Is Enterprise 2.0 ready for the 4C's?

Remco Kroes, July 2007

Summary

Currently new technologies arrive on the market with the promise to improve the way
companies work together and share information. These technologies are grouped under
the umbrella term Enterprise 2.0. In this article I address the use of Enterprise 2.0 to
facilitate enterprise wide Collaboration, Communication, Compliance and Control (4c’s).
Especially the latter two dimensions seem to receive little attention in many Enterprise
2.0 deployments. I argue that companies must adopt the 4c perspective. I further argue
that Enterprise 2.0 solutions must unify all employees. This view is based on the process
perspective that emphasizes that one must look at all the activities in organizations. Often
Enterprise 2.0 solutions provide benefits to a single department or project team.
Furthermore, I argue that Enterprise 2.0 provides a new way of thinking on how
processes get structured. I propose the view that processes get organized because of the
input of many. This is contrary to the current approach where processes are structured by
a small group of people.

Introduction

XXX (company name undisclosed) ‘uses a wide variety of systems.

This causes a lot of attention for coordination and additional
reporting models to consolidate the relevant figures. A lot of manual
work is still necessary and the process can easily be disrupted. … The
goal is to implement one integrated standard software package to
support our business, which includes functionalities for CRM, finance,
HRM and projects.’

This quote was taken from tender from a large international consultancy organization
with about 3500 employees worldwide. It shows that companies are making efforts to
integrate and align individual departments and subsidiaries in order to realize their
business objectives.

In the last few years we saw the emergence of platform technologies such as portals to
facilitate integration. These platforms, such as MS SharePoint or Lotus Notes, imposed
structure on the organization by introducing for example content management, electronic
workflows, roles and rights into the organization.

Recently a new term was raised that has great potential to improve the way employees
work together and share information. This term, Enterprise 2.0, refers to the usage of so
called emergent social platforms within companies. Enterprise 2.0 looks at integration
from a new perspective. It seeks integration by facilitating ‘platforms that initially impose
little or no structure on interactions, but that contain mechanisms to let patterns and
structure emerge over time’i.

1
In this paper I will address this technology and its impact on the way employees work
together and share information. I present a view that looks at Enterprise 2.0 from four
dimensions: collaboration, communication, compliance and control.

Especially the latter two dimensions seem to receive little attention in many Enterprise
2.0 deployment debates. I argue that processes cannot be viewed only from the
collaboration and communication perspective. Processes must be designed in such a way
that they support a company’s strategy and objectives. To this extend processes must a
have a degree of uniformity and measurability to maintain control over the process.
Moreover, processes must be able to comply with internal or external regulations.

Enterprise 2.0 technologies seem to be especially interesting to those employees who

basically rely on e-mail and MS excel to organize their work. Based on practical
experiences I argue that in many organizations, and especially in SMB companies, only
twenty percent have access to structured information. Typically this is the companies’
ERP environment. The majority of the organization uses non-integrated databases, e-
mail, MS Excel, or even paper archives to do their work.

Structuring previously unstructured information is not an easy job. Especially, if you

approach the traditional way view of structuring information from a top-down
perspective. In this perspective, structure is imposed on the organization centrally. Such
structures are often rigid and only changeable by a few employees.

The deployment of Enterprise 2.0 solutions offers a new perspective and can break this
top-down tradition and enable bottom-up creation of structure. Just think of how
Wikipedia structures the collective knowledge of the world by providing a platform in
which everyone can edit or create topics of their interest. Wikipedia is a ‘multilingual,
web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by
volunteers;’ ii

From the wiki perspective, structure emerges because of the collective input of many. In
this paper I further will raise the idea to apply the same perspective on the way business
processes are managed. I will introduce the view that processes, rather than content, can
be designed in a freeform and emergent way to improve collaboration and
communication, whilst addressing issues related to compliance and control.

2
Enterprise 2.0 defined

Recently, a new term was raised ‘Enterprise 2.0’, which was defined by McAfee as ‘the
use of emergent social software platforms within companies, or between companies and
their partners or customers’iii. The potential of these Enterprise 2.0 technologies is that
they can ‘knit together an enterprise and facilitate knowledge work in ways that were
simply not possible previously.’iv

A well-known example of such a technology that can be applied in an enterprise context

is a wiki. A wiki is defined as:

‘A wiki (IPA: [ıwI.kiı] <WICK-ee> or [ıwiı.kiı] <WEE-kee>[1]) is a type of

website that allows the visitors themselves to easily add, remove and otherwise
edit and change some available content, sometimes without the need for
registration. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool
for collaborative authoring. The term wiki can also refer to the collaborative
software itself (wiki engine) that facilitates the operation of such a website or to
certain specific wiki sites, including the computer science site (an original wiki),
WikiWikiWeb, and online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia’v

In wiki environments communities set themselves the objective to structure information

on a given subject: ‘On each collaboration, an article is chosen by people interested in
the topic, and for a period of time (a week, fortnight, or month) the chosen article is
worked on, under Wikipedia's principle of collaborative editing.vi’ Communities are not
fixed or predefined. Basically anyone can participate in the collaborative effort to
collectively structure the definition of a particular topic.

Wikis are not automatically classified as an Enterprise 2.0 technology. It is the

deployment of a wiki in an enterprise context that makes it an Enterprise 2.0 solution.
Many more of these new internet technologies exist in today’s market, such as blogs (also
known as weblogs) or RSSvii. A wiki is just one example of a new technology adopted by
companies to facilitate companywide collaboration and communication.

Traditionally content was managed by fileservers or document management systems.

What distinguishes Enterprise 2.0 technologies from these typical document management
solutions is the term ‘emergence’. Structure is not imposed top down, but structure
emerges bottom up.

3
Enterprise 2.0 applications: Socialtext and Itensil

A pioneer in the Enterprise 2.0 domain is Socialtext. This software vendor seeks to apply
wiki and weblog technologies in an enterprise context. They claim the following benefits:
• ‘Get teams collaborating & get distributed teams organized in no time,
• cut down on email overload, and
• get a living intranet’viii

Another interesting application is developed by www.itensil.com. This company seeks to

integrate wikis with workflow management tools. The primary focus of these tools is to
organize content management. Their tool provides a graphical mapping of workflows and
they claim that no technical knowledge is required on how to define workflows.

In conclusion, these companies present interesting views on how to collaborate in semi-

structured and unstructured processes. They provide good alternatives for email and MS
office documents. However, they are stills separate tools that need to be integrated in the
ecosystem of enterprise applications.

Enterprise 2.0 and CRM

A company that adopted the Enterprise 2.0 philosophy successfully in their products is
Salesforce.com. In April 2007 they acquired Koral and used this acquisition to extend
their CRM solution with a user-friendly content management solution.ix Their
application ‘will help companies store, share, find and manage the business information
that currently lives in documents, emails and HTML - while keeping all users and content
in sync’x.

Particularly interesting is the way they integrated the tagging concept and subscriptions to
tags. Employees can subscribe to for example a tag on ‘healthcare’ or receive alerts when
a new document is posted by a colleague. Salesforce.com even enables users with
extensions. With one mouse click from a sales opportunity file the salesperson receives a
list of possible interesting documents. This trend has great promises. For example, what if
a sales person forgot to link his visit report to the account card. Wouldn’t it be great then
that from a customer file you are advised to look at documents that are possible related to
that account?

Impact of Enterprise 2.0 on the way businesses are organized

Currently a large number of software vendors including SAP and Microsoft, as well as
startups, jump on the Enterprise 2.0 bandwagon. There is much debate on whether this
technology will have an impact on the way businesses are organized.

On the one hand there is the view that the deployment of Enterprise 2.0 technologies will
have the potential to have a transformative impact. This view is amongst others shared by
McAfee who argues that Enterprise 2.0 addresses some deep needs of today’s executives.
He hears over and over again the complaint of executives that they do not have good

4
means to let people collaborate, find each other, or share information across the
organization.

On the other hand there are views that Enterprise 2.0 will have an incremental impact on
the way companies are organized. For example, Davenport seems to argue that
organizational barriers for adoption of such technologies do not disappear easily; thereby
indicating that the impact of these freeform and emergent collaboration platforms is not
high.

Although McAfee agrees that Enterprise 2.0 will not have a transformative impact on all
businesses he specifies some necessary conditions. Crucial to successful deployment of
Enterprise 2.0 according to McAfee, is enlightened leadership, where management is not
quickly upset when unpleasant truths are percolating upwards via so called blogs or
weblogs.

These weblogs, if applied in a corporate environment, are typically earmarked as an

Enterprise 2.0 technology. According to McAfee blogs are just websites that are easy to
maintain and update. He argues that the true power is the signaling capabilities of RSS;
where people can subscribe to signals from the blogosphere, i.e. environments where
people can express themselves freely by authoring on any topic.

In general, the debate provides interesting views on the impact of new technologies such
as wikis, webblogs, folksonomiesxi, on businesses. It provides interesting perspectives on
the adoption of new technologies in organizations and their deployment to improve
companywide collaboration and communication.

The next section will look at the current deployment of technologies in companies.

Current state of process automation: 20 % structured and 80 % unstructured

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions arrived on the market in early eighties and
matured in a way that there are accepted ways to manage processes related to accounting,
invoicing, manufacturing, etc. The industry developed best practices. Software vendors
evolved accordingly and developed tools that embedded these best practices in every
possible detail.

The promise of ERP systems was to integrate all data and processes of an organization
into a unified system.xii Despite this promise, typically these ERP tools are accessible by
a limited number of employees.

Often, only the typical back office departments (e.g. finance, payroll, or manufacturing)
use these tools on a daily basis. These departments make about 20 to 40 per cent of the
organization. Front office departments, especially in the SMB market, are often left out in
any integration efforts and are stuck with loads of excel sheets to manage their processes.
They face a large number of isolated systems to manage specialized tools related to sales
force automation, project management or human resource management. To make things

5
worse processes are highly reliant on e-mail infrastructures to collaborate and
communicate.

End-users are not satisfied with these structures. Some examples:

- Each department or subsidiary maintains its own information ‘silos’. These are
not accessible to the rest of the organization, but contain information relevant to
other organizational entities. It takes a lot of time to locate and aggregate this
information. Just consider how much time it takes to handle a complaint and find
all the relevant history of customer interactions across multiple departments.

- Information is continuously duplicated from one source to another (e.g. from MS

Excel to another system), which is not only inefficient but also results in saving
the same information in many different locations.

- Overload of e-mail. Often I ask executives how many e-mails they receive on a
daily basis. I am always surprised by their answers of 30 to 100 emails daily. Of
these the carbon copy (CC) is the most frustrating. Each need to update their
inbox folder to maintain the knowledge on a particular project or customer. Worse
even, all these distributed knowledge repositories do not facilitate knowledge
sharing because these inboxes are private.

- Time consuming searches for files in a jungle of document folders

Given these problems it is not strange that many companies are embracing Enterprise 2.0
technologies such as wikis, blogs, etc to improve the way employees work together and
share information.

Enterprise 2.0: beyond collaboration and communication

In order to execute an organization’s strategy companies design processes and hire

employees to manage and deliver these processes. In order to manage the distribution of
work these companies assign responsibilities to each of these employees. When you
review vacancies at for example Monsterboard.com you will find that you can address the
responsibilities of employees into four areas: collaboration, communication, compliance
and control. In the next section an example is put forward.

In the Enterprise 2.0 debates there seems to be a main focus on collaboration and
communication. However, companies cannot improve their processes by sharing
information alone. Companies are under pressure to comply with new regulations. Just
think of the impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on many public organizations. It forced these
companies to re-design their processes to achieve compliance with these new rules.

Furthermore, executives are more and more expected to maintain control over their
business. The view that you cannot maintain control if you cannot measure the processes
is getting more and more popular. For example, a management philosophy that fits this

6
view is the balanced scorecard method. This method seeks to achieve control by defining
key performance indicators related to finance, customer related processes, etc. An
excellent site discussing the balanced scorecard methodology can be found at:
http://www.bscol.com.

The 4C perspective: collaboration, communication, compliance & control

When looking at processes and the job responsibilities of the people that execute them
you can identify four dimensions that need to be addressed in order to facilitate these
people with solutions: collaboration, communication, compliance and control.

Collaboration & Communication

These dimensions facilitate the way the recruitment department, the HR department,
external suppliers, managers requesting vacancies, internal and external applicants work
together and share information. Typically the workflows that address the approval of
vacancies, the posting of vacancies, the screening of candidates via resume reviewing or
interviews are addressed by the collaboration domain. The communication domain
facilitates stakeholders with access to information or facilitates the publishing of
information. Just think of the posted vacancy or the resume of a candidate.

Compliance and control

These dimensions facilitate process uniformity across various subsidiaries, compliance to

internal policies and procedures, business insight into the recruitment pipeline, real-time
information on key performance indicators such as time to fulfill or quality of hires.

Processes and Enterprise 2.0

Processes transcend departments or organizational boundaries. An interesting view is

given by Hammer: ‘Processes transcend functions and other organizational units and are
the mechanisms by which the myriad activities performed in an enterprise are integrated
to realize results’xiii Many organizations try to automate individual departments, e.g. the
sales department with a sales force automation tool, rather than automate from the entire
process perspective.

Hammer presents a useful definition of a process. In his view a process is defined as ‘an
organized group of related activities that together create a result of value to customers’
xiv
. A key element of his definition is the term organized. A process requires the presence
of a design framework that specifies in detail which tasks are executed by whom, when,
and where.

The term together is the second key element of his definition. Hammer emphasizes that
‘all the activities in a process must work together toward a common goal. People
performing different steps of a process must all be aligned around a single purpose,
instead of focusing on their individual tasks in isolation.’ xv

7
So what can we learn from the process perspective when we look at Enterprise 2.0? First,
the process perspective assumes a relationship between processes and business
performancexvi. Enterprise 2.0 technologies also assume a relationship between the
deployment of social emergent platform solutions and business performance.

Second, the process view implies that many stakeholders are involved and each having
his or her own responsibility in the chain of activities in the process. Processes create
value by organizing the activities of many stakeholders. The Enterprise 2.0 perspective
also addresses the collective where many stakeholders are involved in generating content.
Communities use Enterprise 2.0 solutions to get organized.

The main difference however between the process perspective and the Enterprise 2.0
perspective is that the former seems to assume that processes are organized and
structured by a small group (e.g. a process owner or process management) and then
imposed on the organization. Prior to the arrival of wikis many believed that structure
could not emerge unless you provide a clear taxonomy. In the next section I present a
view on how the emergence characteristic can be applied to processes.

Structured versus semi-structured activities

To this point it was argued that you must examine the Enterprise 2.0 from the 4C
perspective to address all areas of responsibility of an employee. By empowering these
dimensions companies can improve performance because they aligned the resources (job
responsibilities) with their strategy delivery. In order to organize the responsibilities
across organizational units processes are defined. Often by a small group of process
owners.

For a large number of processes it is not easy to impose a structure. Typically, these are
processes with a high degree of unstructured or semi-structured interactions. These
processes always require sufficient flexibility to do things differently.

For example, it can be argued that the recruitment process in a large multinational can be
classified as semi-structured. A lot of structured and unstructured interactions take place
between the large number of potential internal and external stakeholders per vacancy. A
new vacancy may require extensive collaboration and communication. Just think of a
vacancy where no job description (responsibilities, skills, competences, cost, etc.) has
been defined. The variety of jobs (from CFO to receptionist) and cultural differences in
multinationals can make it very hard to centrally structure the recruitment process fully in
a uniform way.

Other examples relate to marketing campaigns, software implementation projects or sales

activities. In these semi-structured processes the challenge is to comply with globally
defined control mechanisms or to provide reliable business intelligence over reaching
global business objectives, whilst maintaining sufficient local flexibility.

8
So how can Enterprise 2.0 contribute towards an improved organization of processes and
thereby achieving better results over traditional software platforms? In the next section I
argue that key to deploying Enterprise 2.0 technologies is that those stakeholders
involved in the process define the process, rather than that the process has been defined
previously.

When looking at recruitment management, a marketing campaign or a software

implementation project they relate to a temporal project. Often, at the start of the project
team members and their individual responsibilities are assigned and the related objectives
and milestones are defined. Tools that support the execution and administration of the
project are mainly MS Excel and e-mail. In larger organizations project management
tools such as MS Project or content management tools such as MS SharePoint are
available to facilitate the collaboration and communication during the project.

Let’s suppose the project members have only platform to their disposal where they can
easily add, remove and otherwise change the process steps and responsibilities. In
addition, let’s assume that this platform also facilitates wikis to collaboratively organize
content related the project and also facilitates the use of RSS feeds to signal changes in
the project or the project processes. Moreover, let’s also assume that event project
members can assign themselves to projects

Is such a view workable? From the communication and collaboration perspective it

provides full flexibility to organize any activity or project; thereby making it easier for
project members to share information and to work together. But is this view also
workable from the compliance and control perspective? In order to provide an answer to
this let’s consider a practical example cited by McAfee. He cites an example of an
investment bank that applied wiki technologies. He addresses the investment bank’s view
that new technologies are best defense against regulators because they allow regulators or
outside auditors show when problems happened and which corrective actions were taken,
e.g. showing a digital audit trail.

This example shows us that compliance and control issues have to potential to be
addressed effectively by improving information transparency. But, to what extent can we
apply Enterprise 2.0 solutions to reporting processes (e.g. such as month-end close
processes where the responsible persons sign off a period), processes requiring
segregation of duties or processes that differentiate between users roles and rights (i.e. no
equality in levels of authorization among stakeholders). These processes seem to be more
benefited by imposed definitions.

Flexibility to address unforeseen activities and process dynamism seem to be important

conditions. Projects for which it is difficult to anticipate all future activities seem to
benefit most from emergent processes. In my view, stakeholders to the project can take
action swiftly depending on the issues they face. For example, consider a software
implementation project where despite all preparations projects can escalate due to
unforeseen difficulties. A project methodology that worked for one project may be

9
completely ineffective for another project. Of course, one can work out all possible future
scenarios, but this also comes with the costs associated with making these scenarios.

Rather than providing separate tools such as the earlier discussed tools from Socialtext
and Itensil these processes must be integrated in an in ecosystem in which all internal and
external stakeholders of an organization participate; all information on projects,
customers, products, services, employees, transactions can be used in collaboration and
communications. The information does not necessarily all be owned fully by the
organization. What if we could look at a customer file and to find that some of content
originates from beyond the realm of the organization? Just think of possible RSS feeds
from credit management firms or company press releases.

In such an integrated ecosystem identity management is essential. Every organization has

different policies when it comes to disclosing information on customers, projects or
employees to their internal and external stakeholders.

In this section the idea was raised to create a process emergence structure in an
ecosystem where all organizational information on accounts, projects, products or
employees is integrated. Access to such a platform must be managed by a well-managed
identity management structure.

Process emergence defined

In this section I attempt to further define process emergence and to look at processes
from the Enterprise 2.0 view. In this viewpoint the emphasis is on emergence. This view
focuses on the way processes get organized. The basic assumption of Enterprise 2.0 is
that emergence adds creater value to an organization than non-emergence. It would be
interesting to explore if this assumption makes sense.

It assumes the presence of a platform that is capable of defining and linking the activities
of all departments. This enterprise wide view is adopted from the process perspective
where the focus is not on getting an individual department organized. It further assumes
that mechanisms exist to enable all stakeholders to collectively define how activities are
organized and aligned across the multiple departments.

Given these assumptions I would like to approach Enterprise 2.0 from the following
angle: The use of emergent social software platforms to facilitate enterprise wide
collaboration, communication, compliance and control. These platforms are superior over
traditional platforms because they enable processes to emerge from the input of many.

In the next section an example is taken from a company that meets the requirement of
having a platform that unifies the entire organization.

10
Case study: a roadmap to Enterprise 2.0

In this section it is aimed address how companies can evolve their traditional Enterprise
1.0 platforms to an Enterprise 2.0 platform.

In 2001 Exact Software developed a web based platform, e-Synergy, that unifies
accounts, employees, products and services, transactions and projects into a single
database. The organization employs about 2600 employees worldwide. All employees
have access to this platform and the process of communication and collaboration is
managed by integrating document management and workflow management tools into the
system. Within this platform everyone is able share information on customers, projects,
etc. People are encouraged to enrich the platform with new information.

What differentiates e-Synergy from a normal intranet is that it unifies content with
information on accounts, products, projects, etc. In addition, anyone can enrich content
by saving their visit reports, e-mails, etc. and linking these to the related accounts,
projects or employees. It does not classify as a portal solution that aggregates information
from multiple sources, since it provides fully integrated HRM and CRM solutions.

This platform does not qualify as an Enterprise 2.0 since it imposes structure via
taxonomies in document management or workflow management. However, this platform
addresses some of the Enterprise 2.0 features addressed by McAfee in his SLATESxvii
model. McAfee developed a model to differentiate conventional software tools from
Enterprise 2.0 solutions. He identified six components of Enterprise 2.0 technologies:
Search, Links, Authoring, Tags, Extensions, and Signals (SLATES).

One example is related to searching, linking and authoring. Within Exact Software all
employees are able to publish documents or share best practices via so called ‘startpages’
that provide linkages to other areas in the environment. Hundreds of these startpages exist
varying from customer centered startpages set up by the account manager to product
development startpages to link all relevant information related to a particular product.
Anyone can aggregate content on a particular objective via linking sources of information
in a webdocument. Employees can even link to self-created reports. Whenever there is a
need to know something you can browse the various startpages available.

Another example is related to searching. All employee files, customer files or product
files are accessible to anyone, thereby making it easy to find one another or to share
information.

Although e-Synergy lacks the collaborative authoring capabilities of wikis or does not
provide users with tag cloudsxviii, e-Synergy is still able to empower employees by
facilitating collaboration, communication, compliance and control.

Enterprise 2.0 solutions have the potential to empower employees even more. Let’s
assume we would like to establish a single version of the truth of a customer, lead,
prospect or supplier. A file is created, basically containing only a name, an address or a

11
contact person. During the various pre-sales, sales and after-sales processes content is
added to that file. This is done because every visit report, e-mail or complaint letter is
tagged to the account. In the end the customer file would present a tag cloud on all the
related information. In the end these tag clouds may even facilitate customer
segmentation processes. Similarly, tag clouds on an employee file may indicate
information on the skills or competencies of an individual. Just imagine what you can do
when you can search these employee tag clouds to find the person for the right job.

Some ideas on process emergence

Earlier I addressed the idea of a platform in which employees can easily add, remove and
otherwise change the process steps and responsibilities. In this section I would like to
apply that idea.

Currently e-Synergy manages the various activities via a workflow engine. Employees
can choose from a limited set of pre-defined forms. Via these request forms (see image
below) they can initiate processes such as a complaint or project task. These processes
are uniformly defined for everyone and are measurable.

Image 1: request form managing a complaint handling activity

One way to achieve a form of process emergence is to break down processes into re-
usable components such as ‘appointment’, ‘budget approval’, ‘expense claim’, etc. and
allow employees to define which components are applied and in which sequence. This is
more or less the way e-Synergy is configured. Employees can make chains of activities.
From a customer file the processes are then visible:

12
Image 2: an overview of all activities related to an account and its subsidiaries

However, defining these components can be a hard task. Just consider highly
decentralized or highly diversified companies where it is difficult to standardize for
example a complaint form. In such situations, standardization may prevent local
adaptation by individual subsidiaries who manage their local processes in a decentralized
way. Globally defined forms will be then be complemented by local information stored in
MS Excel sheets. When this situation occurs processes are not supporting the business
and maybe perceived as bureaucratic and cumbersome. Hidden local information resides
in these MS Excel sheets and is not visible to the rest of the organization. From a
compliance and control perspective this can be dangerous.

Another way therefore is to allow employees to add, remove or change the definition of
each component. For example, users can add fields to the global form to store local
information.

One can further introduce alerting and signaling capabilities, where users can subscribe to
changes in a particular workflow and get alerted if something happens.

A decision can be made to run only one version of the process or to allow multiple
versions of the same processes to exist simultaneously. The latter seems to provide
employees with most flexibility to collaborate.

In making the right decisions on where to apply these emergent processes the dimensions
of collaboration, communication, compliance and control need to be taken into account.
Especially the latter two dimensions seem to matter. One area one could think of is
identity management: to what extent are people authorized to amend processes? Another
area relates to what extent processes should provide insight in to global key performance
indicators.

13
The above might assume that all processes in an organization should be designed in an
emergent and freeform way. In my view the future will see that companies deploy both
approaches. For some processes the decision can be to fully design the process in a rigid
manner, whereas other processes require the opposite approach.

Conclusion

Enterprise 2.0 solutions provide interesting perspectives on the adoption of new

technologies in organizations and their deployment to improve companywide
collaboration and communication. I argued that their deployment in an organizational
context also necessitates looking at the responsibilities of employees. In order to address
these responsibilities the 4C framework was introduced and discussed.

In addition one needs to look at the way in which these responsibilities are organized and
aligned in an organization. Therefore, the process view was introduced as well. It was
further argued that not all processes can be structured easily. In practice it is found that
many of these processes are heavily reliant on e-mail or MS Excel.

An attempt was made to apply some the Enterprise 2.0 perspectives on a company
deploying an Enterprise 1.0 platform. The reason for this is that already all employees
have access to a platform that unifies all available company information. In this situation
the added value can be examined to emergent processes to meet local requirements or to
manage difficult to structure (semi-structured) activities. The challenge here is to apply
these ideas to practice.

Based on this paper I recommend that future research should further focus on the
question under which conditions do emergent process platforms result in higher
organizational compliance and control than non-emergent process platforms?

References
i
http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/watching_the_film_of_the_fight/
ii
http://www.wikipedia.com
iii
http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/enterprise_20_version_20/
iv
McAfee, MIT Sloan Management Review, spring 2006, p. 22
v
www.wikipedia.com
vi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Collaborations
vii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rss: “RSS (which, in its latest format, stands for "Really Simple
Syndication") is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated content such as blog
entries, news headlines or podcasts. An RSS document, which is called a "feed," "web feed," or "channel,"
contains either a summary of content from an associated web site or the full text. RSS makes it possible for
people to keep up with their favorite web sites in an automated manner that's easier than checking them
manually.”
viii
http://www.socialtext.com
ix
http://salesforce3.sitestream.com/breeze/salesforce_content.swf
x
http://www.salesforce.com/company/news-press/press-releases/2007/04/070410.jsp
xi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies: ‘A folksonomy is a user-generated taxonomy used to
categorize and retrieve web content such as Web pages, photographs and Web links, using open-ended

14
labels called tags. Typically, folksonomies are Internet-based, but their use may occur in other contexts.
The folksonomic tagging is intended to make a body of information increasingly easy to search, discover,
and navigate over time. A well-developed folksonomy is ideally accessible as a shared vocabulary that is
both originated by, and familiar to, its primary users. Two widely cited examples of websites using
folksonomic tagging are Flickr and del.icio.us, although it has been suggested that Flickr is not a good
example of folksonomy.”
xii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning
xiii
Hammer, Michael (2007) MIT Sloan management review, spring 2007, p.25
xiv
http://www.hammerandco.com/publications-agenda-ch4.asp
xv
http://www.hammerandco.com/publications-agenda-ch4.asp
xvi
http://www.hammerandco.com/about-process.asp
xvii
McAfee, MIT Sloan Management Review, spring 2006

xviii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagcloud: “A tag cloud (or weighted list in visual design) is a visual
depiction of content tags used on a website. Often, more frequently used tags are depicted in a larger font or
otherwise emphasized, while the displayed order is generally alphabetical. Thus both finding a tag by
alphabet and by popularity is possible. Selecting a single tag within a tag cloud will generally lead to a
collection of items that are associated with that tag.”

15