Meantime no doubt, as you suggest, the effects of low cost Web 2.0 collaboration tools are being felt in organizations, both in demonstrable results and executives being more comfortable with their adoption. To me Andrew McAfee’s 2006 HBR article describing Dresdner Kleinwort’s wiki adoption was a key to opening executive eyes to the potential. http://snurl.com/b5tl6

A January 28 Financial Times Digital Business article “Business starts to take Web 2.0 tools seriously” supports your case and Mark Masterson’s focus on supporting social processes in business computing platforms. http://snurl.com/b5tww The sub head reads:

“Far from being frivolous distractions, social networking tools can help streamline processes”

and photo caption:

“No fear of Enterprise 2.0. Any scepticism will not be overcome by technology vendors but by employees.”

When Victoria Axelrod and I do presentations this graphic postulating the impact of social tools adoption on control in organizations gets attention: http://snurl.com/b5u02 But after hearing Sean Dennehy and a CIA colleague present Intellipedia at Enterprise 2.0 Boston, it seems to me if the CIA can put wikis to work then there is no excuse for any enterprise not considering the possibilities. http://snurl.com/b5u7h

Hopefully this discussion will help in both unearthing management concerns, and addressing them.

I am excited to see the amount of groundwork being done around the world looking into E2.0 implementation issues. I agree that Cases 2.0 should be larger and (wife willing) might be able to add a little bit there.

Jenny, your comment about resistance due to the status quo and fiefdoms was a pertinant one and is part of the reason I see social software being so powerful in the future. Let me explain: Status-quo “The existing state of affairs” fits in group of social norms and is one way of looking at the accepted practices that many refer to as corporate culture. Unlike other systems though, which are simply victims of corporate culture, once a base level of openess is achieved in an organisation that allows social software to get started, these tools seem to positively influence the culture itself in some cases. In other words, the enabling and emergance nature of social software works to overcome the factors that resist it.

A similar case can be made by fiefdoms. Many of these types of organisational sub-structures are based on the leader’s ability to maintain control of information flow in the organisation. Freeing up (some say democratising) the information flow has an undermining effect on attempts to use this form of control and thus concepts like expert power, trust and integrity become more useful. We see this happening in public social networks where commentators are speaking about credibility, recognition and reputation ().

I would love to see more research like mine around the intersection of E2.0 tools and culture. I’m sure there are some in the works as we speak and now my thesis is done I hope to publish some of my findings later in the year.

“What I’m really interested in here is the intersection of bottom-up, emergent collaborative styles of work, and domain specific, enterprise software..”

Me too, as well as curious about better understanding the direction you are heading.

I must also admit my interest was originally driven by working in organizations where innovative, emergent collaborative styles of work initiatives showed great potential but sadly– for a host of reasons mostly around threats to the status quo and existing fiefdoms—-often failed to attain maximum value creating potential for the business.

You also indicated being even more interested in:

“how to build the software that will make all these things possible, and which is therefore a necessary prerequisite for all the rest.”

And

“in an ongoing conversation about what, exactly, geeks like me should be building.”

I hope other TheAppGap readers will join an ongoing conversation about what “geeks” should be building to integrate bottom-up, emergent collaborative styles of work, and domain specific, enterprise software. A starting point might be Celine Roque’s “Productivity Wish List” post: http://snurl.com/b0opc

Thanks for the pointer to Stowe and Oliver’s research project into which I will dig. I was looking at Andrew McAfee’s Cases 2.0 Wiki ahead of referring somebody to it the other day. I couldn’t help but think what a shame, when so many people are making interesting uses of Web 2.0 in enterprises, why are there only 20 cases listed? http://snurl.com/b4dbl Hopefully the cases Stowe & Oliver report will find their way into Cases 2.0.

Victoria and I can always be inspired to pursue the next research project. (Enough time has elapsed since our “Facebook Groups in Business Investigation” that we can choose to forget how much work is involved! http://snurl.com/74nz0 ) I can already see possibilities based on your comments, and you may not be surprised to hear it springs from “structural holes”.

Let’s explore.

And, reading back over my comment, when I used the phrase “force Stowe and Oliver”, I meant that in the sense of “bring to their attention, and cheerfully convince them of the importance of”. Of course. Cough. Ahem.

In general, what I’m really interested in here is the intersection of bottom-up, emergent collaborative styles of work, and domain specific, enterprise software. BPM is just one (albeit the most complicated) example. Lots of people are working on the underlying theories, on the organisational change and transformation practices, and on understanding and facilitating the impact. I’m more interested in how to build the software that will make all these things possible, and which is therefore a necessary prerequisite for all the rest. But I am interested in an ongoing conversation about what, exactly, geeks like me should be building.

If you or any of your readers also think that this is a fruitful thing to explore (before geeks like me just go off and start building things), please consider helping me force Stowe and Oliver to take a look at the question. Wander over to here and vote for them to include it in their study.