On CeBIT friday - right after the Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT Meetup - Dion Hinchcliffe hosted the first european Enterprise 2.0 TV show. On the panel there were:

• Coremedia’s Sören Stamer
• Frank Schönefeld of T-Systems MMS
• Craig Hepburn of Opentext (see my interview with him)
• Aidan Troy from IBM
• Peter Fischer from Microsoft and
• Steve Bjorg from Mindtouch.

Quite an impressing list of experts and I am looking forward to checking out the video recordings on the Dion’s Enterprise 2.0 TV show. Here’s a nice picture of the relaxed wrapping-up after doing the show:

This post-recording picture by Dion Hinchcliffe - standing in the background is Martin Lindner, see his expert profile here, talking with Frank Schönefeld is Kai Nehm (picture above by him)

1.) What is your name?

Martin Lindner

2.) Who are you and what are you doing?

I am a consulting researcher, or a researching consultant for “Enterprise 2.0″ and “Learning 2.0″. My field of expertise is microcontent/microinformation, and how it affects the workplace, the enterprise, and indeed the knowledge workers themselves. I’m working out concepts how new clouds, flows and feeds can be designed that help people to swim in the sea of (micro-)information?

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

I come from academic Media Studies, was a digital Web-immigrant after buying an iMac in 1999, becamea e-learning professional fundamentally frustrated with “e-learning” from the start, soon got heavily involved in the “Web 2.0″ before it got that name, then I worked four years as Principal Researcher for a small “Research Studio” that tried to develop “microlearning” and “microinformation solutions”, acting like a research-driven start-up. I did a “microcontent widget” development project there, and some Information Management consulting

From 2005 to 2008 I’ve been program chair of the “Microlearning” conference, which was all about “learning and knowing in microcontent environments” (a.k.a. “Web 2.0″, “the cloud”). We had brillant international experts in the field which came to be “enterprise 2.0″ right from the start. So I became a node and a a catalyst in an emerging international network of experts, entrepreneurs and practitioners from established organisations and enterprises.

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

E 2.0 is the effect of Web-technologies and Web-practices within the “walled garden” of the enterprise. Like the tagline of Lomdon’s brilliant E 2.0 pioneer Headshift says: “Smarter, Simpler, Social.” One may add also: smaller, cheaper, more flat, more human, network effects by default …

Right now, I see three natural starting points, from where one may end up with an E 2.0 concept: (1) needing more dynamic and effective forms of knowledge circulation; (2) needing more direct, spontaneous, authentic forms of internal and external communication; (3) needing to create more simple, intuitive and self-organizing workflows for modern knowledge/information workers. Historically, (1) and (2) were represented by “wikis and blogs”, but then, with the new wave of feed-based meta-applications, we came to learn that the whole Web 2.0 and E 2.0 thing is all about easy creation and circulation of microinformation.

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

Every enterprise, even if it is just consisting of one person, is existing on three levels: (1) on the level of management (the abstract structure of functions, roles and budgets); (2) on the level of teams/projects (the “we”-perspective); (3) on the level of the single worker (the person staring at a PC/laptop screen and wielding a mobile phone). In traditional enterprises, the connections between these three levels had been hardwired. The building was the hardware, the hardwired organisation itself was the Operating System. This has changed with PCs, with e-mail, and now, even more dramatically, with the impact of the Web. “Enterprise 2.0″ is the name for finding ways for organisations, teams and sigle workers to adapt to the resulting “Digital Climate Change”.

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

Today, most enterprises are made of structures and ideas from quite different stages of evolution. There are elements from the 1950s (the bureaucracy of “line organisations”), from the management theories of the 1980s (like project management, the fantasy of controlling everything with numbers and charts, etc.), and now, increasingly, also from the business and work philosophy of software-driven start-ups.

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

pragmatist, ethnologist, analyst

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

• On designing microinformation apps & experiences
• On micromedia convergence
• On learning in microcontent-driven environements

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

1. Lee Bryant (CEO, headshift.com), because he is the walking impersonation of E 2.0 as it should be
2. Thomas Vander Wal (InfoCloud Solutions), because of his both practical and visionary work on Info Clouds and Folksonomies
3. Teemu Arina (Dicole Oy), another E 2.0 impersonator, also a pragmatist and avant-gardist at the same time
4. and (bonus!) and Chris Langreiter (langreiter.com), because he is a brilliant exponent of the kind of humanities-informed software development that is the real driving force of Web 2.0 innovation, and will have to drive E 2.0 innovation too: “E 2.0 is not made of people. It is made of people who make software apps that make communications that make people getting sucked in.”

Coming Friday the Enterprise 2.0 community (includes you, the reader of this community blog) is invited to meetup and mingle at the E2.0 Meetup on the CeBIT Webciety Area. I can tell you that I am definitely looking forward to this, especially after having been extremely busy the two days before.

So come over into the T-Systems lounge, listen to the panel discussion with Dion Hinchcliffe, Dr. Frank Schönefeld (T-Systems), Aidan Troy (IBM), Peter Fischer (Microsoft), Craig Hepburn (OpenText) and Sören Stamer (Coremedia) and get into the conversation with fellow Enterprise 2.0 people.

Please register at the Facebook event page if you want to participate (if you can’t be in Hanover for the CeBIT don’t worry - the CeBIT Webciety programme will probably be streamed online, follow Webciety news on Twitter to stay up to date). If you’re interested in coming to the event but need a ticket read on:

Participants of the E2.0 Meetup can receive a complimentary (free) ticket for CeBIT by following this procedure:

1. Contact me (either via Twitter or Web) or comment/trackback this post if you need a ticket for the CeBIT. Please state your mail.
2. You will receive a ticket code via mail.
3. After a registration on the CeBIT website you will be sent an email
4. There will be an PDF-file attached to the email
5. Print this PDF-file.
6. You have a one-day free ticket!

Though targeted on the adoption of social software, the discussions at last week’s Enterprise 2.0 FORUM have always emerged to the question about the ROI of the Enterprise 2.0 strategy very quickly. Especially the talk of Dr. Frank Schönefeld turned the discussion towards the economic measures and dimensions of Enterprise 2.0 (he promised to me that an English version of his talk will soon be available on Slideshare!).

In times of budget limitations and reductions this is quite sensible - but no clear and satisfying answer can yet be given for this question. Therefore the already defined punchline “Improving Collaborative Performance” of the planned Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT in October is more than relevant for these times of economic tension and I want to share my thoughts about the concept of this planned event with you on this weblog as well as to encourage you to give me some feedback.

So what’s the Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT with the claim “Improving Collaborative Performance” about? The core discussion of this year’s E2.0 SUMMIT addresses the conceptional and organizational dimensions of gaining collaborative advantages and efficiency by adding social and collaborative action as well as intelligence to the company. Cutting it down - the questions to be discussed are the following:

1. How to conceptionalize, realize and gain collaborative performance?
   => discussing the value chain of an collaborative enterprise, the economics of sharing, processes of open innovation
2. What are the main drivers for collaborative advantage and efficiency?
   => discussing communications, processes, infrastructure as well as (self-)management
3. What are the key values of a collaborative culture?
   => discussing the key characteristics as open, transparent and decentralized as well as others - and how to realize the cultural change in a multinational environment as we have in a lot of European companies
4. How to introduce and adopt social and collaborative approaches within the company?
   => discussing the steps of adoption especially in the context of multinational companies

As you might realize - I am very much focussing on the extracting the economic benefits of Enterprise 2.0. I have therefore invited Kjetil Kristensen from Norway who did very interesting academic work on this topic. Furthermore Dr. Frank Schönefeld of T-Systems MMS is also working on a conceptionalization of the business values of Enterprise 2.0. Who else is focussing on this topic - please contact us!

Besides the visionary talks I am also looking for straight-forward cases as the high-procentage of practice talks is one of Kongress Media’s own key value propositions - in comparison to other conferences. So I appreciate any proposal of anyone or any matter for this visionary event. We hope we will support and trigger innovative ideas before and after the event - it’s our goal to help bond the European Enterprise 2.0 community more closely together.

Besides my german language summary at frogpond I suppose it’s important to compile some impressions for the non-german speaking Enterprise 2.0 community. And when one of your keynote speakers travelled all the way from London to Cologne it’s even more timely. I already did my best in twitter-translating the german-language talks for him (neat if you have companies like Vodafone among the best practices that present in German but sport english slides). Yes, David Terrar triggered off the conference day with a well-received talk on community building in the Enterprise. See the embedded slideshow below on “How to build vibrant communities”.

While I knew David before (we first met at the International Forum on Enterprise 2.0 in Varese, but didn’t find any time then), I enjoyed it a lot to have time for discussions this time - and we’ve had great conversations both at the pre-conference dinner and on conference day itself. He and Thomas Koch of Kongressmedia made me miss a good part of the afternoon starting session.

And here’s the Harvard video of John Chambers David mentions (seen also at Oliver Marks):

YouTube Direkt

Or France, or Japan, or Brazil? Or, indeed, anywhere that is not an “Anglo/Saxon” culture? Now, wait, wait — before you flame on! (or worse), hear me out. It’s hard to talk about the issue I want to raise here without raising some emotional reactions as well — often rather heated ones. That’s understandable, but it may also hinder us from having a conversation about a very interesting topic.

Important caveat number one, therefore, is the one I raised in my very first sentence — despite my (deliberately) provocative headline, I think that what I’m about to speculate about applies to some degree in any society that that is not a progeny of England (and even that formulation will be fighting words for some in the USA, Canada, Oz, New Zealand and particularly Ireland or Scotland — but I am thinking in almost biological terms, here. You may well dislike your parents, but you can’t change who they are). I will use Germany as the basis for my speculation, because it’s the non-Anglo/Saxon culture I know best, and not because I want to pick on Germany or Germans in particular. I love Germany — it is my home; my wife, daughter, large parts of my family, and many close friends are all German. But I do believe that certain aspects of German culture, and their implications with respect to social software, can be used to illustrate points about a broader theme, and so I will use them to try to do so. OK?

This is slippery, and dangerous terrain, and it is essentially impossible to venture out onto it without falling, and making a fool of oneself. I will surely be no exception here. But I am convinced that there is something important lurking out on those dangerous plains, and I think we would all be well served by finding some way to call attention to it. What is Anglo/Saxon culture? What is German culture? How do they differ? Frankly, I’m no expert in such matters, and not really qualified to voice an opinion on them, in many people’s eyes. But I will now proceed to forthrightly go ahead and do so anyway.

And therein lies a fascinating difference between the two cultures: Anglo/Saxon culture encourages — even lionises — such acts. German culture does not.

Now, having said that, here comes important caveat number two: there is no such thing as absolute truth, and there are certainly no absolute truths with regard to sociology or politics or cultural differences. These are not binary states, of which I speak, but points near the median of a very analogue — Gaussian — distribution. For every rule, there is an exception, and indeed, the exceptions sometimes make the rule. Etc. I understand and acknowledge that. However, there is nevertheless value to be found in examining the median in such distributions, and when I say “German culture does not”, that’s what I am aspiring to do. OK?

It may be impossible to ever come up with “the” definition of something as amorphous as a human society or culture, but any fool can see immediately, upon leaving the one she was born into, and visiting another, that they exist. And that they have differences. These differences are typically expressed as stereotypes and prejudices, many of which are the product of nothing more than ignorance (and often, its correlate, fear). But some of these stereotypes will have a kernel of something approximating truth at their core.

Thus, for example, in 1758, the Württembergischer publisher Karl Friedrich Moser wrote: “Every nation has its principal motive. In Germany, it is obedience; in England, freedom; in Holland, trade; in France, the honour of the King”. This is an absurd exaggeration, verging on hyperbole, and particularly in the modern world, one which many Germans would vigourously object to — and rightly so. To the latter point, and despite that, I might respond by doing the following: let us fast forward the lens of our attention to the early 1970s. And turn that lens on the anarchist and terrorist elements that surrounded people like Baader and Meinhof. Even before violence became a tragic element of the student protests in the late 1960’s, there was an element of distrust and frustration with the established order that took the form of an outright contempt of reason — a disdain for Wissenschaft, and a belief in the instincts of the Basis (the collective) as a useful guide to behaviour, as opposed to reason. These sorts of ideas are the clear and unmistakable descendants of German Romanticism of the late 18th and early 19th century. And the contrast between these stereotypes — the idea of an extreme affinity for obedience versus the inchoate Sehnsucht and open contempt for reason embodied by Romanticism — is profoundly illustrative of the complexity of German culture. This is a culture that produced both the Prussian hierarchies of Bismarck’s Ämte, and the theories of Karl Marx. It has a long, complex and unique history, of which one quite prominent thread is an ongoing, recurring struggle between the needs and desires of the individual, and those of the group in which that individual resides.

The history of Anglo/Saxon culture contains such a thread as well. It is not necessary — or even useful — to engage in a conversation about the merits of these two contrasting threads. All that I wish to do is make the following point: in each of the two cultures, the thread exists, and they are different from one another. The history of the the struggle between the individual and his society is a different story in Anglo/Saxon culture than it is in German culture. And the product of these respective threads — the day to day realities in which we now find ourselves — are also different.

To what extent, then, can we expect that practices regarding social software, as developed and espoused by an English-speaking, Anglo/Saxon culture, to be a seamless fit in a German-speaking culture? I think it must be obvious by now that I think the answer is: to no extent at all. Indeed, to the extent that software of any kind embodies social and cultural norms, to what extent is it reasonable to expect that the design of a software artefact produced in an Anglo/Saxon culture will be optimal in a German one? Again, I think the answer is clear: it is not at all reasonable to expect such a thing.

On the other hand, we live in a “globalised” age, one where every culture is exposed to many of the same influences, to an extent never before known in the history of our species. Communication technologies — particularly television and the Internet — are the enablers of this. No culture now exists, on the planet, that has not been exposed, to some degree, to Baywatch. Many cultures — and certainly all of the more affluent cultures — have their own version of Big Brother — in Germany, this past month, the local version of the British reality show “I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!” was watched by an extraordinary number of people.

And lurking within that observation, I think, is the essence of a problem currently confronted — and as far as I can tell, largely unacknowledged — by social software systems in general, and certainly Enterprise 2.0 punditry in particular. Most of the social software currently “in play” in the market, and certainly virtually all of the commentary on the themes it provokes (like Enterprise 2.0) are products of Anglo/Saxon cultures — representative of Anglo/Saxon thinking. This is an understandable consequence of their provenance, perhaps, but it is nonetheless insufficient. Just as “I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!” can only be successful in Germany in a version that is German in nature (and then it can be very successful indeed), we are in need of an articulation of Enterprise 2.0 that is German in nature. And one that is Spanish, one that is Japanese, Russian, Chinese and so forth. Lacking such an articulation, we are likely to find ourselves lost in the quagmire of discussions that purport to be about “das Ding an sich”, but which are (also) about differences between two cultures. We need to tease those two thing apart from one another — such that, hopefully, we can concentrate solely on talking about “das Ding an sich”.

And to those Germans reading this who are now shaking their heads, perhaps annoyed, perhaps merely perplexed (and perhaps both), and thinking, “Why? Why do we need such a thing? What value is there in the Anglo/Saxon definition of ‘Enterprise 2.0′ that could possibly prompt me to want a German version of it?”, I would say the following. As someone who is in the rare position of being able to read something like Andrew McAfee’s definition of Enterprise 2.0, and “see” it with both the eyes of a native Anglo/Saxon, and (to some debatable but undeniable extent) the eyes of a German, I say to you: if there is a concept that is more uniquely, perfectly German than the one of “emergent structure”, implied by McAfee’s theory, then I would like to hear about it. ;D

So what would a German version of Enterprise 2.0 look like? What would it entail? Well, I’m not sure. But this forum is as good a place as any to debate and define it. Certainly, there are some obvious characteristics — German social software will need to have a slightly different relationship to hierarchies, authority and expertise than Anglo/Saxon software will. And German social software will have to take into explicit account both such “soft” factors, as well as the “hard” realities of everyday existence — such as German laws, customs and norms regarding things like privacy. But I am sure of one thing — without it, social software will not “work” in Germany. Or anywhere else.

What do you think?

There’s an english summary of the latest pre-conference-interview up at my site (”Pre-Conference interview: dbWiki - building a Web 2.0 corporate knowledge base“). Joachim Niemeier talked to Dr. Matthias Büger, Vice President, Group Technology and Operations and Jamil Ouaj, GTO Communications of Deutsche Bank AG.

One thing I analyzed is the understanding and rationale that’s standing behind the support and introduction of corporate social networks. Well, as always there are different takes on this subject, and you may find flaws in my analysis, from the blog post:

[...] I guess that for employees it’s important that their professional networks aren’t confined by the narrow limits of one organization (they’re no life-timers, are they?). And I am seeing more and more “natural optimizers of personal professional value” - these people value and master relationships no matter what company the other nodes are in, companies need to loosen up their borders anyway and they’re doing it in other places too [...]

The other thing relates to project management for Enterprise 2.0 initiatives, here I would argue for a more light-weight approach, but I can surely see their point too. Here’s a clip of what I wrote:

[...] Banks they put so much attention on risk management, governance and diligence that it seems hard to approach things differently. See, while I hold project management dear, I also like the light-weight aspects of Enterprise 2.0 and the swiftness it brings. Hence I would rather argue for the creativity and agility of “planned and controlled experimentation” than the security of coordination meetings, processes and all (”Abstimmungsrunden und Teilprozessen”).

Well, this promises to be an interesting conference, let’s explore this space in real-time and if you’ve got remarks and/or ideas feel free to leave them here or over at my personal site.

This is just a short notice that I blogged a summary of the interview our event moderator Joachim Niemeier did with Christian Kuhna, Head of Internal Communications of the adidas Group, who is presenting at the upcoming Executive Forum at my site:

• usage areas of Enterprise 2.0 at Adidas
• Adidas’ current intranet situation, and the aims and goals they are pursuing
• who is engaged as an inner-company proponent of Enterprise 2.0
• Mr.Kuhna’s expectations for the upcoming Enterprise 2.0 Forum

As the interview is only available in german language (you can find the full text of the interview at the conference site) I thought it a good idea to try giving you an english writeup - and I couldn’t resist adding some remarks and thoughts to it. So while I am looking forward to meeting Mr.Kuhna at the event to discuss things, until then I would also appreciate your take.

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)