I have noticed two overarching thoughts in those that ask for E2.0 in their organization / community:

1) They know what they want, but are not exactly sure WHY they want it.   They say “we want a blog” but when asked why, they can’t quite articulate that.  Sure, they may say  that “we want to get information out” but they are not clear on to whom this information will go, or what the information will be or who will write it or how it is different than the purpose of an email.

2) They want to use different tools but not change the way they do things.  This is like doing dishes by hand, buying a dishwasher and then still doing them by hand before putting them in the dishwasher.

There WILL be trade offs.  One of the major trade offs is that E2.0 is participatory.  This leaves the option to participate in their hands, not yours.  Organizations too often try to force participation (or in a certain way) and what do they get? Either half-hearted participation or the illusion of participation.

Instead, allow them to participate where and when they feel it will be of most benefit.  They will feel empowered and trusted and will be MUCH more effective.

photo credit: Lazurite

Here is another ‘ah-ha’ moment for me.  Again, it was something that I always knew, but the importance of it became even more glaringly obvious.

I was reading a ReadWriteWeb post from back in September on Personalization.  To make their point, they quote Ken Fromm as saying,

“The Internet is shifting from discrete units of websites and Web pages to discrete units of information [...] organized in ways that are relevant and personal to each individual, using data gleaned from social graphs as well as recommendation and personalization services that allow users to set their preferences.”

Much of our focus is on sharing data.  To do that we want to create web pages and portals – the vehicles of web information. But that is seen from the creator side of the pond.  Look at the consumer side: I want information to come to me. And only on topics I find interesting. I want to follow the streams of interesting people and learn from them. I want to share information that I find useful. And I want it in one place, if possible.  But if not, I want to control where they come to and what it looks like. (Notice the number of ‘I’s.)

We all know about RSS, about Twitter and FriendFeed applications that pull in streams of information.  None of this is new. What is new is that we, as providers, need to focus on that instead of how to get the information out there.  Personally, I care only this much about where it is and in what form.  As long as I can a) quickly find it or the experts,  b) have it ‘delivered’ to me in the way I want to see it and c) be able to collaborate on it, I don’t care where it originated.  It could come from X and as long as I can collaborate on it in Y, that is fine with me (but let me define Y).

So the focus is even less on the site (how to share the information) and much more on enabling those in an organization to create their own personalized way of receiving shared information. Yet it is SO easy to fall in the trap.

Yet, the main problem is that most people are accustomed to the ‘web site’ mentality and will default to that to get and share information.  Our job is to first provide a way for them to personalize information transactions and second, to help them understand that the personalization they want is there and how to use it to their advantage.

The response from my AH-HA! moment in the last post was amazing. I hope others benefited from it.

In the comments, ‘Wilson’ had some insights:

“…I don’t think this will help convince (nor should it, IMHO) a CxO or mid-level manager to embrace a social network platform. I still see the chasm of understanding re “enterprise 2.0″ tools very much represented in managerial statements such as “Of course we value and encourage collaboration and knowledge share, but that Facebook kind of stuff isn’t the way to do it.”

I agree with you 100%.  It will take much more than this.  And what will convince them to embrace it? DON’T TALK ABOUT THE PLATFORM – or the tools or the shiny new toys, or compare it to Facebook or Twitter or anything else.  Talk to them about the pain they are seeing now and how it can be overcome.  Tell them the story.  Get them to buy in emotionally and intellectually.  Buying in logistically will happen naturally as an effect.

EXAMPLE:

1) A CxO knows that the regular reports created every week are not read by most people, including those it targets.  It is a waste of time and effort, yet tradition and the culture says that the reports must be created – and so they are.  But clearly, some information in the report is worthy to some people.  Show this CxO that by opening up the communication, we can let people target the information they need.  And, if there is any question about the information, they can go directly to the person and ask for clarification.  The ‘report’ becomes a gateway to more understanding through interaction with the people instead of the end product itself.

2) In a recent “Social Media / Networking 101″ class I did recently, I told them that I asked a question on Twitter and received back a quick response.  Some didn’t understand why I used Twitter to ask a question instead of using Google.  “It would have been faster”, they claimed.  “For some things, I am sure,” I answered.  “But the question I had was about something so new that the answer would never have been found online.  It would only have been found in people’s heads.”  For them, there was a big Ah-Ha! there.  I could see in their eyes the lights turn on.  In fact, I received an email the next day from someone who attended with his own Ah-Ha!:

When I do a regular internet search, I’m either added or doomed by my choice of words for the very rule-based machine search that ensues.  In Twitter, I benefit from the interpretive skills of fellow human brains that read and interpret my need and thus are able to better design a relevant response.

Bingo.  What sold him was NOT Twitter, but what can be accomplished with it and how it can help him now.

That should be our focus: the WHYs and the HOWs (as I have written before).  The WHATs come later, naturally.

photo credit: Joelh085

This morning my 14 year old son said that he LOVED Corvettes and I asked why.  You see, every time he and my 11 year old son see a Corvette or Mustang, they gets all excited – too excited.

“Because they are fast and cool looking.”

“Would you pick a girlfriend based on those criteria” I asked.

“No.”

“What else do you know about Corvettes?”

Struggling… “That they are really cool.”

“Coolness is a cultural factor.  Do they have style?  And why don’t you get excited when you see other typical ‘cool’ cars – like a Porche or Fararri or Aston Martin or ….”

“Aston what?”

“Have you been inside of a Mustang?”

“No, but I saw the inside and it was cool.  These tan leather seats…”

“So if I put tan leather seats inside a Gremlin (my first car) it would be cool, too.  Right?”

This was all said lightheartedly, but with a twinge of seriousness.

What makes something “COOL” and is that reason enough to get it?

Too many in our professional world are waiters – order takers.  They tell us what they want and we give it to them.  A training.  A wiki. Social something.  But we need to back up and ask “Why?”  Much of the time they say they want these things because 1) that is all they know or 2) because they are deemed ‘cool’.  Both of these were in play with my son and his cars.  He didn’t know much about other brands, nor did he really know why he liked them, but he knew what was cool.

If they don’t know why, find out for them.  Even though it may seem like a bother to them, they will thank you in the end.