Stop and watch the organisation. How much time are they are willing to allocate and expect this willingness / readyness to alter during the process. So how much time are they are able to allocate initially? Ask yourself which tool would fit into the time the client’s staff is willing to allocate and then consider the possible effects this tool might have on administrative business processes, network communities, collaboration structure, knowledge management and time to market. Then consider the timeline as the use of the tool may likely to trigger an emergent structure that might be particularly useful but overlook initially.

A folksonomie emerges out of the use tagging tools with metrics at hand for dominating tagged items and how they shift over time. While at the same time knowledge and domain expertise becomes documented through the use of tagging. Maybe there is already a knowledge management system installed, which can utilise this folksonomie, for example a kind of skill yellow pages displaying automated updates of the tagging profile? From a systemic perspective look for theses process interfaces and show your client that there is much extra value added available as a indirect results of the use of these tools.

I believe installing X2.0 is not a traditional IT-project. For one the system setup is not a problem, software is cheap if not free to use anyway and runs often in the web browser. The cultural dimension is the most important part and it the trick is to understand the client’s perspective and to offer a unique fit. After all, the statements above show a perspective into the organisation, i.e. x2.0 to be used for internal business processes like knowledge sharing and collaboration. Yet, x2.0 can be used explicitely for community building with suppliers or customers in business process networks for example. Thus, it is never good to forget the client’s business strategy when thinking about the emergent properties benefitting the organisation.

regards
Soenke

I used to have relatively strong disagreements at the foundation I worked at years ago when they were pushing video-conferencing to replace face-to-face meetings. I kept thinking that the most profound insights and creativity always happened “in between” the formal sessions–during coffee breaks, over lunch, casual encounters when moving between sessions, and particularly when the formal sessions completely broke down. I’ve got a colleague in international development that spends all his time at conferences in the hallways to converse with other folks “escaping” the formal structure.

For me, Enterprise 2.0. Gov 2.0–virtually any social media channel–recreates that “in-between” space, where interactions can spontaneously occur, where the pressures of “productivity” and deadlines are released enough to see and experience things in radically different light, and therefore always fresh opportunity. Can it be measured against a cost-benefit analysis? Probably not, but for the sake of argument, what if it were possible to measure ALL the communications that took place around a given community/organization/enterprise–formal and informal–and flag the points where the greatest creativity broke through? I think it almost invariably happens first “in-between” and then enters the “formal” discussion.

And that’s what social media opens up–a rebalancing of the “in-between” spaces with the formal structures.

Just thinkin…

- Let the junior staff use social media and encourage them to use it to promote their work.
- If we work at home and on week ends why hinder staff to do some personnal stuff online during work hours?
- In times of multi stakeholder partnerships, we have to rethink Branding.