support group that can be accessed at any level, by anyone – a group that is directly responsible for the education, support and advocacy of the tool.

You need to provide an enabling environment and a clear set of realistic deliverables for each level of the organization. It’s important for management to formalize the expectations and shift key employees responsibilities to include a percentage of time devoted to enabling the integration.

Marshall Sponder once quipped, “What’s the ROI of your email system!” If Enterprise 2.0 is a system to streamline collaboration and facilitate faster knowledge sharing . . .

Question 5: 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?

Jacob Morgan:

I think the category is still very much in the proof of concept phase. The easiest way to prove a concept is show value through ROI. But, as with the telephone and later email, companies evolved to a point where the need emerges and radical solutions present themselves. Those radical solutions then become the standard.

I think companies need to look at business impact. How is this changing how the company functions? What facets of the business, other than ROI, benefit from adoption? There’s a lot. How much time is being spent on certain functions. How quickly a company is able to resolve customer service issues. The relationship that are built and the ease of connection. These things don’t always impact the bottom line but they are valid value metrics that companies should consider.

Another quote by Aaron Julius Kim about ROI that I love, “If there is no “R”, then “I” becomes a “C” and that cost is always going to be too high.” I think ROI should always be a consideration but I don’t think it should be the only consideration.

Wendy Troupe:

ROI should never be an obstacle to integration. It is part of an evolution and each step forward must have value. If you think of the evolution of Social Media, in the beginning people said that the value of the connections and conversation weren’t capable of being quantified, they said it’s really all about relationships. Now we have an entire industry devoted to quantifying the value of those connections, conversations and relationships.

Part of what our tool is designed to do is quantify those social media interactions and then demonstrate their impact on the various facets of an organization.

I think you’re absolutely right, Jacob. I think in time, it will become a non-issue. I think at least in the short-term the greatest ROI will be demonstrated through efficiencies and streamlined processes. Social Media, with it’s almost infinite volume of customer feedback and growing number of touchpoints will necessitate the streamlining of internal communications and collaboration.

Jacob Morgan

I think the real question out there isn’t IF there’s ROI in Social Media and Enterprise 2.0 but WHEN will that ROI occur.

What can companies do to help foster Social Media and Enterprise 2.0 adoption? When speaking of the benefits, speak in terms of the benefits for the user, not the benefits for the company. Don’t champion “change”, it implies that things were being done incorrectly. Instead, champion better “support” and celebrate the ease and efficiency adoption brings to existing efforts. Formalize expectations and integrate adoption into core responsibilities. Empower and educate internal advocates and make them accessible by all. Don’t let the quest for ROI become tunnel vision, Social Media and Enterprise 2.0 capabilities have a wide range of business impact.

We’d like to thank Jacob Morgan for participating in this discussion. His contributions, as always, are quite enlightening.

Also, this just in: Check out Don Dodge’s experiential post on his first month at Google and experiences with their collaboration.

This is Part 2 of our blog series covering a conversation between Social Media Strategist, Jacob Morgan and Terametric 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 Terametric. 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?

A recent post by Wendy Troupe, titled “Top 10 Ways Social Media will Change How We Do Business” garnered some interesting conversation. Social Media Strategist, Jacob Morgan, suggested that we might want to take a look at some of the risks companies face when contemplating the open culture of Enterprise 2.0.

Jacob’s suggestion led us to three conclusions:

1. As Social Media practitioners at the forefront of a growing industry, we all share the responsibility of helping organizations figure out how to leverage the potential of Social Media both internally and externally.
2. If we’re going to bring value to unraveling that puzzle, we’d better drink our own Kool-aid and tackle the issue openly and collaboratively.
3. Wouldn’t it be nice to share that ice-cold, refreshing beverage with a social media strategist of Jacob Morgan’s caliber.

This is the first post of a multi-post series covering the discussion between Terametric founder and 20-year, Fidelity-enterprise veteran, Wendy Troupe and Chess Media Group Principal and Social Media Thought-Leader, Jacob Morgan. The discussion, guided by 5 questions, focuses on Social Media, the emerging Enterprise 2.0 movement and the issues facing companies contemplating adoption.

---

I’ve broken the interview down to into a series of posts to allow you, the reader, to weigh-in with your thoughts. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “I send my children to school not to be taught by teachers but to learn from students.” We are all students of this space and would love to learn from your thoughts, so please share for the benefit of all.

Let’s begin.

A recent article in Venture Beat mentions Cisco CTO Padmasree Warrior’s prediction that the Enterprise collaboration market will swell to $34 Billion. The IDC predicts the market to be $1.6 Billion by 2013 and in a recent post, Jacob, you quote Forresters’ prediction that the market will be $4.6 Billion by 2013.

Question 1: Why do you think Enterprise 2.0 market predictions, from recognized experts, vary so greatly? (Padmasree’s proprietary bias aside)

Jacob Morgan:

I think there are a few of things going on:

1. No one’s really making a distinction between services and actual tools. Looking at the report that suggests the market will be $4.6 Billion, there’s no real distinction between how much of that figure is going to tools and how much of that figure is going to services. Some of the analysts are looking at tools; some are looking at services and some are looking at both.
2. You’ve got different companies surveying different people and getting different results. If you look at any group of surveys dealing with the social space, you’ll find that the results are all over the place. Each research group collects data in different ways and defines things differently. What the IDC defines as Enterprise 2.0 and what Forrester defines as Enterprise 2.0 will be very different. Some will include data from companies starting to integrate Enterprise 2.0, some will only include data from companies that have integrated the system for a specified length of time.
3. I think, at the end of the day, they’re guessing. If you look at the numbers quoted ($1.6, $4.6 and %34 Million), the differences are massive. Right now, we’re in the early stages of this category and people are guessing.

Wendy Troupe:

There’s a lot of discrepancy on even current social media tools in the market and the market’s value. If you look at Forrester Reports over time, you’ll find different estimates at different times. Unforeseen market forces like the current downturn can have immediate impact on numbers.

I also think the space isn’t well defined. Most of the tools currently out there haven’t been around for a long time. A few tools, like SharePoint have been around for a while. A few years ago at Fidelity we used SharePoint to create a social collaboration/intranet tool. But the I think the concept is still too new and the space is ill-defined.

Jacob Morgan:

People have different ways of defining the space: there’s Social Media, Enterprise 2.0, Social Business. What defines a tool as Enterprise 2.0? I think there’s disagreement there. People arguing over semantics. If you asked 10 executives to define Enterprise 2.0 or Social Media or Social Business, you’d probably get 10 different answers.

Wendy Troupe:

I think it can be good to put a concept out there without a clear definition to generate conversation. It’s the conversation that will often better define the concept. I think businesses need to get a better understanding of the external space first – get their heads around that – and then it will force the issue internally. They’ll need a new, faster collaboration system to meet the volume and speed of those external interactions.

Social Media and Enterprise 2.0 are still very new and part of an ill-defined space — a space whose internal boundaries remain fuzzy. Where do you think those boundaries should be drawn? Should analysts specify between the market for tools and the market for services to more accurately pinpoint the potential? Should understanding begin externally and then migrate inward through necessity?

Tomorrow’s 2pm (EST) installment will cover two questions:

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

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

 

8VN2ZSG47NUN