It´s a year since we first arrived at a definition of an enterprise 2.0. In this year, we have continued our readings and tried to find the best method of assessing companies to measure how 2.0 they are, which is quite a difficult task taking into account that the context in which we live changes all the time.
In our book Sustainability 2.0 (coming soon en english) we reached a level of consensus on what an enterprise 2.0 should really be like. We begin our research on the article by Andrew McAfee “Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration”. According to McAfee’s definition, the notion of enterprise 2.0 consists in the implementation of the attributes and characteristics of Web 2.0 in business. It represents a new way of working within corporations by means of new technologies and business practices that allow workers to overcome the limitations imposed by the communications tools offered by the earlier model.
The main objective of a 2.0 business is to generate spaces in which people can realize their personal projects on a collective basis: a distributive network that encourages new relations relationshps without being bound by centralized decision-making and in which those on the periphery are just as important as those in the middle.
Recently, we have designed this chart to make a diagnosis for an argentinian top telecomunications company, in which we aimed to survey 400 top managers.

The axis “Technology” measures the level of adoption of hardware and modernization of the organization.
The axis “Adoption of tools and philosophy of the web 2.0″ intends to evaluate the level of understanding of this new way of thinking, the behaviour of the people within the organization and the adoption of social software that fosters collaboration, openness and transparency.
Bottom left are all the traditional enterprises in any part of the world. Vertical hierarchies dominate the process of decision making. There are low levels of modernization and technology adoption.
Top left are all the modern and hype enterprises that invest heavily in technology. Their human resources have the knowledge but fail to understand the philosophy of this new paradigm: networking, collaboration and collective intelligence. These are the kind of companies that ban the use of MSN and other 2.0 tools in the computers of their employees.
“Social Enterprise” includes academic institutions and NGOs where the people want to open themselves and share, but they still have not learned to use the tools and face the digital gap.
Top right is what many of us have defined as enterprise 2.0.
Our main hypothesis is that in order to achieve this, first of all we need to change people`s values and every day attitudes. It is not so much how many tools of social software they accumulate as how much they change their mindsets.
It is not just a question of joining Facebook or twitter or persuading the CEO to open a blog. Instead, it means putting into practice what Ernesto van Peborgh has defined as “key behaviors”: collaborate, render control, create and share.
What for?
The company should resemble a pond, where ideas emerge as bubbles from the bottom, go up without obstacles and reach the surface. In this model, ideas are visible and get done, attracting new ideas on their way.

No Comments