Members of The 2.0 Adoption Council will discuss a host of issues from culture shock to data privacy. This session will draw questions from the audience to drive relevant topics that may not have been addressed in previous conference sessions.
[These are my quick notes, complete with (what I hope is no more than) the occasional typo and grammatical error. Please excuse those. Thanks!
From time to time, I’ll insert my own editorial comments – exercising the prerogatives of the blogger. I’ll show those in brackets. ]
- What was missing from the Enterprise 2.0 2010 Conference?
- We need to have more conversation about the business value of E2.0 success stories, not just metrics about activity levels.
- Lee Bryant: in a specific project that involved lots of groups/communities, the leadership team asked each group/community at the begin to define what success in this project would look like. This led to both quantitative and qualitative measures, but identified in a way that is sensitive to each case. If you don’t spend the time to identify success factors at the begin, you end up having a tougher time establishing the tough business case.
- Bart Schutte: It can be difficult to identify metrics at the beginning that are relevant at the end. You may have to start with anecdotes. In addition, with a new project you may have to focus on total cost of ownership rather overall ROI. If the TCO is low, then implementing the project is considered low risk.
- Mary Maida: While focus on numbers is good, don’t underestimate the ability of executives to understand the softer factors – ability to work together more easily and effectively.
- Lee Bryant: you need to calibrate your request carefully – some managers tend to focus entirely on the numbers. If you need to pitch to them, you’ll need to find some useful numbers that they can understand. However, many business leaders absolutely understand the value of transformation and don’t take a bean-counter’s approach.
- Claire Flanagan: Executives in global companies can understand impact on strategy rather than just the impact on the bottom line.
- Dennis Howlett: We are stuck with the current accounting system – you ignore it at your own peril. Therefore, the more you can find useful numbers that make sense in the existing accounting system, the easier it will be to advocate for your E2.0 program and prove success.
- Chris Slemp (Microsoft): we have gestures for liking, but do we need a gesture for indicating that something found via social media provoked an insight, a breakthrough moment.
- Claire Flanagan: You can get real value from going back to connect the dots between the success stories and the specific events that occurred via social media that led to the breakthrough moment. Don’t miss this opportunity!
- Cultural differences across countries and regions:
- Bart Schutte: in a global company, a certain amount of homogeneity is inevitable. As people rise through the company tend to adapt to the dominant national culture.
- Jamie Pappas: Members unilaterally decided to communicate in their native language. Some others use the E2.0 tool to practice their English. It would be great to have local champions who can encourage these types of behaviors.
- Dennis Howlett: This is a horribly sensitive, complicated topic. Be prepared to be offended (and possibly offend) when you tackle this issue.
- Lee Bryant: There is no “national majority” in HeadShift. Rather than focusing on national stereotypes, consider whether you have a “corporate culture” that supercedes the national culture of any sub-group within the org. Make sure that you make the tools sufficiently malleable so that people in different places can use the tools productively in different (but appropriate) ways. If you can do this, you won’t need to get hung up on national and cultural analysis.