|
|
Blog521: October 17, 2007; Posted by Jordan Frank |
| Jim McGee did an excellent job in The Problem of Emergence of wrapping up our coffee talk with Jack Vinson on the pros and cons of emergence when adapting Web 2.0 to Enterprise 2.0. The simple fact is that Enterprise 2.0 is different from Web 2.0, and because of that, these differences have to be accounted for in the technologies implemented and in support of the adoption process. |
| The concept of emergence comes in response to the unreasonable Enterprise 1.0 constraints of pre-conceived, rigid enterprise systems built, generally, for process control. |
| At the other end of the spectrum, Jim says "In
designing a system for emergence, the designers leave a number of these
decisions open; waiting for users to fill in the blanks. So, for
example, instead of locking down a taxonomy for categorizing documents,
the designers might provide a tagging system to allow a folksonomy to
emerge from the idiosyncratic choices of each user." |
| The problem with full fledged emergence, in Jim's words, is "You want the energy and creative outcomes that can come from a
successful emergent approach, but you can’t simply rely on unaided
market forces to fuel the process." |
| On the web, many social networking sites have launched and failed, millions of blogs have emerged and seen little traffic. Beyond emergence, some mix of good marketing strategy, PR, timing and money contribute the the success of sites like Flickr, Facebook, Wikipedia and LinkedIn. |
| Taken to the enterprise, it's necessary to acknowledge the realities of the success and failures of Web 2.0, as well as factors specific to the enterprise realities. In the body of his post, McGee suggests three essential ingredients: |
- A marketing plan to introduce the technology and how it may be used.
- Appropriate
scaffolding and careful seeding of content... an empty tagging system will prove
too much of a blank slate for users more accustomed to the structures
of conventional systems.
- Coaching and
mentoring on how to use selected technologies to accomplish their
goals. This coaching would focus on working out strategies for how to
use the technology to accomplish specific business and organizational
goals.
|
| The second point is the crux of my reasoning in The Yin and Yang of Enterprise 2.0. The Yin/Yang post suggests a marriage between the Yin of Coordinated Collaboration (structure, perhaps in the form of a tag template for new wikis) and the Yang of Collaborative Creativity (emergence, allowing users the freedom to create tags and build out the organization of the space over time). |
| Web 2.0 models are necessarily emergent as there is little opportunity for planning and coordination. However, the formalized structures such as those described in Best Practice and the Wikipedia Big Brain cannot be ignored. As McGee says, Web 2.0 models benefit from the openness and scale of the web as a whole. |
| Enterprises are limited in scale as compared to the web, but can benefit quickly by establishing best practices, tag templates, and patterned use cases which make it easier for users to adopt the technology and to get traction quickly as they move between wiki and blog spaces to perform their regular communication and content management activities. Detailed taxonomies are too rigid, but enterprises will benefit readily by synchronizing tags between wikis and blogs. One simple example might be agreeing on the tag "Status" vs. leaving users to the task of creating an array of similar tags like "Status" and "Update" |
| Given appropriate scaffolding, software interface elements such as those described in Making Wikis Work in Business - Leading Users to Water can help to nudge late adopters in the right direction. |
| If you want to be successful in Enterprise 2.0 efforts, as with any effort, there is no harm in using all the resources available; from technology to training, coaching, internal marketing and process suggestions; to your advantage. Depending on your mix of internal culture, user skill and existing infrastructure, the right mix of emergence and planned or suggested structure is one key factor. |
|
|
Burton Group's Peter O'Kelly's report titled Hypertext and Compound/Interactive Document Models: Collaboration and Content Management Implications
goes a long way towards explaining the benefits of and drive towards
hypertext (a platform for blogs and wikis and more) as a backbone for
collaborative work and communication. In the report, Burton Group says Traction TeamPage... "...comes
closest to bringing the visions of hypertext pioneer Doug Engelbart to
fruition, and that it is also a very useful leading indicator in terms
of features other vendors will eventually add." |
|
The report uses several Traction examples to illustrate the Hypertext Content Model. |
|
In the report's synopsis, O'Kelly explains the concepts of hypertext and
the how it can exploit compound and interactive documents models to
benefit the user: |
Hypertext
is simply a better form-follows function fit (than print-centric
approaches) for the way people actionally think and work. Compound
documents facilitate focusing more on information work than on
disparate technologies and tools, and foster more effective content
management. Interactive document models are used to automatically and
unobtrusively offer supplemental resources and actions in context,
providing opportunities to more effectively leverage tools and metadata
without disruptive context shifts.
|
|
In short, hypertext systems provide the most effective platform for information
publishing and collaborative work. Traction's hypertext model combines multiple permissioned spaces that support collaborative editing in place (wiki style), collaboration over time (blog style) and a unique inline comment and permission model to capture communication in context. |
|
Traction was inspired by the capabilities of 'classical' closed hypertext systems (NLS/Augment, FRESS, Xanadu, Intermedia, Notes, DynaText) which pre-dated the web, but required users to put everything the wanted to view and link within that closed system. And the only content you could link to was in the same siloed space versus Tim Berners-Lee's simple, open, scalable (but breakable) World Wide Web. |
|
Unlike closed hypertext systems, Traction was built to work with the Web at every level: editing, publishing, browsing, linking, RSS/Atom syndication, search engine compatibility. But Traction's underlying Journal provides a secure, scalable space where internal links don't break, links can be followed in either direction, and fine grain comments, meta-data attributes, aggregated views, and faceted permissions just work. Blog and wiki's become presentation styles over a base which expands the capabilities of the ubiquitous web, see Weblog - the NLS Journal Revisited. |
|
Traction can also display hypertext content using embedded page sections and dynamic multi-entry views while
widgets display content from external sources
or automatically link to external sources by tracking number, customer id or similar natural identifiers that people use every day. |
|
See below for a Traction page section example of a compound document displaying all or part of the content from pages selected by tag match, content match, or other criteria. This example displays a snippet from other Burton Group papers which lead to the most recent report: |
|
|
See also
Blog120: Beyond blogs and wikis
Blog106: The Evolution of Personal Knowledge Management Blog384: Enterprise 2.0 - Letting hypertext out of its box Blog408: ... And here's what Enterprise 2.0 looked like in 1968
|
|