Das Thema Enterprise 2.0 ist in Deutschland angekommen. Vor dem Hintergrund der Entwicklungen im Web 2.0 erkennen Unternehmen dass Mitarbeiter- & Projektblogs, Wikis oder Social Networks, können auch Empfehlungs- oder Bewertungsfunktionalitäten, Soci…

looking forward to your published thoughts. I know that my thinking for this framing is limited as it focusses on one upfront intention for the E2.0 activity: improve the way you (re-)innovate in order to gain competiveness in the market. I think this is a major objective of a lot projects but certainly there may be others.

Regards. Bjoern

I’m pleased and sincerely flattered that you were inspired by my blog post (as I was by Sameer Patel’s). There is much more thinking and communication to be done on the relationship of structured business processes and ad hoc communication/collaboration. Your inclination to define and apply high-level use cases as a guiding framework is spot-on and commendable. We need to discuss the issue in language that business people will understand and value.

The reframing and use case frameworks you’ve proposed here are a really good start. However, the quadrant diagram with the four use cases seems to be missing a dimension. You have labeled the Y-axis categories (Business Process and Business Information), but have no label for the two categories on the X-axis. What business concepts could you apply to create a well-formed BCG matrix?

I’ve been doing quite a bit of (unpublished) thinking on this subject lately that I would like to share with you, because it varies in one meaningful way from your frameworks. Namely, I don’t agree with your distinction between “securing the precedent” and new ways of “discovering and exchanging ideas”. In my draft framework (and ideal situation), Command and Control (structure) and Social Business (dynamic network) exist on the same plane — they are not separated as in your “reframing” diagram.

A significant consequence of the difference between your and my approach is that I include a third dimension in addition to your “Business Processes” and “Business Information” categories. I see business users being served by composite applications mashed up from three service streams: Process Services, Content Services, and People Services.

In my model, Traditional and Enterprise 2.0 functionality can exist in the same application and may be applied in the same use case. The goal is to design role-specific applications that support users efficiently and seamlessly, rather than forcing them to switch between multiple, disparate applications to accomplish work.

I hope to publish these ideas soon, in the form of more complete thoughts and diagrams. In the meantime, I’d welcome your input on my approach and encourage you to keep working on your frameworks as well. By exploring the relationship of structured and ad hoc work from different angles, and discussing those differences as we are here, we should eventually design a framework that makes sense to both us and our clients.