In a recent post Bernard Lunn of RWW lists some objections CIOs have towards social media. He comes up with the following issues:

Unpredictable scaling issues.

Security against IP loss.

Integration.

Loss of productivity.

Accidental brand damage.

I would say most of them derive from the software-as-a-service concept Bernard implies towards social media - but with all those open-source offerings like Wordpress, DokuWiki et al, elgg, Laconi.ca and others the corporate implementation of social media is not limited towards SaaS concepts. And regarding the best-practices like for example BT they are mainly installing and implementing software tools rather than using services (- I think I will interview JP on this at our E2.0 FORUM this week!).

The security discussion regarding “the loss of intellectual property”, the productivity issues as well as the fear of “accidental brand damage” are in fact some critical aspects that need a mind change - but for these cases the co-workers are faced mostly (at least for Germany) with the situation that they are limited to access only certain business sites. Maybe you are laughing but I know of a bunch of companies that are not even able to access Facebook, Twitter or even XING. So here you have the situation you don’t even think about social media but about the danger of the Internet.

So bringing back the question towards this post and asking you, my dear respective Enterprise 2.0 experts, what are your answers to the CIO’s objections?

The discussions about micro blogging services have reached another peak these days with Yammer winning the beauty contest at TechCrunch50. Despite all reservations regarding Yammer not being very innovative this incident at least turned on the light on looking at micro blogging services as Twitter, Jaiku, Pownce, Identi.ca or as well Yammer (see full list of tools at Jeremiah Owyang) as a corporate tool.

I do not want to rewrite everything that is said about corporate micro blogging but 1) give a little differentiation towards the discussions, 2) sum up a short recap of some interesting German discussions on this topic and 3) come up with some thoughts about some requirements on the side of the user’s perception and understanding of this tools.

Regarding the first aspect - in a lot of discussions about Twitter, Yammer and Co. I miss the differentiation between the scope of its application. Well - as Yammer provides micro-blogging towards a closed network, and Twitter is fairly open in the cloud - we have to distinguish the use of these tools for external corporate communications (for which Yammer is not very applicable) and internal communications and collaboration purposes. So for me corporate is not corporate - and if I want both with one tool neither Yammer nor Twitter is the right choice - implementing my own Laconi.ca instance would therefore be a better approach - combined with Twhirl as a desktop client.

As this community blog is mostly about internal communications and collaborations issues I will focus my second point on the German discussions that are limited to this. (Regarding the external communications potentials I wrote on our German Social Web WORLD Notizblog.) Joachim Niemeier - moderator of our upcoming E2.0 FORUM - had published a very nice post discussing some arguments for the application of these tools and some usage scenarios. His arguments for the usage of these tools include the following:

Provisioning of an easy-to-use communications instrument

Easy documentation of discussions and decisions in form of “micro-information”

Documentated contextual feedback on these micro-information (not getting lost in any email chain communication)

Provisioning of methods to identify the cooperation/project partner (within my organization) and to build up a common understanding of my work/project

Well - these arguments for these tools are kind of the aims as well as the problems to be solved. I would still add some more mediate argument. A lot of critics on social software - esp. on micro blogging services - includes the vast amount of noice and distraction it produces. As I wrote on our Notizblog regarding social media providing noise with social bindings and mechanisms for agenada setting I see this noise implies a great potential for any creativity process - this breaks the thing again down towards Tim O’Reilly’s word of “fostering the collective intelligence” with Web 2.0. Within the discussions and informations exchanges there are a lot of ideas for innovations - and esp. micro-blogging services are very effective on this because they limit the idea spreading on a number of characters and make it very easy to distribute them.

Regarding the usage scenarios Joachim Niemeier brought up the following ideas:

Defining processes

Debriefing projects

Project management in general

Dirk Röhrborn complented these thoughts with another systematic approach on the usage scenarios:

Micromessaging (short messaging)

Awareness / Serendipity (transparency towards the business activity)

Microdocumentation (structured documentations)

Microlearning (learning in small units)

And yes - here I also would add the item of “Supporting creativity processes”.

Last but not least - I would like to start a discussion about the requirements to introduce these tools towards my organization. As an social software idealist I instantly started a Kongress Media network on Yammer after I heard about it - because as a geo-dispersed organization we are very much suffering from the information overload the email exchange is bringing to us. (Therefore I am eagerly following the results of Luis Suarez’ experiment!) But still - I believe that micro blogging could solve some of our problems - but my folks are very hardly adopting to any kind of social tool - and at last to the newest gadget that is out there in the world. So how do I get there? Dirk Röhrbein is writing in his post about the understanding that is needed for the success of these tools. So I assume we need Twitter to succeed for the masses before micro blogging can be implemented in a substantial way - as weblogs also had to be adopted by the masses before corporate blogging had become acceptable. But maybe it only lacks the best-practices. In the discussions at Joachim Niemeier’s post Martina Goehring as well as Martin Böhringer are talking about some micro blogging best-practices - maybe I or Joachim Niemeier can convince them in writing down their experiences in a guest post at this place - until then I open up the discussion to let you tell me your experiences.

I have read at Mike Gotta about his research in the field of social networking within the enterprise. As we have some cases on this at the upcoming Enterprise 2.0 FORUM I wondered whether there are some more people out there that are interested in bringing together some case studies about this? Martin Koser (frogpond) just started a case study research on all wiki cases that have been presented at our conferences this year. We are looking forward to publish this in a wiki at this site soon (http://wiki.enterprise2open.com) - and therefore I thought it would also be a great idea in adding some more social networking cases.

If you’re interested, just let me know.

I just stumbled upon an interesting research paper of the Harvard Business School (via Collaborative Thinking of Mike Gotta) that discusses the “struggle of balancing the conflicting demands of efficiency and innovation”. While it’s clear that efficiency (in the means of constant or better business results at less or at least constant expenses) and innovations (in the means of new or better products or processes for new or faster exploitation of the markets) are the two main strategies within highly competitive markets, it is mainly unclear how to enhance both in the same matter as it seems that they are two ends of a bi-polar scale.

The HBS paper concludes this with the following:

Organizations can become more efficient in the short run by replacing costly, unpredictable problem solving activity with consistent, streamlined routines. However, this efficiency often comes at the cost of long-run adaptability. The more organizational activity is dominated by stable routines, the less the organization learns, and the more rigid and inflexible it becomes.

For the solution in the middle the authors discuss the role of perturbations as novel stimuli that disrupt organizational routines and drive innovation. In regards to this the authors submit the following:

“… highly disciplined organizations can sustain exploration by deliberately perturbing themselves and by creating knowledge for exploratory interpretation that translates perturbations into problemsolving, learning, and adaptation”

As lever to this the organisation needs to reach “ambidexterity - the capability to sustain both exploitation and exploration simultaneously” by inforcing a “lively intellectual debate”. As research object the paper discusses the production system of Toyota and its application of the “principle known as autonomation or jidoka”.

Processes are designed to stop production when faults occur, thereby calling attention to accidental perturbations.

Means every occuring problem within the production process leads towards a complete process stop of the production line (by ringing the “andon cord”). That drives the full awareness of all workers and managers towards this problem and leads towards a more immediate solving-process.

The authors conclude:

Perturbations disrupt exploitation and create opportunities for exploration. Thus, they impose a short-term cost in the form of reduced exploitation performance in order to obtain a longer-term benefit in the form of new knowledge. If such new knowledge enables more effective exploitation, then exploitation performance in the presence of perturbations may quickly rise above the level that would have been obtained without perturbations, even after taking into account the cost of perturbations.

The question is how do organization induce perturbation - and therefore the exploration of new ideas and innovations:

Organizational exploration can be sustained in two ways: unconsciously, through natural processes of variation, selection, and retention (C.f. Campbell 1960); or consciously, by intentionally influencing the flow of perturbations that the organization experiences or the exploration undertaken in response to perturbations.

In regards to Toyota the authors come up with the following statement:

A former executive VP at Toyota notes, “Toyota’s top managers berate people who don’t try to come up with new ideas or who don’t take up new challenges, but not people who try something and fail. The role of senior managers is … to help subordinates with new ideas or challenges … That’s what makes trial and error possible (Hino 2006: 91-92).”

Therefore a culture or organizational scheme of accepting trial and failure supports perturbation and exploration of innovations.

[At Toyoata] routines for inducing perturbations include shortening cycle times, shrinking buffers between process steps, and training programs that teach front-line workers to formulate and conduct experimental changes.

But perturbations needs to be induced carefully:

As Nonaka observes, “Without reflection, the introduction of fluctuation [perturbations] tends to produce ‘destructive’ chaos” (Nonaka 1994: 28). Organizations that possess such knowledge respond to minor perturbations with vigorous exploration, while organizations without such knowledgestubbornly revert to established processes even in the face of severe and highly destructive perturbations.

As key levers for exploiting the relationship between perturbations and exploration the paper concludes two five aspects:

• Agency: including commitments of the members of the organization, heuristics asat Toyota that valorize the pursuit of seemingly-impossible goals or the obsessive elimination of waste, even in miniscule amounts and routines that determines the degree to which perturbations drive productive exploration.
• Saturation Frequency of Processes: defines the maximum rate at which organizational units can learn from perturbations
• Dispersion of perturbations:Perturbations contribute most to long-term organizational adaptability when they are widely dispersed across the organization’s process hierarchy, instead of being concentrated in particular levels or functions
• Upward and Downward Filtering: determines how perturbations propagate through the organization’s process space
• Signal Content of Perturbations

Concluding implications made from the authors are the following:

• To sustain adaptability in the long term, perturbations must occur throughout the organization.
• In highly disciplined organizations, adaptability depends on the active participation of organization members in inducing and interpreting perturbations.
• Management must trust employees to perturb processes, teach them to detect and interpret perturbations, and motivate them to do so.
• In the long term, business success depends as much on the commitment and knowledge of frontline employees as on strategic decision-making by senior management.

While this research gives a very organizational approach to the topic of how to change organization while still being efficient, I see also some implication in regards to the Enterprise 2.0 discussions. I think the paper gives a very sharp insight towards the underlying mechanisms that can be realized by introducing social software within organization. Because the instant and collaborative approach of social software tools help to build up a constant and to all members of the organization transparent level of perturbation - wikis,  weblogs and micro blogging that are distributed and aggregated by RSS and social presence solutions as internal lifestreams supporting the distribution of organisational knowledge and keep up a steady stream of disturbance in the streamlined organization that may lead to problem-solving solutions across the organization.

Two days ago Simon Wardley published a short list of people you want to know for answers to questions within the field of emerging enterprise technologies - while being very pleased that he mentioned this “very young” information ressource I would like to add some more people to his list:

Enterprise 2.0: Sören Stamer of Coremedia (though he is the CEO of a software company - he really changed his company by means of Enterprise 2.0 - he is also the co-editor of the very nice book “Die Kunst, loszulassen!” - see the video with his speach of the Enterprise 2 Open @ Cebit below ) same with Frank Roebers of Synaxon ( a big German based electronics reseller - German video interview)

Sevenload Direkt

As a warm-up dance for the Enterprise 2.0 FORUM on Sept. 18th in Cologne, Joachim Niemeier, the moderator of the E2.0 FORUM, conducted some interviews with our speakers. Below you’ll find a English translation with the key content of the interview with Prof. Dr Michael Koch of the Universität der Bundeswehr, München, who is teaching and researching in the field of cooperation systems.

---

Questions by Joachim Niemeier (JN) / Answers by Michael Koch (MK)
JN: What are the key questions within the E2.0 area you are working on?

MK:

• I am working on this topic in two areas.
• First as a researcher (already since the times of CSCW and Groupware) on identifying success factors for the use of social software within the enterprise; esp. for the use of social networking solutions and open-source social software systesms.
• Second as a practioneer because my research group has the task of implementing a social software solution to support the collaboration in research and education at the Universität der Bundeswehr; within this area we are analysing and testing some kind of integrated blog, wiki and social networking solution.

JN: As you work on this topic already for many years let me ask you shortly whether Enterprise 2.0 is not just old wine in new skins?

MK:

• A lot of the questions within this field are the same; e.g. integration of the technical solution within the organization and how-to solve this integration from a sociological and technological perspective.
• But there is a key differnce towards the older days: while office automation, CSCW and Groupware have been set up and made to use within a “top-down” approach, the key idea of E2.0 solution is to let grow the use and utility of social software within a “bottom-up” approach - with the benefits of the individual as key target.
• Therefore the key element of those project is not anymore the acceptance of the technology but the motivation of people getting involved and participating.

JN: How would you explain the notion of Enterprise 2.0 towards a corporate manager?

MK:

• E2.0 is the use of flexible web-based tools to enable a better communcation and collaboration within the organisation.
• Though it is still about technology it is about the notion of technology to change something.
• Social software as the underlying technology approach can change the way communcation and collaboration is organized within the organisation towards a more flexible approach.

JN: How is Enterprise 2.0 changing the enterprise?

MK:

• Within the enterprises E2.0 is leading towards a more flexible, participative as well more integrative (in means of including customers, co-workers and partners) way of collaboration.
• This increase of participation will overcome hierarchical structures and their communicative limitations.
• This will lead towards changes because co-workers can access information easier.

JN: How is the key “promoter” for the E2.0 project in your organization?

MK:

• I think in this point the university is not very much different from any enterprise: the key “promoter” for the E2.0 idea are the member of the organization itself - means the academic research fellows and the students.
• Those know social software tools already from their private use - and want these also for work; e.g. a working groups wants a wiki to collaborate within a research project or others want somekind of blogging tool to support and inform their students.
• Also in a second point the academic organisation is not very different from the corporate organisation: the IT department does not have enough ressources to support these adhoc demands.
• Therefore my group is trying to develop an integrative solution while combining “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches. As in corporations we cannot force any department to use a solution, but we can make it easier to use it. Therefore we are analysing the requirements and want to choose the best solutions and provide advices to how to use this.

JN: What are the key barriers for the enterprise 2.0 topic? What are your advices for this topic?

MK:

• A big danger is that the topic is positioned too technical; a typical pitfal is to provide a technology but not to provide advices how to realize the benefits with it.
• Therefore we are not only installing a central wiki and a multi-user blogging solution within our organisation, but also are collecting “success stories” how to facilitat the benefits with these tools; that is what we call “user-orientated documentation” - we are not only documenting how to use the features of the tools but also what benefits they provide.
• From our experience it makes no sense of pushing the users in some kind of “formal template” approach (means providing templates for setting up informational structures); in the extreme case this will lead towards the avoidance of the new tools; this means we need some new kind of quality assurance for the usage of web 2.0 and social software tools within the enterprise; a good quality method is the “gardening” approach - someone is in charge for structuring the content and assuring the quality while not building barriers for the users.

JN: What are your three wishes regarding a successful E2.0 deployment in your organization?

MK:

• Actually it is just one big, but very concrete wish: social software solutions must be better integrative. So far the existent solutions are very modular in its own concept but very monolithic when it comes to the integration with other solutions; even open source solutions as WordPress or Twiki are very hard to integrate with each other; businesses need more complete solutions therefore I hope the open source solutions will grow together on a higher level.

JN: What are your expectations for the Enterprise 2.0 FORUM?

MK:

• I am looking forward towards an open exchange of information and hope to get to know more E2.0 practioneers as well as their cases and experiences.
• I will talk about two studies where we have evaluated the success factors of the use of social networking services within corporations; within the first study we have conducted an online research on what social networking services are, which functionalities they include and with what expectation they have been set up; in a second study we have analyzed case studies on the corporate use of social networking services and its challenges.

JN: What will happen when the generation Y will enter the enterprises?

MK:

• From my perspective today the students know a lot of tools and services as StudiVZ or Facebook; but IMO it is not clear to many students how these tools can be used effectively within organisations; therefore I believe that the students nowadays are not any further then the enterprises; but this generation will add some more pressure towards the enterprises in order to use social software tools - though they will not enrich the enterprise with some kind of application expertise.

JN: What role is web 2.o playing with the academic processes?

MK:

• I see some kind of single usage of Web 2.0 within the universities but cannot say that a lot of faculties or big parts of the academic institutions are using Web 2.0 intensively.
• There are some examples for using blogs and wikis to support the academic courses; a good appliance is shown by my collegue Barbara Niedner (http://www.unibw.de/sp/lehre/dozent?mid=2&id=29) with her courses on “Generation 2.0 - Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Betrachtung des Web 2.0″ (Generation 2.0 - from a communication science perspective on Web 2.0) or “Uni-Flirt Podcast”.
• With the academic research we are using the whole bandwith of wikis, weblogs (instead of mailing lists) and social tagging services; here you have to distinguish the use of tools within the closed context of academic projects and a public publication of information; we have experienced that the use of weblogs is not favorable for all kind of communications; and weblogs will also not substitute the classical academic publication processes; but if you want to approach some alternative target groups weblogs are a effective way of publication; e.g. in my research field of the “applied sciences of informatik” contacts to enterprises and practioneers is very important and for the dialogue with these target groups weblogs are very helpful.
• Also the networking within the academic sphere is slowly getting in motion; academic weblogs like the Wissenschafts-Café (http://www.wissenschafts-cafe.net) are being organised; and there are a lot of projects going on under different names like Grid, Science 2.0 or E-Science/E-Research - focusing on supporting the cooperation and the knowledge management within the academic sphere (see http://scholarz.net/, http://www.researchgate.net/, http://www.scilink.com/).
• And to mentioned as well - all those projects are been developed bottom-up.

1. What is your name?

Suw Charman-Anderson

2. Who are you and what are you doing?

I’m a Web 2.0 expert, and I provide advice and consulting for companies interested in improving collaboration and communication within their business.

3. How did you get to the E2.0 topic?

I’ve been working as a Web 2.0 consultant for over four years, and I have focused much of my attention on understanding how and why some people adopt social tools, and others don’t. Social software is ‘elective’, so people can choose whether or not they want to use a blog or a wiki, so how do we introduce these tools in such a way that people are drawn to them? It’s an important question to address if social software is to be a success in business.

4. What is your understanding of the core concept of the Enterprise 2.0 idea?

For me, Enterprise 2.0 is really about mending some fundamentally flawed business management ideas and practices. For decades, there’s been this idea that competition between teams and departments increases production, but instead it can cause unhealthy competitive behaviour that damages the not just the company’s profits, but also creates an unpleasant working environment. Co-operation and collaboration, on the other hand, can both help businesses become more efficient and productive, and can create a more collegial atmosphere which is more enjoyable to work in.

5. What are the main potentials of the Enterprise 2.0 idea?

The careful application of Web 2.0 tools to the enterprise is a challenge, but companies that do so successfully can reap many rewards, including:

• reduce the duplication of effort by ensuring teams working on similar projects are talking to each other
• capture knowledge and wisdom through people’s natural desire to communicate, thus helping new starters get up to speed more quickly and ameliorating loss of knowledge when people leave
• easily share that knowledge across teams, departments and countries
• form tighter, more loyal teams by improving interpersonal relationships
• decrease the amount of email being sent by moving communications on to more appropriate tools
• improve collaboration by providing better environments for working together
• make data more findable, and re-findable, thus decreasing the amount of time wasted looking for information

There are many benefits to Enterprise 2.0, some of which can be realised very quickly and easily, but all of which can help create long-lasting positive change.

The main potential of the Enterprise 2.0 idea is something that I have touched on above briefly as well, which is capability to disrupt the traditional corporate space, bringing into the game concepts like corporate responsibility, ownership, accountability, trust, openness, flexibility in such a way that every single knowledge worker has got the opportunity to build further up on their passion for whatever the subject matter by reaching out, connecting and collaborating with other peers, in an environment where openness & transparency are key to help nurture a trustworthy environment where innovation is the main beneficiary. That’s the potential that Enterprise 2.0 has been having all along. Nothing to do with the tools, nor the processes. Just the people

6. What are the main challenges and threats of the Enterprise 2.0 idea?

Adoption can be a real challenge. The technology is cheap and easy to install, but unless some thought is given to what the tools are going to be used for, and by whom, they can end up languishing on the intranet, unused. Companies are happy to spend money on servers, software and licences, but are often reluctant to spend on the one thing that all Enterprise 2.0 projects rely on - people. I always recommend that companies start thinking about implementation, roll-out and adoption even before they have decided on what tools they are going to install. They have to have a comprehensive strategy that is focused on the users and how the tools are going to help them do their job on a daily basis.

7. Please give us three tags that describe your person and work best?

collaborative, creative, curious

8. Please give us three links to articles/contributions that describe your views best?

Google Tech Talk
Adoption Strategy for Social Media
The Importance of Pigheadedness

9. Please give us three names of collegues that you would refer to as brother-in-spirit?

1. Euan Semple
2. Stephanie Booth
3. Kevin Anderson (my husband, so I’m a bit biased, but he’s done some truly ground-breaking work in the field of Journalism 2.0)

1. What is your name?

Luis Suarez

2. Who are you and what are you doing?

I am a knowledge manager, community builder and social computing evangelist at IBM. I work in a program within IBM Software Group to help accelerate the adoption of social software within the enterprise for all of the Sales workforce and, as an extension, for the entire of IBM. I am co-leading a community of over 400 Social Computing evangelists across IBM help bring forward some more awareness on the impact of Enterprise in the corporate world.

3. How did you get to the E2.0 topic?

Initially, I got involved with Enterprise 2.0 back in 2002 when I was first getting exposed to blogging, both personal & corporate blogging, as a tremendous opportunity to offer knowledge workers with the possibility of having a voice on whatever the subject matter and share their passion with it. From there onwards, in 2003 I got started with my own corporate blog, behind the firewall, and from there onwards I became a social computing evangelist at IBM helping accelerate the rate of adoption of everything related to 2.0, not just with the social software tools, but also with the implications of the social aspects of the 2.0 movement.

4. What is your understanding of the core concept of the Enterprise 2.0 idea?

My understanding is that Enterprise 2.0, just like Web 2.0 in the consumer space, has never been, and will never be, about the tools nor the processes, but about the people, and how they are now finally empowered to connect with other fellow knowledge workers to share their knowledge, collaborate and become much more innovative as a result of that. It is a changing game where productivity takes a new height and where interactions happen in a much more open, public and transparent space than anywhere else in the past, which surely shakes the ground within the corporate world, because everyone now is able to share that voice and their passion on whatever drives their day to day activities. To me Enterprise 2.0’s core concept is changing the workplace to make it a better place where knowledge workers will have learned how they are no longer in control, they are part of a conversation that they need to nurture on a daily basis and that they now have got a much more important job in helping foster their trust skills with other knowledge workers to continue collaborating and sharing what they know in a much more open & responsible manner.

5. What are the main potentials of the Enterprise 2.0 idea?

The main potential of the Enterprise 2.0 idea is something that I have touched on above briefly as well, which is capability to disrupt the traditional corporate space, bringing into the game concepts like corporate responsibility, ownership, accountability, trust, openness, flexibility in such a way that every single knowledge worker has got the opportunity to build further up on their passion for whatever the subject matter by reaching out, connecting and collaborating with other peers, in an environment where openness & transparency are key to help nurture a trustworthy environment where innovation is the main beneficiary. That’s the potential that Enterprise 2.0 has been having all along. Nothing to do with the tools, nor the processes. Just the people

6. What are the main challenges and threats of the Enterprise 2.0 idea?

I think that the main challenges that the idea of Enterprise 2.0 face are actually the people themselves. The cultural aspects of changing people’s behaviours and how they need to understand that the way they have been working all along may not have been the most productive because of that risk control, secrecy attitude. It will require a substantial amount of effort and energy to over this challenge, because to me it is the only one that is prohibiting for a wider adoption of Enterprise 2.0 within the corporate world. The tools are now incredibly easy to use, the IT infrastructure is as robust as it ever was (And if not, people would move outside of the firewall, something most companies would not be able to afford), the processes get a complete re-work where openness and trust play a key role. And, in the end, like I have said just before, the main challenge is the cultural shift and how willing knowledge workers would be to make it happen. People need to understand that they need to begin feeling comfortable of having a public voice inside of the enterprise where their voices are heard and where they are part of a conversation, a mutual conversation where everyone benefits from. That’s our challenge to overcome.

7. Please give us three tags that describe your person and work best?

Social Computing, Evangelist, Gran Canaria

8. Please give us three links to articles/contributions that describe your views best?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/jobs/29pre.html
http://www.elsua.net/2008/07/28/giving-up-on-work-e-mail-status-report-on-week-24-six-months-on/
http://www.elsua.net/2008/07/16/i-freed-myself-from-e-mail’s-grip-additional-commentary-part-i/
http://www.elsua.net/2008/07/16/i-freed-myself-from-e-mail’s-grip-additional-commentary-part-ii/

9. Please give us three names of collegues that you would refer to as brother-in-spirit?

1. Martin Koser, Germany
2. Thomas Vander Wal, US
3. Ed Yourdon, US
4. Dennis Howlett, Spain (Bonus name! :D)

One mission of this site is the community bonding around E2.0 experts and practioneers. This said I want to start a series of expert profiles. For the beginning I will work through my network of people I know - but I am very open for any suggestions of people you know who are worth to be featured here.

There two more things I have to let to know about today - at first about this nicely growing Friendfeed room (http://friendfeed.com/rooms/e20). Come, join the room and share your insights with us - as Friendfeed is becoming more and more an effective, collaborative monitoring tool.

Next - as one cannot change group names on Facebook I have just created a new group under the title of “Enterprise 2.0 Community“. I see this group as a replacement for our “Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT” group that we have set up in December last year for the E2.0 SUMMIT in Hanover on March 4th. Hopefully everybody on the former group will also join the new group - so we can extend our discussions and knowledge sharing from here to there.